Uhm, there is no doubt that sanctions angered the terrorists and they used them as weapons. That in no way means they supported Hussein. It means they saw the west enacting sanctions that hurt the Muslim populace. They still hated Hussein. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/30/opinion/saddam-hussein-and-al-qaeda-are-not-allies.html
<script type="text/javascript" src="http://video.foxnews.com/v/embed.js?id=3539230545001&w=466&h=263"></script><noscript>Watch the latest video at <a href="http://video.foxnews.com">video.foxnews.com</a></noscript>
Yes, indeed, lemmings gonna keep on lemming in the clown show. Do you ever tire of dissing yourself? Or perhaps, this is appropriate? And, please, by all means do indicate your 'valid point'. Because this: sure as heck isn't it. Liberal talking point, yes. Valid point, no. Unless you are seriously trying to say that we invaded Iraq so that the Texas Rangers baseball team would benefit? That IS funny! Just what you'd expect from a clown.
That is all you have absorbed from this so far? No mention whatsoever of the State Department's pronouncements? Wow. A new standard for intentional obtuseness.
So for the Muslim fundamentalist, the enemy of my enemy is just another good reason to kill innocent civilians? Got it.
Yes, it is. On the surface, these would appear to be the answers. As GladiatoRowdy has pointed out, there can certainly be discussion around each. Personally, I think the answer to #1 is in fact the whole answer. Why then not just say so? No reason to try to deny the request was received, that just creates additional smoke. Requests, I am sure, get received all the time. Plus, if you're busy denying the problem exists, you're not taking the proper steps to fix it. 2) That is the answer they eventually arrived at, but if you look at various statements made along the way, mostly be Panetta, they make no sense. First, he tried to say it was because they didn't know what was going there. That is true, but how do you find out what is going on? You deploy assets. His statement that the military doesn't send troops in without this information is patently false, and, if he really thinks that, means he's not qualified to be SecDef, as he has no idea what the military even does (and I like Panetta). Even his statements to Congress, months later, were full of holes. Why? Because there was a narrative being delivered, as opposed to simply explaining what really happened. Panetta seemed out of sorts in this sort of political maneuvering (one of the reasons I like him). Plus, there were numerous reports of assets that tried to get into the area, but were denied permission, thus creating the need for the 'we don't send assets in when we don't have full information' narrative. Further, some serious discussions should have been occurring around how in the heck we had no response available, in such a known hot spot, being given advance warning of the attack, and on the anniversay of 9-11 no less. But with all the obfuscations going on, that got shunted aside. But what this essentially says is that the United States of America, the greatest military power on earth, had no way to respond to an attack by a relatively small group of terrorists, on one of our embassies. Come on, you have to admit that's a problem. Could be a carryover from previous administrations---still a problem. And if it is a carryover---why no just say so? It's not like Democrats have any reluctance to point fingers back at Bush. That this wasn't the narrative indicates that they were concerned that it wasn't really a carryover---it was due to policy decisions they had made. 3) Again, on the surface, these appear to be the answers. But an attack on the United States was underway. Obama seemed almost disengaged on it, and you'd think they'd be able to find the SoS. Personally, I think Obama was disengaged on purpose---either he delegates too much (which he has admitted himself) or for plausible deniability later, something that happens all the time. 4) I added this one: The real issue, to me, is the statements issued by Susan Rice. She spoke for the Dept. of State, meaning she was speaking for the United States---the Dept of State relays the official position of the United States. And it was no mistake or miscommunication---the memos clearly show this. It was an intentional mischaracterization of events, with the only plausible explanation being for political purposes (hence the need for the plausible deniability). And it continued long after everyone was supposedly on the same page. Clinton, in her statements to Congress just a few months ago, was STILL clinging to the narrative. Further, if they're not sure about what was going on, the State Department doesn't just guess. They issues statements saying that they are not sure what is going on. Here is what Wikipedia has for the Roles and Duties of the Department of State: So, what the Department of State says is what the President's official foreign policy is. So, they wouldn't say it was a terrorist attack unless that was the President's official position. That she wasn't fired shortly afterwards (and was in fact brought up for promotion) for making such a 'mistake' is proof positive that it wasn't a mistake to begin with. So, the administration clearly lied about the attacks, and did so intentionally, for political purposes. One should either be ok with that, or not...and I struggle to find a reason other than blind loyalty that one would be ok with that. Is much (most?) of the smoke being blown around this politics from the Republicans? Yes. Does that make what the administration did ok? No. And there wouldn't even be the smoke if they hadn't created the fire, and then kept adding to it with all the misstatements and obfuscation.
They have said so, repeatedly. You check with the CIA personnel on the ground, the video surveillance feeds, and satellite imagery to figure out what it looks like. You don't just "deploy assets" into a situation you know nothing about and if you think that is SOP for the military, I question your knowledge. The assets were denied permission because it was a clusterf#ck of a situation and nobody wanted even more American lives at risk than were already there. I'm sorry you think that the military just sends assets into a clusterf#ck willy-nilly, but your opinion on the subject doesn't change the facts. Budget cuts and military personnel being deployed in other countries would be the biggest ones. However, if you think we have a big enough force to quell an attack with over 100 participants, armed with guns and grenades, in an area where we have no personnel deployed already, then you have an unrealistic view of our military and its ability to respond. I just looked and Benghazi hadn't been the target of any previous attacks that I can find. If you are calling Libya a "hot spot," then you are being awfully broad, Libya is a large country. According to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, this just isn't true... " There was no singular "tactical warning" in the intelligence reporting leading up to the events on September 11, 2012, predicting an attack on U.S. facilities in Benghazi on the 9/11 anniversary, although State and the CIA both sent general warning notices to facilities worldwide noting the potential security concerns associated with the anniversary. Such a specific warning should not have been expected, however, given the limited intelligence collection of the Benghazi area at the time. To date, the Committee has not identified any intelligence or other information received prior to September 11, 2012, by the IC or State Department indicating specific terrorist planning to attack the U.S. facilities in Benghazi on September 11, 2012. Although it did not reach the U.S. Intelligence Community until after the attacks, it is important to note that a former Transitional National Council (TNC) security official in Benghazi, had received information of a possible imminent attack against the Mission facility in advance. The official said that approximately four hours prior to the attack, he attempted to notify the Libyan Intelligence Service (LIS) that an attack was expected, but he was unable to reach two contacts he had in the LIS as they were out of the country. [Review Of The Terrorist Attacks On U.S. Facilities In Benghazi, Libya, September 11-12, 2012, U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 1/15/14]" If you think we can respond at a moment's notice anywhere in the world when terrorists strike, you are woefully misinformed. The reports say that over 100 people were involved in the attack, perhaps more. That is hardly a "relatively small group," it is a group big enough to do serious damage to even a good sized military force. The military isn't in the business of getting their people killed, so they chose the lesser evil: letting the events run their course. It isn't a carryover or policy failure, it is simply the limitations of our military. The closest large force we likely had would have been in Iraq, which is a 7.5 hour flight from Benghazi (according to GMaps). So, you think we should have been able to scramble a force from Iraq, get them on a plane, brief them in flight, then set their boots on the ground in hostile territory so that they could save the four people in the embassy? You seem to want ODST troops, I would be all for developing the necessary technology, but such a project would likely cost north of a trillion dollars. Obama was in the Oval Office, that seems pretty "engaged" to me. I'm certain that they were able to find Mrs. Clinton, even though you might not know where she was at the time. So, the REAL issue to you was not about the dead Americans or the security failures resulting from budget cuts, but the fact that politicians were playing politics. Gotcha, that says all anyone needs to know about you on this subject.
Numerous times I have asked for clarifications, trying to see the opposing viewpoint. I did my due dilligence and have been presented with nothing more than screaming, huge leaps of logic, insults, and assumptions which have shown me exactly what I suspected from the beginning: This is nothing more than a clown show.
No, at first they denied having received any such request. You can't check with the CIA personnel on the ground when you specifically deny their request to go there, now, can you? Satellite imagery from some period in the past isn't really going to help figure out what's going on now, then, is it? Tasking a satellite to do a fly over isn't either...seeing what it looks like after the fact isn't any better. Deploying assets is exactly how they gather the intelligence. 'Assets' aren't just people, you know. And you can do everything you mentioned while other assets are en route, ie, the one shouldn't preclude the other, most especially in the middle of a fire fight. So, whose knowledge looks questionable, hmmm? Again, if they'd said that, it would have been understandable. But they made up every dumb excuse they could think of other than that. And nowhere did I say they just send assets into clusterf#ck willy-nilly....but if you think the military waits, during the middle of fight, until they have perfect information about what is going on you know absolutely nothing about the military, and even your common sense would be highly questionable. It is routine and expected, in battle, for there to be lots of chaos--hence the term 'fog of war'. Except that said fog isn't meant to cloud one's judgement. Further, the assets they could have deployed were specially geared for just exactly this sort of situation (see below). So, yes, they were there to respond, willy nilly, to a cluster*****. That was their very purpose. Kinda throws the whole spontaneous attack from the crowd narrative out the window, doesn't it. Glad you agree. Especially since there wasn't even a crowd there to begin with, which was known very early---hey, from those very surveillance videos you said they should have looked at. And you really mean that the supposed greatest military power on earth can't quell an attack from 100 people. Seriously? What the heck are we doing, then? Don't let Al Queda know, they'll freakin' invade! Yes, Libya, in general and Benghazi specifically, and while large, all of it, at least the few important points, Benghazi being one of them, should be covered by some sort of response plan, given recent events there, known terrorist ties, and its geographic location and political and social alignment (centric to the Middle East). As for previous attacks....they just had a freakin' civil war there. Of course it had been involved in previous attacks. First Battle of Benghazi Why is this relative now? First, that it was clearly a hotbed of unrest. Second, that there were known to be militiamen loyal to Gaddafi, and would therefore be opposed to the U.S. Third...Benghazi is the second largest city in Libya. Add it all up, and some sort of attack should certainly have been speculated upon. And there were others: Second Battle of Benghazi. So, again, this was absolutely a known hot spot. Saying it wasn't would be like saying it would have been totally unforeseen for, say, any German forces to attack an American outpost in Berlin the following year, in the absence of any military presence there. Libya had been at odds with the U.S. for decades, there were known ties to terrorists, and there had been a recent civil war. Those facts alone make it a known hot spot. Which is why Ambassador Stevens had requested the additional security. Note the very careful parsing of words they used. I didn't see they received specific knowledge of plans to attack the embassy on September 11, 2012. I did say they were warned of an imminent attack, which is true. Libya: We gave US three-day warning of Benghazi attack Again, this throws the whole 'spontaneous reaction by a small group' narrative out the window, doesn't it? And they didn't know it was 100 people until later, so that couldn't have been the reason to not do anything during. But I'm not faulting the decision...I am pointing out the huge inconsistencies they have had in explaining it. Indicating they either didn't know what the heck the were doing, or are having trouble sticking to their script. Take you pick, and it might be both together. And, fwiw, the military seemed ready and willing to respond, and was upset that no response was initiated. It was the administration that chose not to respond. We did have such forces available. But they weren't deployed. Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/07/general-...not-deployed-to-benghazi/#5PEqOff94TtjUi2h.99 And they could have deployed even a small force, to gather information if nothing else. You know...to fix the problem they claimed of not knowing what was going on. Or tasked a plane to do an overflight. Hired a plane or helicopter right there in Benghazi, even. Something other than sitting there just complaining about not knowing what was going on. What is this unit? So, yes, we did have such forces available, for situations just like this one, and yes, I firmly believe a 40 man team of U.S. Special Forces can quell an attack from 100 people. Pretty sure they would agree with me, too. You think otherwise? Further, they did have aircraft available, despite the statements to the contrary. And this isn't just from Ham. So the JCOS concedes that troops were on call, for just this type of response, and they were close enough that they could have responded (the whole attack lasted over 6 hours, and these units would have arrived before the attack on the annex). And why would this go largely unreported? What is also very interesting is what happened to command of those troops on the very eve of the attack... Why would they do that, unless they had the warnings they said they never got, and not only that, they took the warnings provided seriously? Obama was in the Oval Office, that seems pretty "engaged" to me.
I see your problem. You seem to be assuming that the very first statements about Benghazi have not changed a whit. Perhaps you should look at Obama's very first speech about Benghazi, the one where he specifically referred to it as a "terrorist act." You seem to make a lot of assumptions even though the information is out there. The reports say that there were CIA assets in the Benghazi area and that these assets reported the situation to the military. I was speculating about the satellite imagery, but I would be very surprised if the military didn't task a satellite to fly over at some point during the incident. I assume they had current satellite imagery even though they wouldn't tell us this for national security reasons. The military won't send troops into harms way without a good idea of what they are getting into. Yours, more and more with each statement. I am absolutely convinced that you know somewhere between little and nothing about the military and almost as little about this specific situation. Much of what you speculate about is covered in nauseating detail in the House report, which you are apparently above reading. I never said anything about "perfect information," you're just making **** up now, please stop. The military won't wait for perfect information because such information just doesn't exist. However, the House report details that they had plenty of information to determine that they didn't have an appropriate force which could get to Benghazi in time to have a positive impact. I looked below and saw zero details about a force that we had in the Benghazi area that was "specifically geared" to quell a violent attack on an embassy at a moment's notice. I did see information about 40 special forces guys who may have believed they could do it, but their leaders thought otherwise I never defended that narrative. I never disagreed, but I will observe that the narrative you decry was ultimately unimportant. It was politicians playing politics and spin in the middle of an election campaign, same as Bush did in '04. With an appropriate amount of lead time we can quell nearly any attack from nearly any sized force. However, the military determined that they couldn't get people in place in time to have a positive impact. I believe the generals over the musings of conservative bloggers, pundits, and BBS blowhards. And those limited resources went to Pakistan, Iraq, and Afghanistan instead. You know, places where we had troops, drones, and far more people directly angry with America. Again, I have never defended that narrative. The House report says differently. Nobody, except for the most speculative liars, have claimed that the administration gave any orders not to deploy. All of those determinations were made by military personnel, again, read the House report. The speculation of some general who can't explain why we didn't deploy to Benghazi is hardly a smoking gun. He is merely a man who wasn't privy to the facts under consideration at the time. They were pretty aware of what was going on, hence the decision to hold off on deploying troops who could be taken hostage or killed if they were dropped into a situation for which they weren't prepared. The men would surely agree, but their commanders felt differently at the time. I trust the commanders made the best decision they could with imperfect information. I don't know and neither do you. I have to trust that the military made the best decision they could with imperfect information. [/QUOTE] Still think so? [/QUOTE] Yes, nothing in that transcript leads me to believe Obama was anything other than engaged. If you think Pannetta was his only source of information about the incident, you are delusional. Obama called it a "terrorist act" in his very first communication, yet you keep huffing and puffing about the "narrative." You don't care about anything but tarring and feathering Obama, that is the only reason Benghazi is even in your vocabulary. LOL, the fact that you can't understand that politicians will lie, particularly during an election campaign, in order to spin the situation makes you appear even more delusional than I thought at first. That's saying something, because you look truly, MASSIVELY delusional.
New Yorker MAY 6, 2014 RONALD REAGAN’S BENGHAZI ... Around dawn on October 23, 1983, I was in Beirut, Lebanon, when a suicide bomber drove a truck laden with the equivalent of twenty-one thousand pounds of TNT into the heart of a U.S. Marine compound, killing two hundred and forty-one servicemen. The U.S. military command, which regarded the Marines’ presence as a non-combative, “peace-keeping mission,” had left a vehicle gate wide open, and ordered the sentries to keep their weapons unloaded. The only real resistance the suicide bomber had encountered was a scrim of concertina wire. When I arrived on the scene a short while later to report on it for the Wall Street Journal, the Marine barracks were flattened. From beneath the dusty, smoking slabs of collapsed concrete, piteous American voices could be heard, begging for help. Thirteen more American servicemen later died from injuries, making it the single deadliest attack on American Marines since the Battle of Iwo Jima. Six months earlier, militants had bombed the U.S. embassy in Beirut, too, killing sixty-three more people, including seventeen Americans. Among the dead were seven C.I.A. officers, including the agency’s top analyst in the Middle East, an immensely valuable intelligence asset, and the Beirut station chief. There were more than enough opportunities to lay blame for the horrific losses at high U.S. officials’ feet. But unlike today’s Congress, congressmen did not talk of impeaching Ronald Reagan, who was then President, nor were any subpoenas sent to cabinet members. This was true even though then, as now, the opposition party controlled the majority in the House. Tip O’Neill, the Democratic Speaker of the House, was no pushover. He, like today’s opposition leaders in the House, demanded an investigation—but a real one, and only one. Instead of playing it for political points, a House committee undertook a serious investigation into what went wrong at the barracks in Beirut. Two months later, it issued a report finding “very serious errors in judgment” by officers on the ground, as well as responsibility up through the military chain of command, and called for better security measures against terrorism in U.S. government installations throughout the world. In other words, Congress actually undertook a useful investigation and made helpful recommendations. The report’s findings, by the way, were bipartisan. (The Pentagon, too, launched an investigation, issuing a report that was widely accepted by both parties.) In March of 1984, three months after Congress issued its report, militants struck American officials in Beirut again, this time kidnapping the C.I.A.’s station chief, Bill Buckley. Buckley was tortured and, eventually, murdered. Reagan, who was tormented by a tape of Buckley being tortured, blamed himself. Congress held no public hearings, and pointed fingers at the perpetrators, not at political rivals. If you compare the costs of the Reagan Administration’s serial security lapses in Beirut to the costs of Benghazi, it’s clear what has really deteriorated in the intervening three decades. It’s not the security of American government personnel working abroad. It’s the behavior of American congressmen at home. The story in Beirut wasn’t over. In September of 1984, for the third time in eighteen months, jihadists bombed a U.S. government outpost in Beirut yet again. President Reagan acknowledged that the new security precautions that had been advocated by Congress hadn’t yet been implemented at the U.S. embassy annex that had been hit. The problem, the President admitted, was that the repairs hadn’t quite been completed on time. As he put it, “Anyone who’s ever had their kitchen done over knows that it never gets done as soon as you wish it would.” Imagine how Congressman Issa and Fox News would react to a similar explanation from President Obama today. http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2014/05/ronald-reagans-benghazi.html
"If we're playing politics with Benghazi, we'll get burned," -- Lindsey Graham Obama approval surges to 49% in Rasmussen's daily tracking. Also Democrats have regained the lead on the latest Generic Congressional Ballot. Conservatives please proceed with the Benghazi freakout
At this point, the GOP keeping this "cover up" alive has nothing whatsoever to do with Obama, Benghazi, or the truth, and is squarely intended to smear Hilary for 2016. Rest assured, they will keep it up all the way through her re-election in 2020.
Budget cuts...lol. A lowered budget doesn't mean NO budget and it is no excuse to me or the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. From the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence: Review of the terrorists attacks on U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya September 11-12, 2012 I think that pretty much slams the door on the idea that these attacks weren't preventable AND happened primarily due to the State Department's complete incompetence. How could ANY leader (military or otherwise) determine whether any force could arrive in time when at the time, NOBODY KNEW HOW LONG THE ATTACKS WOULD CONTINUE OR HOW THEY WOULD DEVELOP. So, as Bigdog has shown in the testimony of former Defense Secretary Panetta, there was no communication between the President or any other member of the White House staff and his chief military advisor on September 11, 2012 while the attack was ongoing. That's astounding.
