Obama lied about Benghazi

[palehorse]

So where was your total faux outrage over the past 10+ years for all the other embassy/consulate attacks where peopel died?

Does Drudge or whatever BS you get talking points from not cover any of that?

Once again, Fox News, the GOP and the trolls ignore 13 other attacks, and magically claim this is new and unique....at least try to have some shread of intelectual honesty about the whole process.

In order to make a more damning and accurate accusation, you'll need to point out at least one of those other attacks wherein the White House spent the next several weeks or months lying about the attack -- which, if you were honest, you'd have to admit is the primary factor that is driving the current outrage.

 

[Matt1970]

Patraeus himself said that Al-Qaeda's involvement was left out for operational reasons.

That would be valid if we even had an operation since and you didn't have everyone else claiming it was a terrorist attack from day one.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

$500M was cut? I don't think so. Please link.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/10/jason-chaffetz-embassy_n_1954912.html

For the past two years, House Republicans have continued to deprioritize the security forces protecting State Department personnel around the world. In fiscal year 2011, lawmakers shaved $128 million off of the administration's request for embassy security funding. House Republicans drained off even more funds in fiscal year 2012 -- cutting back on the department's request by $331 million.

So as I said, they cut the requested budget from the administration by $500M.

 

[Incorruptible]

In order to make a more damning and accurate accusation, you'll need to point out at least one of those other attacks wherein the White House spent the next several weeks or months lying about the attack -- which, if you were honest, you'd have to admit is the primary factor that is driving the current outrage.

Agree. The reason people are angry is because obama blamed it on the video and the filmmaker is still in jail and help was ordered to stand down.

 

[IGBT]

in this particular obama quagmire the cover up and lies are as bad as the deaths caused by his inaction and liberal agenda. Nobody died in Watergate.

 

[monovillage]

Let it not be forgotten.

 

[werepossum]

I will commit an act of intellectual honesty. Looks like the talking points Susan Rice used on Sunday shows which was proported to have originaled from the Intelligence office had revisions from State Dept before getting to Rice. Legitimate question State needs to answer.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...t-12-revisions-scrubbed-of-terror-references/

Good for you. I suspect however that these revisions are more common than we think. This is why political operatives like Panetta are placed in these positions, so that the White House can get the story it wants to tell. Take out the parts about previous warnings, delete the part about terrorism, add this story about a spontaneous uprising protesting an Internet video.

So you agree the first one is legit. Good. Who got fired for the denial of the requests for additional security and support? Nobody? That's simply unacceptable.

The second one was also a poor and avoidable decision, regardless of "the Pentagon" claiming otherwise. Several actual Special Operators have come forward and explained why. At minimum, the officer or official who made that final decision should be relieved of command.

While the details for the third and fourth issues are still surfacing, it's quite clear and undeniable that several parties partook in the conscious deception of the American public -- hell, they even spelled out their deception and its motivation in the emails! Perhaps you don't care that we've been consciously lied to for entirely political reasons, but many of us do. Again, there simply must be people held accountable for those flagrant violations of public trust, and they need to be removed from public service.

It's not partisan for many of us -- it's principle, and it's justice.

This is government: screw up, move up. I think the difference here is that this was a stupid decision with tragic consequences, but not an evil decision like Waco or Fast & Furious. As far as lying, clearly Obama's supporters want him to lie to them where it is politically advantageous to do so.

I don't know that this is that different than Bush picking and choosing which evidence to weight heavily when deciding to invade Iraq. The manipulation here is much more blatant, granted, but the magnitude of death is much smaller and all prior to the cherry picking. Had Bush been more unbiased, we might have prevented almost 100,000 deaths. Had Obama honestly reported his screw-up, he might not have been re-elected. Hard to see this as a bigger problem. (Full disclosure: I supported and support Bush's decision to launch the Iraq War as his best judgement, but it was certainly an optional war. In retrospect the respect we achieved in the Arab & Muslim world could equally have been achieved by toppling the Taliban, and the predicted wave of democracies following it haven't exactly been smashing successes for the West.)

So where was your total faux outrage over the past 10+ years for all the other embassy/consulate attacks where peopel died?

Does Drudge or whatever BS you get talking points from not cover any of that?

Once again, Fox News, the GOP and the trolls ignore 13 other attacks, and magically claim this is new and unique....at least try to have some shread of intelectual honesty about the whole process.

No one is claiming that embassy attacks are new or preventable. There are two issues here - failing to provide proper security even in the face of credible threats, and then lying about it for political purposes.

I don't think this is a particularly large scandal - certainly nothing approaching Watergate - but I can certainly understand the issues. We don't expect our government to keep everyone safe all the time, but we do expect them to make a concerted, good faith effort to do so. And we do expect them to be honest - although we all know they are not. Indeed, one could make a good argument that we punish honest politicians.

 

[bshole]

The republicans shaved off $500 million that the White House requested for Embassy security.

The republicans shaved off $500 million that the White House requested for Embassy security.

The republicans shaved off $500 million that the White House requested for Embassy security.

The republicans shaved off $500 million that the White House requested for Embassy security.

The republicans shaved off $500 million that the White House requested for Embassy security.

The republicans shaved off $500 million that the White House requested for Embassy security.

The republicans shaved off $500 million that the White House requested for Embassy security.

The republicans shaved off $500 million that the White House requested for Embassy security.

This is not up for debate, it is established fact!!!!!!!!

The gall of these bastards utterly blows my mind. They cut funding for embassy security, then blame lack of embassy security on Obama.

 

[monovillage]

The republicans shaved off $500 million that the White House requested for Embassy security.

This is not up for debate, it is established fact!!!!!!!!

The gall of these bastards utterly blows my mind. They cut funding for embassy security, then blame lack of embassy security on Obama.

So you have a link and proof of this and that "the republicans" were solely to blame for it and that it affected the security in Benghazi? Link please.

 

[werepossum]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/10/jason-chaffetz-embassy_n_1954912.html

So as I said, they cut the requested budget from the administration by $500M.

Only in government can one spend more money and still be accused of draconian cuts.

 

[IBMer]

Let it not be forgotten.

Obviously the left side of the picture has forgotten a few points:

*Track ll in Chile
*The secret plan to overthrow the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende.
*The secret war in Cambodia, under the fake excuse that the Vietcong had their headquarters there.
*The secret war against the antiwar movement. This involved illegal CIA and FBI operations against college students.
*Delaying the end of the Vietnam War for 5 years, for no benefit.

 

[palehorse]

And the idea from rational people that the only question isn't who to fire, but if someone would need to be fired. You decided to make up your mind ahead of time.

Americans died as a result of at least ONE poor decision -- either the decision to deny enhanced security, or the subsequent decision to leave them in place in spite of that inadequate security -- so you're damn right someone needs to be fired.

Availability of reinforcements is not the only concern. I thought that would be obvious.

Care to elaborate? Please provide the other specific "concerns."

Patraeus himself said that Al-Qaeda's involvement was left out for operational reasons.

They didn't need to omit the word "terrorist" altogether, and they sure as hell didn't need to blatantly lie about the video being the cause.

As evidenced by the recently surfaced emails, it was the DoS that removed the truth from Susan Rice's talking points for political (read: CYA) reasons -- and the White House itself was complicit in their removal. The White House then knowingly went out and presented that deceptive message to the world.

I've watched your political opinions for several years now. Overall you are quite conservative.

I'm socially liberal, non-religious, fiscally conservative, and strong on defense issues. The problem with you trying to judge me by my posts is that I tend to post the most in threads related to spending and defense. You'll hardly ever see me comment in threads dealing with abortion, gay marriage, etc, because those subjects tend to bore me. As someone who has served this Nation now for over 22 years -- in one capacity, or another -- I simply tend to be a bit more passionate and outspoken about defense and fiscal issues... /shrug

 

[Matt1970]

The republicans shaved off $500 million that the White House requested for Embassy security.

The republicans shaved off $500 million that the White House requested for Embassy security.

The republicans shaved off $500 million that the White House requested for Embassy security.

The republicans shaved off $500 million that the White House requested for Embassy security.

The republicans shaved off $500 million that the White House requested for Embassy security.

The republicans shaved off $500 million that the White House requested for Embassy security.

The republicans shaved off $500 million that the White House requested for Embassy security.

The republicans shaved off $500 million that the White House requested for Embassy security.

This is not up for debate, it is established fact!!!!!!!!

The gall of these bastards utterly blows my mind. They cut funding for embassy security, then blame lack of embassy security on Obama.

Those "bastards" cut it back to above 2008 levels.

Those "bastards" cut it back to above 2008 levels.

Those "bastards" cut it back to above 2008 levels.

Those "bastards" cut it back to above 2008 levels.

Those "bastards" cut it back to above 2008 levels.

Those "bastards" cut it back to above 2008 levels.

Those "bastards" cut it back to above 2008 levels.

 

[palehorse]

The republicans shaved off $500 million that the White House requested for Embassy security.

This is not up for debate, it is established fact!!!!!!!!

The gall of these bastards utterly blows my mind. They cut funding for embassy security, then blame lack of embassy security on Obama.

Who blamed Obama himself for the lack of security? I must have missed that part...

Second, if one result of the funding cut was inadequate security at the Libyan location, why were our personnel kept at that location? Who, exactly, made the decision to leave them there in spite of the known threats and inadequate security?

Whoever that is/was should be the first to lose their job.

 

[Incorruptible]

Only in government can one spend more money and still be accused of draconian cuts.

You're dealing with a complete idiot who makes no sense.

 

[ivwshane]

One simple question...are you an American or a Democrat? It's really hard to tell what you consider to be the most important.

I'm far from being "of the right" despite your internet forum opinion. forgive me if I choose to believe "he" or "she" should be held accountable and not given a pass because of the findings of a government report. I suppose I'm getting old and stick to out of date notions of such things. I'm funny like that.

Wow, so its ok for you to question people's patriotism now?

Fuck you! You fucking hypocrite! Go ahead and continue being ignorant, it makes it easier to ignore you anyway.


And just to show you how utterly stupid you are being I'll relate it to something you can understand:

Lets say this was about gun control and I said;

Me: no one is trying to ban anyone's guns!
You: of course they are! Have you read fienstiens bill?
Me: I don't need to read the bill, I know its just the right making shit up.
You: so you haven't read the bill?
Me: I don't need to, no one is trying to ban anyone's guns.
You: but if you read the bill you would see that's not true.
Me: its just the gun nuts blowing hot air.

Now exactly where do you think the conversation should go? How stupid would you think I was being?

Incorruptible must be your guys new forum hero because you guys have been emulating him to a tee lately.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Only in government can one spend more money and still be accused of draconian cuts.

Now is that better or worse than denying a department the funding they say they need to exact effective security and then demanding to know why there seemed to be a lack of security?

 

[ivwshane]

As you know, nobody has been fired. While I personally don't know all the names, or even just how high up they need to go for accountability, at minimum they need to fire whoever it was that made the final decision(s) to deny the requests for additional security prior to the attack.

They should also relieve whoever it was at the Pentagon that made the final decision to deny reinforcements on the night of the attack.

Those are just my initial suggestions, of course. The actual names and terminations will depend entirely on the one very important thing we're still lacking at this point: answers.

1. Who, exactly, decided what, and when?
2. Who, exactly, knew what, and when?
3. Who, exactly, made the conscious decision(s) to blatantly lie about the attacks to the American public?

Did you read the report?

You claim a bad decision was made and people should be fired, how do you know the decision was a bad one? Because four people died? How do you know that the decision made didnt prevent more deaths?

I get the need for more answers, I do, but when you yell for more answers and immediately call for people to be fired before any answers are given, you just look like an idiot.

Hindsight is 20/20, its easy to look back at various issues and claim the wrong decision was made but when another big decision needs to be made in the future will we be able to make the right call? If nothing has changed then I don't know why one would expect different results.

So the question isn't, "who should be fired?", it is, "why was that decision made?". And if you read the report you would know why and you would also know what's being done to prevent or minimize such events from happening again.

 

[lotus503]

The republicans shaved off $500 million that the White House requested for Embassy security.

The republicans shaved off $500 million that the White House requested for Embassy security.

The republicans shaved off $500 million that the White House requested for Embassy security.

The republicans shaved off $500 million that the White House requested for Embassy security.

The republicans shaved off $500 million that the White House requested for Embassy security.

The republicans shaved off $500 million that the White House requested for Embassy security.

The republicans shaved off $500 million that the White House requested for Embassy security.

The republicans shaved off $500 million that the White House requested for Embassy security.

This is not up for debate, it is established fact!!!!!!!!

The gall of these bastards utterly blows my mind. They cut funding for embassy security, then blame lack of embassy security on Obama.

Good point, I think any investigation should including the cuts to funding. Were the cuts an attempt to weaken security so an event may take place?

I wouldn't put it past politicians.

 

[Matt1970]

Good point, I think any investigation should including the cuts to funding. Were the cuts an attempt to weaken security so an event may take place?

I wouldn't put it past politicians.

We only cut spending back to 2008 levels.

 

[lotus503]

We only cut spending back to 2008 levels.

right but it appears we shouldn't have done that

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Let it not be forgotten.

Why don't we add a third panel that includes what the last Republican president did, which would make Obama's activity pale by comparison.

 

[Matt1970]

right but it appears we shouldn't have done that

In hindsight, sure, we should have had 1000 troops there at all times. In my opinion we shouldn't be there to begin with. I also don’t remember anyone going before congress in the last 8 years explaining how lax our security was at foreign embassies due to lack of funding.

 

[palehorse]

right but it appears we shouldn't have done that

Or perhaps the cuts should have led to pulling out our Diplomats from those locations where a) the security was inadequate, and b) there were known threats?

That means someone at State accepted the higher risk and made the poor decision to leave our Diplomats in place at those locations.

Since that someone accepted the risk and made that decision, they must also be held accountable and accept responsibility for the result.

 

[xBiffx]

Why don't we add a third panel that includes what the last Republican president did, which would make Obama's activity pale by comparison.

As if we haven't covered it before, in detail, but do tell. How does any of this apply to the previous administration?

Or perhaps you would like to go back to the school yard with the "But Johnny did it first" bullshit.