Return to the Hot Topics Forum | Post a Follow-Up

 o
Revisiting the Benghazi Tragedy

Posted by ingrid_vc Z10 SoCal (My Page) on
Fri, Oct 12, 12 at 23:31

There's been a great deal of outrage on the right regarding the recent killing of four embassy personnel including the ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens. One point raised repeatedly was that there should have been more protection for American personnel. It later became evident that Hillary Clinton was also concerned and had asked for more funding to protect embassies at risk in certain parts of the world and Congress had voted against it. Are the people who expressed the most intense outrage over what happened aware that their vice presidential nominee, Paul Ryan, voted AGAINST this added protection?

A further point is that, had this protection even been granted, the Marines would have had to be stationed inside the embassy in TRIPOLI, since the Libyans are extremely sensitive about American military personnel being stationed on their soil. The ambassador and the three other Americans killed were not inside the embassy but rather at the CONSULATE in Benghazi, which would not have been protected in any case. Chris Stevens had eight people guarding him personally but a consulate is a satellite station which in most countries has the function of aiding travelers who are in trouble, for instance, have lost their passports or been robbed or attacked, etc. The embassy in Tripoli is already guarded by Marines and is actually considered to be very secure. It's unfortunate that Mr. Stevens did not stay there, since surely he must have been made aware by the Libyan government of the unstable situation in regard to insurgents.

Furthermore, it is not inconceivable that the attack was at first thought to be in response to the anti-Islam movie since that is what caused the demonstrations in Egypt where the American flag was burned at the embassy there and the Egyptian flag put in its place shortly before the Libyan attack.

I wanted to revisit this incident since the abuse heaped on President Obama was so extreme, and the outrage so great that there was not further protection. Does the fact that one of their "chosen ones" (sorry, I couldn't resist) voted against that increased protection lessen that outrage to any degree? Apparently Mr. Ryan wasn't nearly as concerned at the "slaughter of Americans" as some of the posters on this forum, other than to make political hay from it, as did Mr. Romney immediately after this sad incident occurred.


Follow-Up Postings:

 o
RE: Revisiting the Benghazi Tragedy

Bedtime for me,eh?


 o
RE: Revisiting the Benghazi Tragedy

I wanted to revisit this incident since the abuse heaped on President Obama was so extreme, and the outrage so great that there was not further protection. Does the fact that one of their "chosen ones" (sorry, I couldn't resist) voted against that increased protection lessen that outrage to any degree? Apparently Mr. Ryan wasn't nearly as concerned at the "slaughter of Americans" as some of the posters on this forum, other than to make political hay from it, as did Mr. Romney immediately after this sad incident occurred.

What with the overall improving situation at home--jobs, housing market, lowering the deficit...etc. there still are things that are beyond Obama's control. Of course the Republicans are milking this tragedy dry.

The fact that Ryan voted against increased protection doesn't matter one bit. The lie is out, and the resident parrots will parrot it ad nauseum. As always.


 o
RE: Revisiting the Benghazi Tragedy

Besides, the focus really isn't on the Ambassador or the incident... it's really on the idea of dragging Obama down, because you know, anyone but Obama... but they need a smokescreen or it looks like racism. And yep... there it is again.


 o
RE: Revisiting the Benghazi Tragedy

Lots of good information on the " Any Bets" thread.


 o
RE: Revisiting the Benghazi Tragedy

Of course if the funds were reduced they could have moved some of the marines from the Paris embassy instead of further reducing the guard in Libya.

Wonder if Ambassador Stevens offended one of his superiors. Nah, he was probably a target just because he did a good job.


 o
RE: Revisiting the Benghazi Tragedy

It certainly seems like he was hung out as a treat.


 o
RE: Revisiting the Benghazi Tragedy

Thanks ingrid - I appreciated your pointing out some of the facts.

If the investigation finds anyone at fault for poor security decisions, I hope that discipline is executed.


 o
RE: Revisiting the Benghazi Tragedy

This article gives a good perspective:

WASHINGTON : Lost amid the election-year wrangling over the militants' attack on the United States Mission in Benghazi, Libya, is a complex back story involving growing regional resentment against heavily armed American private security contractors, increased demands on State Department resources and mounting frustration among diplomats over ever-tighter protections that they say make it more difficult to do their jobs.

The Benghazi attacks, in which the United States ambassador and three other Americans were killed, comes at the end of a 10-year period in which the State Department - sending its employees into a lengthening list of war zones and volatile regions - has regularly ratcheted up security for its diplomats. The aggressive measures used by private contractors eventually led to shootings in Afghanistan and Iraq that provoked protests, including an episode involving guards from an American security company, Blackwater, that left at least 17 Iraqis dead in Baghdad's Nisour Square.

The ghosts of that shooting clearly hung over Benghazi. Earlier this year, the new Libyan government had expressly barred Blackwater-style armed contractors from flooding into the country. "The Libyans were not keen to have boots on the ground," one senior State Department official said.

That forced the State Department to rely largely on its own diplomatic security arm, which officials have said lacks the resources to provide adequate protection in war zones.

On Capitol Hill this week, Democrats and Republicans sparred at a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing over what happened in Benghazi, whether security at the mission was adequate, and what - if anything - could have been done to prevent the tragedy.

But amid calls for more protection for diplomats overseas, some current and former State Department officials cautioned about the risks of going too far. "The answer cannot be to operate from a bunker," Eric A. Nordstrom, who until earlier this year served as the chief security officer at the United States Embassy in Tripoli, Libya, told the committee.

Barbara K. Bodine, who served as ambassador to Yemen when the destroyer Cole was bombed in 2000, said: "What we need is a policy of risk management, but what we have now is a policy of risk avoidance. Nobody wants to take responsibility in case something happens, so nobody is willing to have a debate over what is reasonable security and what is excessive."

For the State Department, the security situation in Libya came down in part to the question of whether it was a war zone or just another African outpost.

Even though the country was still volatile in the wake of the bloody rebellion that ousted Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, the State Department did not include Libya on a list of dangerous postings that are high priority for extra security resources.

Only the American Embassies in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan are exempted from awarding security contracts to the lowest bidder. Dangerous posts are allowed to consider "best value" contracting instead, according to a State Department inspector general's report in February.

The large private security firms that have protected American diplomats in Iraq and Afghanistan sought State Department contracts in Libya, and at least one made a personal pitch to the ambassador, J. Christopher Stevens, who was killed in the militants' attack in Benghazi on Sept. 11, according to a senior official at one firm.

But given the Libyan edict banning the contractors, the Obama administration was eager to reduce the American footprint there. After initially soliciting bids from major security companies for work in Libya, State Department officials never followed through.

"We went in to make a pitch, and nothing happened," said the security firm official. He said the State Department could have found a way around the Libyans' objections if it had wanted to.

Instead, the department relied on a small British company to provide several unarmed Libyan guards for security at the mission in Benghazi. For the personal protection of the diplomats, the department largely depended on its Diplomatic Security Service.

The wrangling over protection is part of a larger debate that has been under way for years within the State Department over how to balance security with the need of American diplomats to move freely.

Many diplomats rankle at the constraints imposed on them by security officials, who demand that they travel around foreign capitals in heavily armored convoys that local civilians find insulting and that make it nearly impossible for the envoys to meet discreetly with foreign officials. Many American diplomats have also grown deeply frustrated by the constraints imposed on them by working in the new, highly secure embassies that have been constructed around the world over the past decade.

After the 1998 bombings of two American embassies in East Africa by Al Qaeda, the State Department began a multibillion-dollar program to replace many embassies with hardened and highly secure facilities. American construction companies with experience in building prisons and military barracks won many of the contracts to build cookie-cutter buildings that look more like fortresses than diplomatic outposts. Between 2001 and 2010, 52 embassies were built, and many others are now under construction or being designed.

Often located in remote suburban areas far from crowded streets, the buildings are designed to withstand truck bombs, but they also require local security forces and heavily armed guards to resist the type of attack that the militants staged in Benghazi.

But many diplomats say the fortified embassies make it difficult for them to do their jobs, forcing them to find ways around them. Ronald E. Neumann, who served as the ambassador in Afghanistan from 2005 to 2007, and who worked in Baghdad before that, said that many foreign officials refuse to come into American Embassies because they are insulted by the intrusive security measures, and they do not want American officials coming to their homes with huge convoys.

"So you meet people in hotels," said Mr. Neumann, now the president of the American Academy of Diplomacy in Washington. The security "has forced you to get more creative."

That can mean taking more risks. "A lot of people are simply violating the security regulations to do their jobs," said Anthony H. Cordesman, a national security analyst at the Center for International and Strategic Studies in Washington. "They have to find ways to get out, and sometimes they end-run the security officer, or sometimes the security officer will turn a blind eye."

In fact, just as the Benghazi attack occurred, the State Department's building department was beginning to address some of the frustrations by proposing more open and accessible designs for embassies. Under the new policy, embassies will still have to meet the same security standards, but the State Department will require that a higher priority be given to the visual appearance of buildings and will try to situate them in more central locations so that they are not so isolated. It is unclear whether the Benghazi crisis will force the State Department to abandon the new design policy.

"The problem is that embassies no longer function as public buildings," said Jane Loefller, the author of "The Architecture of Diplomacy," a history of the design and construction of American embassies. "They used to be public, but no longer."

For the State Department, finding the right balance between security and diplomacy has become increasingly difficult in a political environment. Perhaps no one understands that as well as Patrick F. Kennedy.

Five years ago, Mr. Kennedy, then the under secretary of state for management in the Bush administration, was caught up in a high-profile Congressional investigation of the episode in Nisour Square. Democratic lawmakers on the House Oversight Committee criticized the department for lax management of overly aggressive security contractors.

This week, Mr. Kennedy, who has the same job in the Obama administration, faced Republicans on the same House committee, who criticized the State Department for lax management and failing to provide more aggressive security in Benghazi." end quote

I think the point being missed here is that the diplomats themselves want to tone it down, otherwise they can't do their jobs.

Here is a link that might be useful: link


 o
RE: Revisiting the Benghazi Tragedy

David, your post very well points out the problems inherent in this complex situation. Ambassador Chris Stevens often traveled alone, without any security detail, because this best allowed him to do his job. He knew the risks, but it was a calculated risk because of his great popularity with the Libyan people, which was demonstrated by their massive outpouring of love after his death. I'm sick and tired of the manufactured and unbelievable outrage on the right who have almost no understanding of what the real situation is in places such as Libya and other less than secure countries. The people there know what can happen but are brave and patriotic and continue to do their jobs as well as they can.

My older brother was in American intelligence in Germany during the latter part of the cold war with Russia. He regularly went to East Germany posing as a German businessman in order to perform his mission. He was alone and well knew what would happen if he was caught. He did it anyway, just as these people do.


 o
RE: Revisiting the Benghazi Tragedy

"The fact that Ryan voted against increased protection doesn't matter one bit. The lie is out, and the resident parrots will parrot it ad nauseum. As always."

Americans watched Charlene Lamb testify under oath that funding was NOT a problem. Sorry you missed it, Maddie.

Perhaps you were working on "briefs" for "The Hague" again.



 o
RE: Revisiting the Benghazi Tragedy

"Back in 2011, Romney supported Obama's decision to support the NATO-led mission in Libya. Sort of. A round up of his positions paraphrased from ABC:

In March, Romney said he would have done it sooner and accused the President of following the French into Libya.

In April, he refused to answer journalists questions about his Libya stance, described as "fleeing" down a hallway to avoid reporters, Romney gave them this version of leading, "I've got a lot of positions on a lot of topics, but walking down the hall probably isn't the best place to describe all those."

Later in April, Romney said Obama was being "too aggressive", saying, "(i)t is apparent that our military is engaged in much more than enforcing a no-fly zone. What we are watching in real time is another example of mission creep and mission muddle."

In August, Romney said praised the mission as Muammar el-Qaddafi fell. He told Fox News, "I think the world celebrates the idea of getting rid of Gadhafi. This guy was one of the worst actors on the world stage, responsible for terror around the world." There was more where that came from.

So, he would have done it sooner, then Obama was being too aggressive, then when the mission was successful he was all for it again.

What would Romney have done differently? Well, he would have denounced the protesters sooner, according to him without waiting for details, as proven by how wrong his 12:01 AM statement turned out to be. Being proven dead wrong didn't stop Romney from doubling down on his claims, because it was never about the alleged position, it was about the posturing for the base.

And this Romney calls leading from ahead. I call it blindly following the tea stained party of no into a land of such unpatriotic obstruction that their only policy is "anti-Obama." Romney might be pleased with his pretense at "strength" masquerading as attacking the American president as Americans were under attack, but he made one fatal mistake.

Mitt Romney has now put his biggest weakness, foreign policy, at the forefront of this campaign. It also happens to be one of President Obama's biggest strengths. For this failure to successfully strategize beyond the talking point of the day, Mitt Romney reveals himself perfectly outclassed."

Here is a link that might be useful: Chasing Mitt Romney's Hypocritical, Blindfolded, Ever-Changing Libya Positions


 o
RE: Revisiting the Benghazi Tragedy

Wow, look at the name of the link! Unbiased (or should I say fair & balanced?), right? Well, then I'll color it credible and factual for sure. Not.


 o
RE: Revisiting the Benghazi Tragedy

Maddie, your statement "The fact that Ryan voted against increased protection doesn't matter one bit. The lie is out, and the resident parrots will parrot it ad nauseum."

Is factually inaccurate according to a fact checker on CNN. Sorry, find another one to lie about.


 o
RE: Revisiting the Benghazi Tragedy

GGM, I'm the one who posted first about Paul Ryan voting against increased security at embassies abroad. It is a statement of fact. Paul Ryan, along with other Republicans, DID vote against this. You might want to expand your search beyond CNN.


 o
RE: Revisiting the Benghazi Tragedy

Exactly.

As I said, the fact that Ryan voted against increased protection doesn't matter one bit. The lie is out, and the resident parrots will parrot it ad nauseum. As always.

And accusing me of lying, now that's just projection.


 o
RE: Revisiting the Benghazi Tragedy

And what exactly does it say that more democrats voted to cut funding. Did they want someone to die, more that republicans did? I'm trying to get the point on this.


 o
RE: Revisiting the Benghazi Tragedy

Why should we answer your question? You've never answered by question about Romney using his meeting with the ex-Seal for political gain. Until the man's mother asked him to stop.

Do you condemn Romney for that?


 o
RE: Revisiting the Benghazi Tragedy

esh, I read what Romney said. There was nothing at all disrespectful in his words. If after the mans mother asked him not to mention her son again, if he continued, I would condemn him for that. Does that answer your question? As if that has anything to do with you liberals constantly pointing out that Ryan voted to cut funding, as if he were the only one, rather than more democrats voting to cut funding than republicans. Or the fact that Ms. Lamb said funding was never the issue.


 o
RE: Revisiting the Benghazi Tragedy

It looks to me that that "point" is nothing but grasping at immaterial straws.

Bricks, bats, lies, misrepresentations, and straws are what is being thrown by Team Obama right now.

They're praying something sticks while I'm praying this nation will not collapse under four more years of Barack Obama.


 o
RE: Revisiting the Benghazi Tragedy

Americans are coming together as the White House and State Department play a desperate game of CYA.

Attempts to mislead the public with one lie after another are blowing up all around this failed president. Hillary now says she NEVER believed a video caused the attacks! Except...we have her on tape, next to the coffins of our dead embassy staff, blaming the video. We all know that taxpayers paid $70,000 for an ad apologizing for the video.

Most of the liberal base will believe anything. Unfortunately for Democrats and this administration, even some of those folks have figured out that in order for Hillary's FIRST comments to be true, the second ones CANNOT be true. The more these people talk, the less credibility they have.

If Libs think Obama's first debate with Romney ended badly, wait until he has to stand on his own two feet and talk his way out of (1) Benghazi happening on his watch, (2) the lies he, Jay Carney, Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice all told about Benghazi being "spontaneous" and not a terrorist attack and (3) his going out partying in Las Vegas while our embassy smoldered and four Americans lay dead.

With an MSM that won't hold Obama accountable, I look to Mitt Romney to step up and do it for them. Middle America is going to love it. VP Chucklehead threw the intelligence community under the bus. That he and Obama "didn't know" Benghazi personnel needed more security makes perfect sense. Obama missed half of his intelligence briefings!

Can't wait for Romney or the audience to bring that up.

Romney said it himself. Americans are not stupid.


 o
RE: Revisiting the Benghazi Tragedy

Yep. Clearly projection.


 o
RE: Revisiting the Benghazi Tragedy

VP Chucklhead, LOL, that makes me laugh outloud because it so fits him. This morning I heard a psychiatrist on one of the morning shows say he thought Joe also suffered from a little demensia, along with his tactical maneuvering to take the focus off of what Ryan was saying and put it on him. He thinks he's slick but his boss won't be able to come out looking like President Chucklehead and he's going to fall flat on his face when trying to defend his record.

I think Hillary and Obama share in the cover up and both heads should roll. I do think they will both put it on each other to save their own butt.

Liberals declare "people don't care about foreign policy." News flash, oh yes they do. Since the original 9/11 people have been paying attention. If the administration didn't protect Ambassador Stevens, we sure don't think he'll protect us. Stevens was doing work for this government and this is how he was repaid. If I was his family, I'd be screaming for answers.

Lying to cover the original lies only made it worse for Obama and pals. Can't wait to see what he says on Tuesday. What other excuse can they possibly come up with?


 o
RE: Revisiting the Benghazi Tragedy

This morning I heard a psychiatrist on one of the morning shows say he thought Joe also suffered from a little demensia, along with his tactical maneuvering to take the focus off of what Ryan was saying and put it on him.

What carp. GGM get this straight. No one can diagnose someone with dementia without a FULL neurological exam. Anyone that does is a quack.

Several weeks ago several sites on the internet were speculating that Romney may have early onset Dementia based on his lies, gaffes, demeanor and his gait. Yet no one bothered to post that carp and then here you are today with this. How disgusting. How low will you go?

This "psychiatrist" is as credible as those who are claiming that Romney has dementia. It is on the internet or "they" said it so it must be true. Right?

Should we also be concerned about Ryan since he has history of heart trouble in his family? Both is father and grandfather died very young.


 o
RE: Revisiting the Benghazi Tragedy

Actually, unless it was a different psychiatrist, he didn't say that Jokin Joe had dementia, but what epi said. After watching him that perhaps he should have a full neurological exam to rule out dementia.


 o
RE: Revisiting the Benghazi Tragedy

Now the Ambassador's father has asked to stop politicizing the incident:

The father of Christopher Stephens, the United States ambassador who was killed in the attack in Libya last month, said Saturday that it would be "abhorrent" for his son's death to be politicized in the presidential campaign.

In an interview with Bloomberg News, Jan Stevens said the attack on Benghazi and the ensuing investigation has no place in the upcoming election.

"The security matters are being adequately investigated," Stevens, who is getting briefings from the State Department on the investigation, said. "We don't pretend to be experts in security. It has to be objectively examined. That's where it belongs. It does not belong in the campaign arena."

Since the September 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Mitt Romney has been critical of President Obama's response to the tragedy, slamming the president for lapses in security at the American compound.


 o
RE: Revisiting the Benghazi Tragedy

he father of Christopher Stephens, the United States ambassador who was killed in the attack in Libya last month, said Saturday that it would be "abhorrent" for his son's death to be politicized in the presidential campaign

Those who exploit the death of Ambassador Stephens have no shame.


 o
RE: Revisiting the Benghazi Tragedy

Those who exploit the death of Ambassador Stephens have no shame.

Mitt Romney.


 o
RE: Revisiting the Benghazi Tragedy

Those who exploit the death of Ambassador Stephens have no shame.

Nor do those that imply that someone has dementia when there is no indication that they do.

If we are requiring tests perhaps Mitt should take a lie detector test?


 o
RE: Revisiting the Benghazi Tragedy

There should be an app linked to this board that every time someone posting a falsehood, everyone's screen will turn yellow. With further contributions from repeat offenders, the screens will turn red. Further contributions from repeat offenders will become illegible as the Red darkens.


 o
RE: Revisiting the Benghazi Tragedy

"Since the September 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Mitt Romney has been critical of President Obama's response to the tragedy, slamming the president for lapses in security at the American compound."

Thank heavens somebody knows how to lead. Mitt Romney is left to do what the MSM will not, demand Obama give us an explanation.

It's clear that information about how four Americans became murder victims in Libya was not, and is not something Obama intends to discuss if he can avoid it.

One month out, and we're still being told he had NO IDEA people he was supposed to protect were begging for security. Give me a break!

What kind of "leader" responds to the news that his dead ambassador and staff had been begging for protection for months, by heading to a Las Vegas fundraiser???

I would expect any decent human being to be furious at being left out of the loop, and determined to find out who failed to tell him of the dangerous conditions Americans were left to die in. I would expect a competent president to call anyone and everyone in Washington with responsibility for embassy security to the White House IMMEDIATELY, and to tell them to start talking. I can't imagine what kind of person would put his own fundraising above all else, and not see anything wrong with it.


 o
RE: Revisiting the Benghazi Tragedy

Wow! How to take the (selective) mean low road of criticism for not rushing to protect one of thousands of endangered legations, this one in a supposedly "friendly" country. Such outrage too.


 o
RE: Revisiting the Benghazi Tragedy

Back to the OP:

"Apparently Mr. Ryan wasn't nearly as concerned at the "slaughter of Americans" as some of the posters on this forum, other than to make political hay from it, as did Mr. Romney immediately after this sad incident occurred."

Here's the U.S. embassy's first statement post-attack:

"The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims � as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others."

Here's Romney's response to that (above) statement:

"I'm outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It's disgraceful that the Obama Administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks."

Fair enough. It's an over-reaction to be outraged by Romney's statement (above).


 o
RE: Revisiting the Benghazi Tragedy

It was wrong of Romney to be critical of the existing Administration before facts came to light. As was said earlier, we all pulled together on 9/11/2001 and Democrats did not immediately criticize Bush.

It would have been much more statesman like to wait and let the Administration do what they needed to do.


 o
RE: Revisiting the Benghazi Tragedy

In all fairness, Mrs, at that time we didn't yet know it was a lie. I agree with Esh that it would have been prudent to wait--but he didn't. So chalk that statement up as a negative in the "statesman-like" column.

On the other hand, it seems to me that Romney was incensed that the administration was once again excusing bad behavior on the part of bad guys (from my point of view, these murderers are the bad guys).


 o
RE: Revisiting the Benghazi Tragedy

LOL calm down, I was only kidding about Joe and the demensia. Joe is as sly as a fox and I don't see any signs of dementia at all.

The Benghazi massacre was captured on camera in real time so there was no reason for anyone to come out and say it was a demonstration brought on by a video. Obama knew exactly what it was, a terrorist attack and he tried to cover it up so no one would realize the world is not as safe as he proclaims. Then to insult us more he and Hillary do a PSA to release to the country apologizing for a video, then Obama goes to the UN and lies there too. OMG, what asses we must look like to the world.

You talk about George Bush, I think Obama and Hillary just leveled that playing field..


 o
RE: Revisiting the Benghazi Tragedy

Then to insult us more he and Hillary do a PSA to release to the country apologizing for a video, then Obama goes to the UN and lies there too. OMG, what asses we must look like to the world.

You should not worry your pretty head about the UN and the world thinking we look stupid. (I will not use the word you used), Bush jr took good care of that when the UN said they would not sanction our faulty WMD and we sent 3,000 of our young men and women to their death.

How many wingnuts have posted daily about that faulty intelligence that Bush ran with


 o
RE: Revisiting the Benghazi Tragedy

he and Hillary do a PSA to release to the country apologizing for a video

Where? Do you have a link for that? Talk about lying.


 o
RE: Revisiting the Benghazi Tragedy

Horse nuggets. Bush's enablers are likely war criminals and whose lying probably caused many hundreds of thousands of casualties and long-lasting destruction of infrastructure and of health of future generations.


 o
RE: Revisiting the Benghazi Tragedy

Has anyone considered that the entire Libya incident was a "Pre Election Surprise" gone awry?

Wag the dog.


 o
RE: Revisiting the Benghazi Tragedy

no, you are confusing events with Republican Wags' wet dreams.

:)


 o
RE: Revisiting the Benghazi Tragedy


Posted by greatgollymolly (My Page) on
Sun, Oct 14, 12 at 21:34

LOL calm down, I was only kidding about Joe and the demensia.

So you, Mrsk and apparently Fox News' Keith Abelow who started this rumor, lied. There are no words to adequetly express how repugnant this is. Even worse since you find this behavior funny.

Like Jan Stepehens it seems that another family member is appalled at Romeny and those that use her son for political purposes.


Last week, the mother of a Navy SEAL killed in the attack made a similar appeal to the Romney campaign, asking the Republican to stop mentioning her son's name on the campaign trail.

"I don't trust Romney. He shouldn't make my son's death part of his political agenda," Barbara Doherty, whose son, Glen was killed in Benghazi, said. "It's wrong to use these brave young men, who wanted freedom for all, to degrade Obama."

Romeny and his supporters continue to show that there is nothing too low and nothing they won't lie about.


 o
RE: Revisiting the Benghazi Tragedy

The Ambassadors father has stated that he finds the politicizing of his sons death abhorrent.

He has asked the politicians to let the truth come out of the congressional hearings and not hash it it on the stump. There is no question that answers must be provided but there is a process to do that and it isn't by using these mens death for political gain.


 o
RE: Revisiting the Benghazi Tragedy

"It was wrong of Romney to be critical of the existing Administration before facts came to light."

Nonsense. We don't blame rape victims for being attacked. We blame the rapist. What Romney spoke against was our own State Department condemning THE VICTIM, which in Benghazi was the United States of America.

Romney said: "It's disgraceful that the Obama Administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks."

Our president and his party first condemned the United States. Then they condemned Romney for speaking up for the victim.

It would be so nice to once again have a president who will stand up for America.


 o
RE: Revisiting the Benghazi Tragedy

There is no question that answers must be provided but there is a process to do that and it isn't by using these mens death for political gain.

Indeed Chase. He exploited the deaths of these Americans to secure votes.

From Bloomberg:

Libyan Ambassador's Death Not a Political Issue, Says Dad

By Margaret Talev - Oct 14, 2012 2:46 PM ET

The father of Christopher Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya who was killed in the attack in Benghazi last month, said his son's death shouldn't be politicized in the presidential campaign.

"It would really be abhorrent to make this into a campaign issue," Jan Stevens, 77, said in a telephone interview from his home in Loomis, California, as he prepares for a memorial service for his son next week.

Mitt Romney, the Republican nominee, has criticized President Barack Obama for not providing adequate security in Libya, saying the administration has left the country exposed to a deadly terrorist attack.

The ambassador's father, a lawyer, said politicians should await the findings of a formal investigation before making accusations or judgments.

"The security matters are being adequately investigated," Stevens said. "We don't pretend to be experts in security. It has to be objectively examined. That's where it belongs. It does not belong in the campaign arena." Stevens said he has been getting briefings from the State Department on the progress of the investigation.

...

Stevens, a registered Democrat, said he isn't politically active. He declined to say how he'll vote in the presidential election.

He said his son, who was a career diplomat and had worked for Republican and Democratic presidents, hadn't expressed concerns to him about security or support from the administration. "He felt very strongly about Secretary Clinton," Stevens said, referring to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. "He felt she was an extremely able person."

Here is a link that might be useful: Jan Stevens Interview


 o
RE: Revisiting the Benghazi Tragedy

You think Mr. Stevens is reading this? What's your point?


 o
RE: Revisiting the Benghazi Tragedy

Kiss off media vamping of the issue in support of political pandering over the issue.


 o
RE: Revisiting the Benghazi Tragedy

Our president and his party first condemned the United States.

Horse hockey.


 o
RE: Revisiting the Benghazi Tragedy

So nik does that mean you aren't voting for the Democratic ticket.


 o
RE: Revisiting the Benghazi Tragedy

Sure she is...Nik's a double agent!


 o
RE: Revisiting the Benghazi Tragedy


Audience member: If you get the call as president, and you had hostages…Ronald Reagan was able to make a statement, even before he became, was actually sworn in--

Romney: Yeah--

Audience member: the hostages were released--

Romney: on the day of his inauguration, yeah.

Audience member: So my question is, really, how can you sort of duplicate that scenario?

Romney: Ohhhh. [A few chuckles in audience.] I'm gonna ask you, how do I duplicate that scenario.

Chuckles?

After berating Obama for moving out of Iraq, Romney ends his answer as follows:

It's really a, but...by the way, if something of that nature presents itself, I will work to find a way to take advantage of the opportunity.

POS. That's what he is.

Here is a link that might be useful: Transcript.


 o
RE: Revisiting the Benghazi Tragedy


Gotta love the silent complicity.

_________________________________________________________________


UPDATE 1

Issa is ousting names of Libyan people, working with/for the US, putting their lives in danger:

House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) compromised the identities of several Libyans working with the U.S. government and placed their lives in danger when he released reams of State Department communications Friday, according to Obama administration officials.

Issa posted 166 pages of sensitive but unclassified State Department communications related to Libya on the committee's website afternoon as part of his effort to investigate security failures and expose contradictions in the administration's statements regarding the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi that resulted in the death of Amb. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.

But Issa didn't bother to retract the names of Libyan civilians and local leaders mentioned in the cables, and just as with the WikiLeaks dump of State Department cables last year, the administration says that Issa has done damage to U.S. efforts to work with those Libyans and exposed them to physical danger from the very groups that had an interest in attacking the U.S. consulate.



 o
RE: Revisiting the Benghazi Tragedy


UPDATE 2

White House told of militant claim two hours after Libya attack: emails, Yahoo and Reuters claim:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.

The emails, obtained by Reuters from government sources not connected with U.S. spy agencies or the State Department and who requested anonymity, specifically mention that the Libyan group called Ansar al-Sharia had asserted responsibility for the attacks.

The brief emails also show how U.S. diplomats described the attack, even as it was still under way, to Washington.

U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the Benghazi assault, which President Barack Obama and other U.S. officials ultimately acknowledged was a "terrorist" attack carried out by militants with suspected links to al Qaeda affiliates or sympathizers.

Administration spokesmen, including White House spokesman Jay Carney, citing an unclassified assessment prepared by the CIA, maintained for days that the attacks likely were a spontaneous protest against an anti-Muslim film.

While officials did mention the possible involvement of "extremists," they did not lay blame on any specific militant groups or possible links to al Qaeda or its affiliates until intelligence officials publicly alleged that on September 28.



Since it's Yahoo that's spreading it, and because of this:


obtained by Reuters from government sources not connected with U.S. spy agencies or the State Department and who requested anonymity


I'll wait for the full story.


 o
RE: Revisiting the Benghazi Tragedy

There should be an app linked to this board that every time someone posting a falsehood, everyone's screen will turn yellow. With further contributions from repeat offenders, the screens will turn red. Further contributions from repeat offenders will become illegible as the Red darkens.

If that were the case, this forum would probably cease to exist....Now you really wouldn't want that would you?


 o Post a Follow-Up

Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum.

    If you are a member, please log in.

    If you aren't yet a member, join now!


Return to the Hot Topics Forum

Information about Posting

  • You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
  • Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
  • After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
  • Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
  • We have a strict no-advertising policy!
  • If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
  • If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.


Learn more about in-text links on this page here