The Glade 4.0

Right, because the limited security we have at many of our embassies and consulates (including Benghazi) has nothing to do with the lack of funds for additional security at our embassies and consulates (including Benghazi).


I don't doubt that Obama signed off on those decisions, but your phrasing suggests it was Obama himself making the call sort of out on his own. The reality is that Secretary of Defense Panetta, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Dempsey and the regional commander, General Ham, all advised waiting until they could get a clearer picture of what was happening.


Obama made decisions that reflected the advice of his military commanders and those decisions may have resulted in American deaths that could have been avoided. They may have been bad decisions, or they may have been appropriate at the time and only wrong in hindsight. Either way, Obama didn't "let" anything happen. Also, everything after the word "because" in your sentence is pure speculation. In the early stages of this thing, it wasn't clear whether the YouTube video played a role. But yes, the Administration did send mixed messages after the attack about how significant the YouTube video was, and I agree it was probably partly for political reasons, but again, post-attack spin is completely and utterly separate from pre- and mid-attack decisions.


Again, you have zero - ZERO - evidence that the President "willingly let" anyone die. Obama made decisions that reflected the advice of his military commanders, and those decisions may or may not have been bad ones. The YouTube video was not an invention or a BS story. It was in fact the motivation for dozens of protests around the Muslim world at the time the attack occurred, and it was not clear during or immediately after the attack whether the video played a role in the Benghazi attack, whether there was a separate protest in addition to the attack, or whatever.

How can you defend Obama based on what officials said when it came to helping those poor souls then turn around and give him a pass about the lie of the youtube video when it was debunked by officials as well? How thinkprogress of you.

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

First of all, I'm not defending his actions in the sense that I believe he made the right calls. In hindsight, it seems likely that there were multiple mistakes made. However, what I am defending against are the claims that Obama's decisions were (a) obviously wrong at the time and (b) politically motivated. Particularly with respect to the latter claim, there is just absolutely zero evidence to support it. And frankly, it takes a particularly paranoid view of politics and/or Obama to believe otherwise in the absence of overwhelming evidence. It's like the looney left claiming Bush "let" 9/11 happen because he wanted to distract the public from his illegitimate election an excuse to invade Iraq whatever. I have no problem believing that politicians will spin/exploit/cover-up attacks on Americans after the fact for political reasons (indeed, they do it all the time); I do have a huge problem believing, in the absence of massive evidence, that they will willingly allow such attacks to occur or proceed for political reasons.

I haven't given him a pass on the YouTube video. I noted upthread that the Administration sent mixed messages about it and probably did so for political reasons. However, the fact is that there were protests throughout the region at the time, and the intelligence community was also unsure about whether there was also a protest in Benghazi that the attacks used as cover. But anyway, yes, I think the Administration probably did try to spin the story away from the terrorism angle for political reasons. I just don't think that's such a mortal sin that it warrants months of Congressional hearings and breathless Fox News reports of a "cover up". And I absolutely don't think it's in any way comparable to willingly letting people die in the attack itself.

The other important point is that the claim that Obama let people die for political reasons doesn't make sense even if we assume he'd be willing to do it. Think about it. Would "US Ambassador Killed by Islamist Mob" really play better politically than "US Ambassador Killed by Islamist Terror Group"? And even if you think it would, do you think it would play so much better that Obama would choose to withhold reinforcements and thus give up on the possible alternative headline "US Special Forces Thwart Attack on Embassy" and instead risk the headline being "US Ambassador Killed by Islamist Mob / Terror Group; Obama Orders Special Forces Not to Help"?

It would play politically "less badly". The lack of military action is more easily justified in the former case because the use of military power on rioters attacking and embassy is, politically, harder to justify than using it on an organized terrorist group with heavy weapons attacking an embassy.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

When you tell the country that the war on terror is over, it makes you look bad when one of our embassy's is attacked by terrorists...especially right before an election.

War on terror over huh?

Fort Hood
Boston
Underwear bomber
Christmas bomber
Benghazi

Am I missing any?

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

RangerDave:

Barack Obama is the ONLY human being in the United States legally capable of issuing both of the stand-down orders required for events to transpire as they did. That's all the evidence in the world I need.

_________________

And yet you still voted for him.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

Ultimately it is his call, sure. But your outrage seems to assume he ignored his advisors and made those decisions in some reckless and arrogant manner, instead of taking in all the available information and frankly making the best judgement he could at the time. In hindsight it was probably a bad call.

But frankly the outrage folks have here and in the GOP around Benghazi rings hollow and of partisanship. Especially when all it seems that it would have taken for this to be a non-event (like the multiple other deaths at other embassy's) is if the administration had just come out at the start and said, "OMG the terrorists are coming, the terrorists are coming!"

The President can not take credit for the "bold" decicion to kill Binladen, while avoiding responsibility for the decicions that left 4 Americans dead.

_________________
"Life isn't divided into genres. It's a horrifying, romantic, tragic, comical, science-fiction cowboy detective novel. You know, with a bit of pornography if you're lucky."
— Alan Moore

The diplomatic mission at Benghazi was attacked in their compound.

That's an attack on US soil. The folks "ready, willing and able" were prepared to assist and were told to abandon US citizens in need.

You really have no idea of the depth of the outrage if you think it's ringing hollow.

What I don't understand is how folks can NOT be outraged.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

The whole treason argument is just an extension of the birth certificate argument. Kross is just getting more mileage with it after he had to abandon the birther conspiracy theories. Just more arguments that this president isn't "one of us"

omgzors.

If I remember Khross objection to the birth certificate argument was not that he was or is born in another country. But the POTUS's legal argument of "citizens have no legal standing to question it."

_________________
"Life isn't divided into genres. It's a horrifying, romantic, tragic, comical, science-fiction cowboy detective novel. You know, with a bit of pornography if you're lucky."
— Alan Moore

This. Your wrong theriov.

Exactly! It would have been. but they LIED about it for political expediency. In similarity to the Watergate incident, It's not the break-in It's the cover up.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

An order to stand down to the defense of Americans was given by someone.

How anyone can not want to identify that someone and get them to answer questions is beyond me. Anyone defending the hampering of the investigation is being partisan.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

I'm not finding any proof of a stand down order. According to this article, the latest report shows that Stevens was talking to the main Embassy in Tripoli at 9:50pm prior to the phone lines being cut and stating they were under attack, and that Tripoli immediately scrambled to send a security team.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... k_anchor_2

Of course, just as the crimson jackasses lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, how many lives did that cost us?

There are no good guys in high elected office. Not at this point in time.

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

You guys don't think the fact that Libya just went through a coup and actually ended up with a government relatively friendly to the US had nothing to do with this decision? Maybe Obama didn't want to send troops in there to slaughter hundreds of Libyans, given that.

I actually have no idea why Obama made the decision that he did. Maybe he did sacrifice them for political gain, who the hell knows? I sure don't think Obama is "above" this, but to prove is you have to have read his mind, there's no clear evidence that this was his motivation.

Unfortunately for you, I didn't make a single post about the Eligibility Question until Obama's lawyers argued that U.S. Citizens has no standing to vet their elected officials. Then I got immensely interested and watched Barack Obama's lawyers give the Democratic Party and the Republican Party more control over our elections than I thought possible. Since you didn't follow the issue, here's the legal outcome:

Only the nominating party has legal authority to challenge a candidate's standing; only the nominating party can vet that candidate's standing; and if the nominating party says that candidate is eligible, neither the Federal Government in general; the Senate, House, and DOJ specifically; nor other approved candidates in the election can challenge their eligibility.

Or, in case you need small words, the current legal position is -- He's legal because the Democratic Party said so.

I have no end of issues with the legal outcome.

Why don't you keep trying to paint me as a Republican moonbat, as it seems to be serving you so well.

I am vociferously opposed to the current state of American governance. I spent all 8 years of Bush's Presidency calling the man an idiot and a fool. I spent 8 years opposing his entire economic policy, most of his military policy, and outraged at his response to 9/11. You seem to have forgotten that.

Rorinthas:

I did vote for Barack Obama, because I would have otherwise felt guilty having this much fun watching a feel-good candidate destroy this country.

_________________

The actions and cover-up increase traction for Syria's and Egypt's claims that Stevens's predecessor was dealing arms out of the Embassy. I have no idea if the claims are true or not, but our White House's response indicates something was fishy.

_________________

No, actually I'm convinced you reject nearly all forms of authority and are basically a libertarian/anarchist moonbat.

Speaking of lack of standing, who's up for a Bono/Sting Democratic ticket for 2016?

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

Or maybe some of us just think the simple explanation - insufficient security in place followed by a few hours of hesitation and confusion while the DoD, State, CIA and White House tried to get a clearer picture on what exactly was happening - is more plausible than the nutjob theory that Obama and Clinton are such amoral psychopaths (not to mention tone-deaf politicians) that they decided to let their own State Department people get killed because they thought it would be less politically damaging than sending reinforcements and thereby suggesting the attack was terrorism.