billw55 Posted October 26, 2012 Report Share Posted October 26, 2012 I admit I don't understand this debate very well. There seem to be three basic possibilities: 1. attack was organized and preplanned all along. Video is coincidence.2. attack was entirely spontaneous reaction to video.3. attack was quickly improvised by terrorist group/individuals, using the video and public response as an opportunity/excuse. I don't really know which is true. Maybe the administration did know, maybe not, maybe not at first but later did know. But I don't see how this really matters. For me the most interesting point is that additional security was requested, and denied. This point does not seem to be in doubt, neither side is denying it that I know of. Assuming this is true, then whoever made this decision seems to have made a bad one. Why the other issue (who knew what when) is getting so much more attention frankly baffles me. As an aside, about the video. From the point of view of the residents in that area of world, is it really true that, on the other side of the world, some idiot with a video recorder and an internet connection makes a childishly crude video to insult you, and your response is to erupt in widespread protests and violence? Is your society really so easily trolled? Or is this a case of incitement by a relatively few leaders (political, religious, media, or otherwise) who wanted the protests and violence for their own reasons? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PassedOut Posted October 26, 2012 Report Share Posted October 26, 2012 Yes, this event was identified as an act of terror from the start, and what caused it is of (much) less importance than why the security was insufficient to handle it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zelandakh Posted October 26, 2012 Report Share Posted October 26, 2012 This topic reminds me of a bridge problem. You are playing 7NT holding♠AKQJ♥AKQJ♦AK♣AJ2 opposite a dummy of ♠5432♥432♦432♣KT3 Which way do you make the finessing act and does it make a difference if you call it an act of finessing? Or is there a third alternative? If you are wrong then everyone on these forums and in your bridge club will ridicule you about this every time they meet you for the next 4 years. It will naturally be 100% obvious to everyone where the queen is. And yes, I could give a better example but honestly, what is the point? This entire topic is silly and smacks of desperation in Republican circles to create a mountain out of a molehill. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted October 26, 2012 Report Share Posted October 26, 2012 To me, the question is not so much about the administration's handling of telling us what they knew during and after the attack. I'm much more interested in why the administration didn't anticipate the possibility, didn't give more weight to the Ambassador's previously expressed concerns about security, and why there seems to have been a policy decision made to rely almost entirely on the host nation for security of our embassies and embassy personnel. Frankly that bothers me a lot more than "how much did Obama (or Rice, or whoever) know while the attack was going down?" I would add that if we are going to rely on the host nation in that way, then our policy should include "if you cannot protect our embassy, we will withdraw it". 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted October 26, 2012 Report Share Posted October 26, 2012 while egypt *may* have been caused in part by the video, libya most definitely was not... most of the muslim world did not even know of the video until the u.s. started apologizing for it Because, of course, the Muslims don't have their own radio shows, television broadcasts, etcAnd no one would ever cover the widespread rioting in Egypt... no siree bob You are completely detached from reality Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billw55 Posted October 26, 2012 Report Share Posted October 26, 2012 This entire topic is silly and smacks of desperation in Republican circles to create a mountain out of a molehill.I agree. The weird thing is that they have a much larger molehill available, i.e. the denial of additional security prior to the attack. Why aren't they targeting that instead? Is there a reason I am overlooking, or are they just dumb, or .. .? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zelandakh Posted October 26, 2012 Report Share Posted October 26, 2012 To me, the question is not so much about the administration's handling of telling us what they knew during and after the attack. I'm much more interested inThere is a very good reason why this is not the primary question, namely that House Republicans voted for an embassy security funding package that was $459m less than the Obama administration had requested. Keeping the focus on the actions of the administration avoids any awkward questions or accusations of hypocrisy. Remember, this is a presidential campaign. It is not about finding the truth, it is about pinning the (short-term) blame on Obama. This sits very well with the image Republicans like to paint about his being weak against the threat from extremists. I would like to think voters are sensible enough to see through such a transparent facade but, sadly, history is not on my side in this regard. As Ken points out, emotions are far more important than facts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billw55 Posted October 26, 2012 Report Share Posted October 26, 2012 There is a very good reason why this is not the primary question, namely that House Republicans voted for an embassy security funding package that was $459m less than the Obama administration had requested. Keeping the focus on the actions of the administration avoids any awkward questions or accusations of hypocrisy. Remember, this is a presidential campaign. It is not about finding the truth, it is about pinning the (short-term) blame on Obama. This sits very well with the image Republicans like to paint about his being weak against the threat from extremists. I would like to think voters are sensible enough to see through such a transparent facade but, sadly, history is not on my side in this regard. As Ken points out, emotions are far more important than facts.Aha, thanks Zel, I figured there had to be a reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flem72 Posted October 26, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 26, 2012 There is a very good reason why this is not the primary question, namely that House Republicans voted for an embassy security funding package that was $459m less than the Obama administration had requested. So is it your position that a Repub administration, operating under a reduced budget (whixh may or may not mean anything about security at embasies that are maintained), would nevertheless fail to use part of that budget to strengthen an embassy desperately requesting help? Of course, at least as I read the numbers, the total requested 2013 budget for embassy and consulate security is over $3B -- you can do the math. And, of course, State is currently sitting on $2.2B that could be used for this purpose -- so maybe the reduction makes sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flem72 Posted October 26, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 26, 2012 This entire topic is silly and smacks of desperation in Republican circles to create a mountain out of a molehill. This seems to be a one-level relay :D to play, NYT/Mommy Jones style. This entire topic is open to any optional explanation anyone would care to post. So far, the 3rd option concensus seems to be "we were just confused, darn it." Query: Is this level of confusion a competence issue? If there are no questions, why schedule hearings at all? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flem72 Posted October 26, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 26, 2012 Missing from this dialogue: The true state of affairs in Libya for the last several months -- especially Eastern Libya, which was known by apparently everyone in the world except the American public to be under the control of Islamicist militias. My understanding is that other nations had concluded that aggressive Islamicist attacks - - that is, organized, armed opposition to the leadership we had put in place - - were imminent; we were the last foreign embassy in Libya for that reason. There's that tight wire again.... [i'm trying to use as many ;;;; and ..... as possible, but, really, I prefer the - - -s.] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted October 26, 2012 Report Share Posted October 26, 2012 Missing from this dialogue: The true state of affairs in Libya for the last several months -- especially Eastern Libya, which was known by apparently everyone in the world except the American public to be under the control of Islamicist militias. My understanding is that other nations had concluded that aggressive Islamicist attacks - - that is, organized, armed opposition to the leadership we had put in place - - were imminent; we were the last foreign embassy in Libya for that reason. There's that tight wire again.... Not much that can be done about the poor education of the American public. Can you believe that some people are so ill informed that they don't understand the difference between and embassy and a consulate? They make completely asinine statements like "We were the last foreign embassy in Libya" when they meant to say "The British Foreign Office withdrew all consular staff from Benghazi in late June." Some people are stupid enough to make multiple posts complaining about the poor state of intelligence while making multiple, glaringly obvious, misstatements of their own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted October 26, 2012 Report Share Posted October 26, 2012 If there are no questions, why schedule hearings at all? "Darrell Issa is an asshole" would seem to be the obvious explanation... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flem72 Posted October 26, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 26, 2012 "Darrell Issa is an asshole" would seem to be the obvious explanation... U-m-m-mm, maybe, don't know the man, but do know that the Sen. Intel. Comm. is dominated by Dems and chaired by the lovely Ms. Feinstein....;;;;- - - Oh, and State will hold internal hearings.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flem72 Posted October 26, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 26, 2012 Not much that can be done about the poor education of the American public. Can you believe that some people are so ill informed that they don't understand the difference between and embassy and a consulate? They make completely asinine statements like "We were the last foreign embassy in Libya" when they meant to say "The British Foreign Office withdrew all consular staff from Benghazi in late June." Some people are stupid enough to make multiple posts complaining about the poor state of intelligence while making multiple, glaringly obvious, misstatements of their own. So I appear to have made a misstatement of fact, and my understanding was therefore in error. Thank you for the correction. Don't think that changes anything about Eastern Libya... As for the rest: plonk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted October 26, 2012 Report Share Posted October 26, 2012 Because, of course, the Muslims don't have their own radio shows, television broadcasts, etcAnd no one would ever cover the widespread rioting in Egypt... no siree bob You are completely detached from realitythe video had been out for months prior to cairo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted October 26, 2012 Report Share Posted October 26, 2012 the video had been out for months prior to cairo Yes, and it had very little effect until the producers decided to redub it into Arabic and re-release it at which point it went viral. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted October 26, 2012 Report Share Posted October 26, 2012 more news of the refusal of help from Fox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PassedOut Posted October 26, 2012 Report Share Posted October 26, 2012 more news of the refusal of help from FoxFox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that an urgent request from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. consulate and subsequent attack several hours later on the annex itself was denied by the CIA chain of command -- who also told the CIA operators twice to "stand down" rather than help the ambassador's team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11.Who was that guy that Obama selected to head the CIA? He's got some explaining to do for sure! Obama should have listened to the republican warnings about that guy for sure... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted October 26, 2012 Report Share Posted October 26, 2012 Who was that guy that Obama selected to head the CIA? He's got some explaining to do for sure! Obama should have listened to the republican warnings about that guy for sure...everybody is subject to the pressures brought to bear by politicians, even generals... i know i am, almost daily Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrexford Posted October 26, 2012 Report Share Posted October 26, 2012 Bay of Pigs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PassedOut Posted October 27, 2012 Report Share Posted October 27, 2012 everybody is subject to the pressures brought to bear by politicians, even generals...If you are suggesting that the CIA stood down to protect a key informant among the attackers, I doubt that we'll learn about that for quite some time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted October 28, 2012 Report Share Posted October 28, 2012 If you are suggesting that the CIA stood down to protect a key informant among the attackers, I doubt that we'll learn about that for quite some time.i'm actually not convinced the stand down order came from cia... i think it came from either panetta or clinton (defense or state)... but it did come from someone, and whoever that is has a lot to answer for Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PassedOut Posted October 28, 2012 Report Share Posted October 28, 2012 i'm actually not convinced the stand down order came from cia... i think it came from either panetta or clinton (defense or state)... but it did come from someone, and whoever that is has a lot to answer forThe Fox news article you referenced said that the order came from the CIA, and it was the CIA standing down. If that part of the article is wrong, is any of it right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted October 28, 2012 Report Share Posted October 28, 2012 The Fox news article you referenced said that the order came from the CIA, and it was the CIA standing down. If that part of the article is wrong, is any of it right?it was the cia ops on the ground who rcv'd the order to stand down... i simply said i'm not sure from where the order came, just that they rcv'd the order... probably state or defense, but maybe cia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.