If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Sec. State Clinton falls on Obama's sword over the Benghazi consulate attack   (cnn.com) divider line 23
    More: Obvious, Benghazi, diplomats, Hillary Rodham Clinton  
•       •       •

1926 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Oct 2012 at 4:56 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-10-16 12:08:40 AM
9 votes:
FTFA: Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire. However, they added, "The security of Americans serving our nation everywhere in the world is ultimately the job of the commander-in-chief. The buck stops there."

Except for the SEVEN attacks under Bush II

And the THREE under Carter

And the THREE under Reagan

And the ONE each under Clinton and Bush I

shiat, Reagan lost 241 Americans with 60 injured in a single attack in Beirut in in 1983. And then he cut and ran. Nevertheless, Lindsay Graham is still sucking the Gipper's ghostly dick. Wringing your hands over less than 10 people? Bullshiat, Graham.
2012-10-15 11:58:06 PM
6 votes:
Reminding everyone that her office is, in reality, responsible for these things, not the WH != falling on any sword.

Perhaps this situation could have been avoided if State Dept. internal comm. was better, such that their requests for long term help were properly routed. Then again, even if they were, they likely wouldn't have had money to cover it, since Rep. Issa - the same guy running an "investigation" into all of this - voted multiple times to cut their security budget by more than 25%.
2012-10-16 12:10:45 AM
3 votes:

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Perhaps this situation could have been avoided if State Dept. internal comm. was better, such that their requests for long term help were properly routed.


It also might have helped if the Benghazi post had actually requisitioned for more security. The recent hearings have made it clear that all the requests from Libya were for Tripoli, on the other side of the country,
2012-10-16 12:00:19 AM
3 votes:

Babwa Wawa: TFA: Clinton: I'm responsible for diplomats' security

Well, subby, it is true. As is the fact that the President is responsible for the State Dept. And if there are issues with the security at the Benghazi Consulate, the President will be held responsible.

/Chain of Command. How does it work?


Hate to break it to you, but the POTUS is never fully informed on every little detail from State.

/Org charts and dispersion of job duties - how do they work?
2012-10-15 11:55:57 PM
3 votes:
TFA: Clinton: I'm responsible for diplomats' security

Well, subby, it is true. As is the fact that the President is responsible for the State Dept. And if there are issues with the security at the Benghazi Consulate, the President will be held responsible.

/Chain of Command. How does it work?
2012-10-16 09:35:47 AM
2 votes:

Tyee: CPennypacker: Seriously, please tell me, in your warped worldview, what possible reason they could have had for making up a story like this?

That is a very good question, but it is obvious that they did, think about it and speculate why they did it.

Possible answers include but are not limited to.
a. Obama now has a recent terrorist attack on American soil (an embassy) and he would have liked us all to believe he has Al Queda so decimated they are now ineffective. But now just weeks before the election...
that hurts.
b. Obama's foreign, mideast policy is now proven to be a weak, a failure and ineffective as because we have been attacked rather than a minor protest just got out of hand. Exposed to have a naive, weak, ineffective foreign policy weeks before an election could lead to a lose.
c. The timing of this attack was key to the cover up. Had this happened any other time than just before the national election you probably could have expected truth out of the white house, but they screwed this lie up and it will blow up now, just what they were trying to avoid.


Nonsense.

1. AQ is decimated. They used to pull off attacks that killed hundreds and thousands. This terror cell, which is more like a local gang than a terror group and is not the same as the Bin Laden A.Q., only killed 4, after careful planning and with over 50 people involved. That's shows how weak they really are. Hell, the L.A. drug gangs are more dangerous than that.

2. Libya is so afraid of Obama's pimp hand that they allowed us to park two ships off their coast, fly drones in their airspace, and have arrested over 50 people involved, and abjectly apologized for THEIR failure to protect the consulate as the host country. And Egypt has done nearly the same, after Obama's "Well, maybe you are a friend, and maybe not."

3. Timing is nothing. The real reason we don't know everything is because Libya asked us to. As I already stated, the Libyans wanted us to hide the fact that they were on the hunt for the terror cell involved, and broadcasting that we knew there was a terror cell involved would have made it more difficult for the Libyans to hunt them down. The cover story was to throw the terrorists off, make them think we were only looking for a couple of rowdy protestors. And it worked. Libya has already arrested 50+ terrorists involved in the attack. Stop second-guessing when tactics work.

I'm beginning to think you want the terrorists to win. For fark's sake, you and the Republicans are treating this piss-poor terror attack, this weak, ineffective, minor attack as if it is some huge terror win! You and the Republicans are telling the terrorists that, instead of trying to scare us by having to pull off huge mass casualty attacks, all the terrorist have to do is murder a couple of Americans and we will piss ourselves, pull down our government, and treat them like terror masterminds! You're giving as much play to an attack that killed 4 as an attack that killed 3000! Knock it off, you are doing exactly what the terrorists want.
2012-10-16 08:48:24 AM
2 votes:
Democrats are such spineless dumbasses, this issue is all manufactured outrage from fox news and the derper legion. Instead of calling them out for politicizing and cheering for the deaths of Americans and shaming them democrats play into it like the wimps they are and legitimize it as something people should be concerned about.
2012-10-16 08:36:03 AM
2 votes:

Whodat: yep, nothing is ever Obama's responsibility.


shiat happens. Dems take responsibility and work to fix any problems.

shiat happens. GOP deny any problem or responsibility.

The "nothing is ever Obama's fault" argument is never made by anyone on the left it is a projection by the right to try to cover up for their patently ridiculous "everything Obama does is wrong" narrative.

Does that help?
2012-10-16 08:07:30 AM
2 votes:
Meanwhile, in an alternate universe...

i.imgur.com
2012-10-16 06:55:07 AM
2 votes:
It's nearly impossible to fortify an area in a foreign country, and expect to have adequate on going intelligence in so many locations. If locals are determined to uproot you they will find a way. That being we should do what we can with security, but this attack has been over politicized due to the election in my view.
2012-10-16 06:43:03 AM
2 votes:

MeinRS6: Obama certainly knew very quickly that the entire incident in Libya was the result of a spontaneous protest to a vid on youtube, so he was briefed.

And the assholes kept on lying about that for over 2 weeks.


From Obama's speech on 9/12:

"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done."

Yeah, he was really running away from classifying the attack as a terror attack.

September 18th:

"Here's what happened," Obama told David Letterman. "We had a video that was released by somebody who lives here, sort of a shadowy character - an extremely offensive video directed at Mohammed and Islam, making fun of the prophet Mohammed. And so, this caused great offense in much of the Muslim world. But what also happened was extremists and terrorists used this as an excuse to attack a variety of our embassies, including the one, the consulate in Libya"

Extremists and terrorists used it as "an excuse," not as a direct cause.

Rice characterized the attack at Benghazi soon after it happened as appearing to be a demonstration followed by an attack. As Glenn Beck's The Blaze quotes her (under, of course, an extremely misleading headline but one that was typical of all media sources, including ABC):

"We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to - or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo," Rice said. "And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons... And it then evolved from there."

They were also kind enough to include her Meet the Press interview in which she prefaces the above with statements that the FBI is investigating and that her comments are not in any way intended to be the final word.

Get it? The administration, from the beginning, had been acknowledging that there were protests throughout the region at the time and have made efforts to stem some of the anger by pointing out that the video was not endorsed by American officials. They have ALSO said that we value free speech and that's why a video like that can exist without US government endorsement. That's for the region as a whole because they're killing EACH OTHER over this. In addition, they have been saying that the attackers at the consulate were NOT part of the protests and, at best, used the protests as an excuse and, it initially appeared, as cover and confusion for the actual attack.

But that's too much for a soundbite, I guess. Better to just run with the "Obama said Christopher Stevens died and youtube killed him" narrative.
2012-10-16 05:34:36 AM
2 votes:

CreamFilling: So I'm assuming shell be removed/relieved/replaced, right?


I'm not going to defend Mrs. Clinton... if it turns out she was negligent in her duties she should be held responsible. It's just funny to see those who cheered the invasion of Iraq clamoring for someone to be held responsible for a foreign policy screw up. Meanwhile Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell, and Rumsfeld are still free citizens. How come your "hold people responsible for their actions" policy - which I support, by the way - doesn't apply to Republicans?
2012-10-16 05:10:16 AM
2 votes:
Taking responsibility != Falling on a sword.

I refuse to let the RW media make this into something it's not.

I can certainly understand why some are having problems with the concept. 

Anyone who supported Bush after 9/11 who thinks Hills should resign or whatever over this should prolly just punch themselves in the face until they achieve a state of bloody unconsciousness.
2012-10-16 12:54:02 AM
2 votes:

gilgigamesh: quickdraw: Only if you pay attention to the networks who need to make this seem like a close race so they can sell ad space.

No, this was a genuine farkup. Probably not the attack itself, but the aftermath has been grossly mishandled. The administration got it stuck in their heads that they couldn't afford the political fallout of a terrorist attack on 9-11 in an election year, and so they tried to pass off the bizarre fiction of a protest that went south. There was no way they could keep that lie alive, and they should have known it.

If they had just owned up that this was a terrorist attack we probably wouldn't still be talking about this. Its the age old adage that what kills you isn't the initial offense, its the cover-up.


Hunh - I'm just really not seeing this as a major issue. I don't know a single person who thinks this is a problem. I know plenty of people who are unhappy with Obama but everyone seems to agree that tragedies happen sometimes and that blame in this case rests squarely on the people who perpetrated the violence and no one else.

I suppose people who already weren't planning to vote for Obama can add this to their list of grievances but its hard to take those people seriously since they also spend a lot of time ranting about birth certificates and secret muslims.
2012-10-16 12:47:11 AM
2 votes:

cman: quickdraw: Babwa Wawa: /Chain of Command. How does it work?

So... you think that the POTUS is omniscient and omnipresent? Because I just don't think Obama has those kinds of supernatural powers.

I dunno the whole thing seems pretty grasping. Like claiming that it was Bush's fault Cheney shot somebody in the face.

Let me put it in a different light.

In May 2011, Obama approved of a mission to kill Bin Laden. He signed the order authorizing troops to enter a country we were not at war with to take out a high value target. If Obama failed this could have been a SIGNIFICANT blow to his administration. He would have had to take all the flak for its failure. Since it was a success he can take it and put it in his win column. He didnt plan the raid. He didnt conduct the raid. All he did was approve the raid. For that he deserves credit.

Someone didn't do their job and an American diplomat was killed. Obama is the President of the United States. He is our figurehead. He is also responsible for ensuring the cabinet members can do their damn job. Obama shares both the glory and the defeat in instances like this.


Well that seems like a very simplistic way of looking at it. Obama cant be all things to all people and he cant be everywhere at once. He did need to oversee the assassination of bin laden directly. And lets face it - it all could have gone wrong and then he would have had to take responsibility for that.

But you cant expect POTUS to personally attend to every detail. Micromanaging is not an effective strategy. And there is only so much he can do. If the GOPpers in Congress refuse to cut loose of the funds to increase security then POTUS can't just override that. You can't blame POTUS for budgetary decisions that congress made unless they voted they way he wanted them to.
2012-10-16 11:12:45 AM
1 votes:
Alot of Fark Cons are confused. A government official accepting responsibility?

Gone are the days of Rumsfeld and Alberto "I do not recall" Gonzales.
2012-10-16 09:57:26 AM
1 votes:

Headso: just a little over a year ago republicans were cheering for Quaddafi and his army against ours and allied forces....


i48.tinypic.com
2012-10-16 06:51:49 AM
1 votes:
I'm glad the standards are increasing.

First bush lost 3000+ people on 9/11, and then he was quickly fired.

Now you can fire Obama for losing 4

The next president will be fired if anyone dies in America.

Soon no one will ever die, and I think we can all agree that's pretty sweet.
2012-10-16 06:18:06 AM
1 votes:

Old enough to know better: Somacandra: FTFA: Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire. However, they added, "The security of Americans serving our nation everywhere in the world is ultimately the job of the commander-in-chief. The buck stops there."

Except for the SEVEN attacks under Bush II

And the THREE under Carter

And the THREE under Reagan

And the ONE each under Clinton and Bush I

shiat, Reagan lost 241 Americans with 60 injured in a single attack in Beirut in in 1983. And then he cut and ran. Nevertheless, Lindsay Graham is still sucking the Gipper's ghostly dick. Wringing your hands over less than 10 people? Bullshiat, Graham.

Bears repeating. I guess when it happens then its a tragic mistake (especially a Republican president). When it happens to Obama? Hang the bastard.


The fact that the GOP don't actually give a flying fark about the death of Ambassador Stevens or any of the others was made manifest in one smirky "Nailed it" moment with Romney.

Their concern on display here is duly noted.
2012-10-16 12:45:47 AM
1 votes:

quickdraw: Only if you pay attention to the networks who need to make this seem like a close race so they can sell ad space.


No, this was a genuine farkup. Probably not the attack itself, but the aftermath has been grossly mishandled. The administration got it stuck in their heads that they couldn't afford the political fallout of a terrorist attack on 9-11 in an election year, and so they tried to pass off the bizarre fiction of a protest that went south. There was no way they could keep that lie alive, and they should have known it.

If they had just owned up that this was a terrorist attack we probably wouldn't still be talking about this. Its the age old adage that what kills you isn't the initial offense, its the cover-up.
2012-10-16 12:26:50 AM
1 votes:

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Even in serious situations, the COs are often the last to get punished. If that wasn't the case, dozens of COs would be out of a job, with so many rapes occurring under their watches. In this case though, it's hard to blame the captain for much when the first mate was receiving incorrect orders from the navigational officers, and the provisioning people kept cutting back the resources available to the nav officer.


You have to admit this is clearly an attempt to deflect responsibility from Obama in a hotly contested election. Whether or not he had any knowledge of the security situation in Benghazi -- and I personally doubt he did -- he is getting hammered on this issue at a time when his presidency is hanging by a thread.

It is the very definition of falling on your sword.
2012-10-16 12:22:24 AM
1 votes:

cman: Grand_Moff_Joseph: cman: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Babwa Wawa: TFA: Clinton: I'm responsible for diplomats' security

Well, subby, it is true. As is the fact that the President is responsible for the State Dept. And if there are issues with the security at the Benghazi Consulate, the President will be held responsible.

/Chain of Command. How does it work?

Hate to break it to you, but the POTUS is never fully informed on every little detail from State.

/Org charts and dispersion of job duties - how do they work?

First mate beaches a frigate. Who do they hold responsible? The Captain

Who actually loses their job or suffers the practical consequences? The first mate.

Be that as it may, the Captain also is shown the door; but hey, at least the Captain would still keep his pension.


Even in serious situations, the COs are often the last to get punished. If that wasn't the case, dozens of COs would be out of a job, with so many rapes occurring under their watches. In this case though, it's hard to blame the captain for much when the first mate was receiving incorrect orders from the navigational officers, and the provisioning people kept cutting back the resources available to the nav officer.
2012-10-16 12:12:54 AM
1 votes:

CreamFilling: So I'm assuming shell be removed/relieved/replaced, right?


Yup. In 2013.
According to her schedule.
 
Displayed 23 of 23 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report