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.

(NPR)   Proof that Obama wasted time getting aid to the people in Benghazi, told them to stand down, and refused to send troops or air support. Oh, except he didn't, didn't, and didn't   (npr.org) divider line 374
    More: Obvious, President Obama, heavy machine gun, Military of Libya, Andrews Air Force Base, u.s. consulate, Libya, Predator drone, civilian casualties  
•       •       •

5057 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 Nov 2012 at 4:26 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



374 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-02 07:21:50 PM  

Cletus C.: theknuckler_33: Cletus C.: RyogaM: Cletus C.: Huh? Their attack was a failure? Better send them a memo.

Send Who a memo? You realize the group does not exist any longer, correct? It has been rolled up by the Libyans within weeks of the attack. An attack with 50+ men that kills only 4 Americans and which results in the group ceasing to exist? Yes, that is a failure. What is now happening is sending a message to all the other bad actors in the area that all they need to do to be a" success" is kill 4 Americans. That's stupid and short-sighted. I also notice you completely failed to answer any of the questions I posed re: the planning of the group. Why is that?

Read this CNN timeline. Link It seems straightforward with no political comment or motive. The administration was all over the place with shadows and mirrors on this attack. Including several references, finally, to it being a planned, coordinated attack.

This story makes it clear the administration knew almost immediately what was happening and how it was in no way spontaneous or a reaction to some film.

That's all I'm saying. I never bought into the rest of the derp. Just the misleading statements coming from the White House.

So, you're upset about the statements from the white house in the immediate aftermath? That's it? No "Obama denied help", or "Obama could have prevented it, but he sucks so he didn't", or "SEALs ordered to 'stand down'"? You are complaining about the statements in the immediate hours after chaos?

Really?

No. Never.


Uh, wait. The "no" applies to whether I ever bought into the denied help, could have prevented it, or the SEALS crap. No, I never bought that. And yes, I am complaining about the statements in the immediate hours, several days and even weeks after the attack. Or chaos, as you call it.
 
2012-11-02 07:23:08 PM  

a_bilge_monkey: This may be a cynical observation on my part, but thinking back to the Clinton administration, the House Repubs knew that getting a beej from a chubby intern wasn't criminal, but lying about it to a special prosecutor was. Hence we had the impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton. It's unlikely that President Obama did anything illegal re: Benghazi, but if the GOP can accuse him of perjury, they can tie him up in testimony long enough to blow his agenda out the side door.


I think if Republicans go nuclear, with either impeachment, a government shutdown, or failing to raise the debt ceiling, there will be a swift and merciless backlash. Not from their constituents, but the rest of the country. If every time they don't like the affiliation of the president they impeach him for pointless matters, for the second time in a row, I think the backlash will be swift and devastating. It may even fracture the GOP itself.
 
2012-11-02 07:25:12 PM  

Mrbogey: theknuckler_33: Mrbogey: RyogaM: Send Who a memo? You realize the group does not exist any longer, correct? It has been rolled up by the Libyans within weeks of the attack. An attack with 50+ men that kills only 4 Americans and which results in the group ceasing to exist? Yes, that is a failure.

They agreed to disband but the core of the group remains. They weren't "rolled".

Link

Ah... so clearly the attack was a success since the core remains in a remote region while being blockaded.

You mistake a sound strategy with battlefield success. Clearly their attack succeeded. How do we know this? Well the targets dead. Was it a smart idea? Not particularly. The 9-11 WTC/Pentagon attack was a success... yet Osama is dead and Al Qaeda has shed tons of upper echelon leaders during the past 11 years. Was the 9-11 WTC/Pentagon attack not a success?


I went off half-cocked there, I admit. But clearly success is in the eyes of the beholder. Are the attackers just trying to be guerillas and be part of a "death by a thousand paper cuts" strategy or do they hope to cause major change with a single act? Clearly the Benghazi attackers could not have been expecting the latter if they really just initiated the attack, at that particular time, on a motivation of spur of the moment opportunism.

I suspect that they are really no more than a fringe right-wing nutty militia with some heavy weaponry that went off half-cocked on their own. Was it a success in their eyes? I hardly think they even had a notion of what success was before they began the attack. I'm sure those that are still 'free' are slapping themselves on the back because, after all, it MUST have been a success regardless of the unintended consequences because their motivation was 'pure'. If the sole motivation was to kill Americans, then yea, in that limited scope, the attack was a success. If that was their sole motivation, then we really have nothing to fear from them as far as international politics/relations are concerned, they are just nuts that want to kill Americans. That's not going to garner much support from anyone in and of itself.
 
2012-11-02 07:25:21 PM  

OgreMagi: The delay after Katrina (which wasn't much of a delay but the media ran with that story)


This is where I stopped reading your post.
 
2012-11-02 07:26:06 PM  

Cletus C.: RyogaM: Cletus C.: Huh? Their attack was a failure? Better send them a memo.

Send Who a memo? You realize the group does not exist any longer, correct? It has been rolled up by the Libyans within weeks of the attack. An attack with 50+ men that kills only 4 Americans and which results in the group ceasing to exist? Yes, that is a failure. What is now happening is sending a message to all the other bad actors in the area that all they need to do to be a" success" is kill 4 Americans. That's stupid and short-sighted. I also notice you completely failed to answer any of the questions I posed re: the planning of the group. Why is that?

They overran the compound and killed four people, including the ambassador. Only, as you say. I doubt they were expecting to find thousands, hundreds or even dozens of Americans inside. But to you it was all just a bump in the road, right?


Absolutely. We are treating this in a manner that is way over-blown. Go back to the other attacks on American interests we have suffered over the past decade and ask yourself this: how much time and attention did we pay to them. Go back to the Mother Jones interview I just posted above with McCain which occurred right after the African embassy bombings. We used to send the message that if you wanted to harm America, you would have to pull off spectacular attacks. I believe there was one interview with one of the 9/11 bigwigs who said that, after 9/11, Osama refused to okay more terror attacks because they would not be able to surpass the 9/11 terror attacks and would show AQ to be the threat they were thought to be. We've just, in the past 2 months, completely destroyed that. We've now just told the terrorists that they can tie us all in knots, and make us turn on the president, if they just manage to kill four of us. That's bad. That's really, really bad.
 
2012-11-02 07:26:38 PM  
And as someone who used to be in the military, I'm greatly displeased by the behavior of the conservatives who are trying their best to make us look ineffective and weak just so they can score points against the President. Some truly bad-ass members of the military laid down their life in an attempt to save the Ambassador, and many others risked life and limb to get who they could out of there. I'm so damn sick of hearing from FOX News about how badly they bungled it when they did not.

Those two men died heroes, and there were others there that night, saving lives. And FOX News wants to turn them into a propaganda tool to hurt the President.

Damn them to Hell.
 
2012-11-02 07:26:54 PM  

Cletus C.: theknuckler_33: Cletus C.: RyogaM: Cletus C.: Huh? Their attack was a failure? Better send them a memo.

Send Who a memo? You realize the group does not exist any longer, correct? It has been rolled up by the Libyans within weeks of the attack. An attack with 50+ men that kills only 4 Americans and which results in the group ceasing to exist? Yes, that is a failure. What is now happening is sending a message to all the other bad actors in the area that all they need to do to be a" success" is kill 4 Americans. That's stupid and short-sighted. I also notice you completely failed to answer any of the questions I posed re: the planning of the group. Why is that?

Read this CNN timeline. Link It seems straightforward with no political comment or motive. The administration was all over the place with shadows and mirrors on this attack. Including several references, finally, to it being a planned, coordinated attack.

This story makes it clear the administration knew almost immediately what was happening and how it was in no way spontaneous or a reaction to some film.

That's all I'm saying. I never bought into the rest of the derp. Just the misleading statements coming from the White House.

So, you're upset about the statements from the white house in the immediate aftermath? That's it? No "Obama denied help", or "Obama could have prevented it, but he sucks so he didn't", or "SEALs ordered to 'stand down'"? You are complaining about the statements in the immediate hours after chaos?

Really?

No. Never.


So, can you articulate what your complaint is with the administration on this issue? Please don't just say "misleading statements", you just said that those statements were NOT your complaint.
 
2012-11-02 07:28:33 PM  

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: a_bilge_monkey: This may be a cynical observation on my part, but thinking back to the Clinton administration, the House Repubs knew that getting a beej from a chubby intern wasn't criminal, but lying about it to a special prosecutor was. Hence we had the impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton. It's unlikely that President Obama did anything illegal re: Benghazi, but if the GOP can accuse him of perjury, they can tie him up in testimony long enough to blow his agenda out the side door.

I think if Republicans go nuclear, with either impeachment, a government shutdown, or failing to raise the debt ceiling, there will be a swift and merciless backlash. Not from their constituents, but the rest of the country. If every time they don't like the affiliation of the president they impeach him for pointless matters, for the second time in a row, I think the backlash will be swift and devastating. It may even fracture the GOP itself.


'tis a conclusion devoutly to be wish'd.
 
2012-11-02 07:29:12 PM  
So far, I've never gotten an answer to my question. Maybe one of the right wingers so ardently protesting here can finally answer it. The biggest complaint seems to have been, and still is, that Obama did not call the attack on the Libyan Consulate a "terrorist attack" on the day of the attack. So here's my question:

What would have been gained if he had done so? What was lost by not calling it a "terrorist attack"? Even assuming he knew that it was a terrorist attack, why was it so important that it be designated as such?

After all, most of the rhetoric aimed at Obama seems to be centered around this one complaint: That he did not specifically call the attack a "terrorist attack" in his speech condemning the attacks on 9/12. Everyone seems furious that "he knew but didn't SAY so." Why is this? This has nothing to do with whether or not aid was requested, or whether or not anyone died--the attacks were over, and the Ambassador and the others were dead by that point. However, the details were still sketchy and nobody really knew what was happening. Why is it so necessary in your minds that Obama SAY it was a terrorist attack?

What would have been gained? What was lost? Why is it such a "lie" that those specific words were not said at that specific moment? Can anyone give me a straight answer?
 
2012-11-02 07:29:17 PM  

OgreMagi: DeathBySmiley:

Somebody farked up. What happened was no surprise. The ambassord and the security people had asked for additional security over a month before the attack. They predicted that kind of attack. So failure #1, before it happened. Who ultimately refused the needed security?

During the SEVEN HOUR attack, help was refused, help that was only two hours away. That's failure #2. Who refused the help during the attack?

After the attack, Obama and his people repeated the lie that the attack was a spontaneous demonstrationg over a bad movie that no one saw. They knew this was not true yet they repeated that lie for weeks. That's failure #3 and that is directly Obama's fault.

People pretending that Benghazi is a nonissue are capable of allowing Obama to make any farking mistake in the world. I find that not only pathetic, but rather frightening.



Have you not read the article in question and the timeline?

Here is the timeline of events, as provided by the senior intelligence official:

- Around 9:40 p.m. (local time) the annex receives the first call that the mission is under attack.

- Fewer than 25 minutes later, a security team leaves the annex for the mission.

- Over the next 25 minutes, the team members approach the compound, attempt to secure heavy weapons and make their way onto the compound in the face of enemy fire.

- At 11:11 p.m., the requested drone surveillance arrives over the mission compound.

- By 11:30 p.m., all U.S. personnel, except for Stevens, who is missing, depart the mission. The exiting vehicles come under fire.

- Over the next roughly 90 minutes, the annex receives sporadic small arms fire and rocket-propelled grenade rounds. The security team returns fire and the attackers disperse at approximately 1 a.m.

- At about the same time, a team of additional security personnel lands at the Benghazi airport and negotiates for transport into town. Upon learning the ambassador is missing and that the situation at the annex has calmed, the team focuses on locating the ambassador and tries to obtain information on the security situation at the hospital.

- It's still predawn when the team at the airport finally manages to secure transportation and an armed escort. Having learned that Stevens is almost certainly dead and that the security situation at the hospital is uncertain, the team heads to the annex to assist with the evacuation.

- They arrive with Libyan support at the annex at 5:15 a.m., just before the mortar rounds begin to hit the annex. The two security officers are killed when they take direct mortar fire as they engage the enemy. That attack lasts only 11 minutes before dissipating.

- Less than an hour later, a heavily-armed Libyan military unit arrives to help evacuate the compound of all U.S. personnel.
 
2012-11-02 07:30:39 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: OgreMagi: The delay after Katrina (which wasn't much of a delay but the media ran with that story)

This is where I stopped reading your post.


Which is why you remain ignorant. Before the hurricane the Feds said it could take as much as 72 hours for them to enter the disaster areas after the storm cleared enough to proceed. They were there well within that 72 hours, but the news outlets went "OMG they took longer than a day!", completely ignoring that they said they would take longer than a day.
 
2012-11-02 07:31:23 PM  

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: a_bilge_monkey: This may be a cynical observation on my part, but thinking back to the Clinton administration, the House Repubs knew that getting a beej from a chubby intern wasn't criminal, but lying about it to a special prosecutor was. Hence we had the impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton. It's unlikely that President Obama did anything illegal re: Benghazi, but if the GOP can accuse him of perjury, they can tie him up in testimony long enough to blow his agenda out the side door.

I think if Republicans go nuclear, with either impeachment, a government shutdown, or failing to raise the debt ceiling, there will be a swift and merciless backlash. Not from their constituents, but the rest of the country. If every time they don't like the affiliation of the president they impeach him for pointless matters, for the second time in a row, I think the backlash will be swift and devastating. It may even fracture the GOP itself.


I think they're headed to disaster anyway. The demographic shifts in this country simply won't support an anti-black, anti-immigration, anti-woman, anti-non-Christian platform for much longer. The Christian Fundamentalists and their xenophobic faux-libertarian allies will not go quietly. I would not put a budget disaster past them just as a desperate measure.
 
2012-11-02 07:32:13 PM  

beenjammin: And as someone who used to be in the military, I'm greatly displeased by the behavior of the conservatives who are trying their best to make us look ineffective and weak just so they can score points against the President. Some truly bad-ass members of the military laid down their life in an attempt to save the Ambassador, and many others risked life and limb to get who they could out of there. I'm so damn sick of hearing from FOX News about how badly they bungled it when they did not.

Those two men died heroes, and there were others there that night, saving lives. And FOX News wants to turn them into a propaganda tool to hurt the President.

Damn them to Hell.


Indeed. Those bastards who went from the CIA building to the consulate were bad ass mofo's. farkin' A, I think about what it must have been like being in an urban center like that in a country in relative turmoil with chaos going on a few miles away and racing there to who-knows-what... that's farking bad-ass. I don't even believe in a god, but God bless those guys. After the devaluation of the word hero the past 10 years or so, you are 100% correct that they died heros. It is terrible what happened, but I think the Americans there showed what makes our country great in every way.
 
2012-11-02 07:32:35 PM  

OgreMagi: Somebody farked up. What happened was no surprise. The ambassord and the security people had asked for additional security over a month before the attack. They predicted that kind of attack. So failure #1, before it happened. Who ultimately refused the needed security?

During the SEVEN HOUR attack, help was refused, help that was only two hours away. That's failure #2. Who refused the help during the attack?

After the attack, Obama and his people repeated the lie that the attack was a spontaneous demonstrationg over a bad movie that no one saw. They knew this was not true yet they repeated that lie for weeks. That's failure #3 and that is directly Obama's fault.

People pretending that Benghazi is a nonissue are capable of allowing Obama to make any farking mistake in the world. I find that not only pathetic, but rather frightening.


Stop watching Fox News.

Seriously, there is not a goddamn thing that you said that was accurate.
 
2012-11-02 07:32:44 PM  

Mrbogey: You mistake a sound strategy with battlefield success. Clearly their attack succeeded. How do we know this? Well the targets dead. Was it a smart idea? Not particularly. The 9-11 WTC/Pentagon attack was a success... yet Osama is dead and Al Qaeda has shed tons of upper echelon leaders during the past 11 years. Was the 9-11 WTC/Pentagon attack not a success?


Big deference, huge difference. Obama and al Qaeda has become a cult, a code word. Every two-bit terrorist worth his salt adopts the Al Qaeda name because the name has powerful connotations, even if they have absolutely no connection with the AQ that attacked us on 9/11. People don't forget it took us 10 years to get Osama. That was a major success for AQ, because it made us look weak and ineffectual. No one is going to look on this new group and adopt it's name, because they have been weakened tremendously and only carried out a minor attack. If we were smart, we would have treated this attack like the nuisance it was, instead of treating it as some sort of major tragedy in which we pillory the president. We are projecting cowardice.
 
2012-11-02 07:33:25 PM  

3_Butt_Cheeks: Gee, great job there NPR. Pretty much zero citations for everything vomited onto the page, most of which countered by actual facts....things like official emails. Official cables. People testifying in Congress. First, belittle and ignore the story for weeks. Then grudgingly acknowledge it, followed by spin and lying. Media WIN!

And they forgot THE VIDEO?? Now you know it's B.S. if they didn't mention the video which is responsible for the whole thing!


Citation needed.
 
2012-11-02 07:36:32 PM  

vygramul: The Christian Fundamentalists and their xenophobic faux-libertarian allies will not go quietly. I would not put a budget disaster past them just as a desperate measure.


I'm trying hard to prepare for that, but I'm worried i won't have time.
 
2012-11-02 07:37:01 PM  

chuggernaught: pxsteel: We have quick strike units that are designed for this very scenario. We have the ability to reach nearly every city in the world within a couple of hours and with enough firepower to level it.

Ok, but the damage was done and the ambassador was dead in the first hour. Your quick strike team would arrive in time for the second attack, but would be at the wrong place. Wiping out the whole city would certainly kill the bad guys, and the good guys, and all the innocent civilians.

You're thinking, I like that, but your tactics are surmised and would be realistically ineffectual.


I think pxsteel knows a thing or two about being ineffectual. I would defer to him on this subject because he's proved himself a master of it on Fark.
 
2012-11-02 07:38:18 PM  

a_bilge_monkey: If every time they don't like the affiliation of the president they impeach him for pointless matters, for the second time in a row, I think the backlash will be swift and devastating. It may even fracture the GOP itself.

'tis a conclusion devoutly to be wish'd.


We say that every time. THIS time the American people are going to see the GOP for the intransignent farks they really are. And every time we instead get false equivalence and 'both sides the same' from the so-called liberal media. The GOP aint gonna be shuffling off this mortal coil with a bare bodkin any time soon.
 
2012-11-02 07:41:38 PM  
Remember when Israel attacked the U.S. ship that was listening to communication around the area? And someone high up in the local military prevented help from being sent to blow them f*cking Israeli pirate boats out of the water? And dozens of Americans died?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident
The USS Liberty incident was an attack on a United States Navy technical research ship, USS Liberty, by Israeli Air Force jet fighter aircraft and Israeli Navy motor torpedo boats, on June 8, 1967, during the Six-Day War.[3] The combined air and sea attack killed 34 crew members (naval officers, seamen, two Marines, and one civilian), wounded 171 crew members, and severely damaged the ship.[4] At the time, the ship was in international waters north of the Sinai Peninsula, about 25.5 nmi (29.3 mi; 47.2 km) northwest from the Egyptian city of Arish.[1][5]


/f*cking people are so ignorant to vote republican in this paranoid and nuclear age.
//romney/ryan 2012: If you want to be nuclear vapor 2 days after his inauguration.
 
2012-11-02 07:41:39 PM  

kevinfra: Citation needed


You wont get it. That third butt cheek - it's called an asshat.
 
2012-11-02 07:44:31 PM  

IoSaturnalia: a_bilge_monkey: If every time they don't like the affiliation of the president they impeach him for pointless matters, for the second time in a row, I think the backlash will be swift and devastating. It may even fracture the GOP itself.

'tis a conclusion devoutly to be wish'd.

We say that every time. THIS time the American people are going to see the GOP for the intransignent farks they really are. And every time we instead get false equivalence and 'both sides the same' from the so-called liberal media. The GOP aint gonna be shuffling off this mortal coil with a bare bodkin any time soon.


Precisely why:
Once they've finished the investigation, I'd love to see Obama hold an hour-long /presentation/press conference on Benghazi, complete with timelines, charts, models, and the people who were there.

And go over, point-by-point, exactly why this Fox narrative is so chock-full of shiat.

Then, the Republicans will have to drop this thing because the American people will have seen for themselves the story is full of shiat.
 
2012-11-02 07:46:05 PM  
PLEASE ONE OF YOU MORONS EXPLAIN WHAT OBAMA DID THAT CAUSED ANYTHING BAD TO HAPPEN!!!

None of you have shiat do you? Just b-b-b-b-b-but fox news says they heard it from their friends uncle that something something!
 
2012-11-02 07:46:15 PM  

HeartBurnKid: OgreMagi: Somebody farked up. What happened was no surprise. The ambassord and the security people had asked for additional security over a month before the attack. They predicted that kind of attack. So failure #1, before it happened. Who ultimately refused the needed security?

During the SEVEN HOUR attack, help was refused, help that was only two hours away. That's failure #2. Who refused the help during the attack?

After the attack, Obama and his people repeated the lie that the attack was a spontaneous demonstrationg over a bad movie that no one saw. They knew this was not true yet they repeated that lie for weeks. That's failure #3 and that is directly Obama's fault.

People pretending that Benghazi is a nonissue are capable of allowing Obama to make any farking mistake in the world. I find that not only pathetic, but rather frightening.

Stop watching Fox News.

Seriously, there is not a goddamn thing that you said that was accurate.


It's still real to him dammit.
 
2012-11-02 07:56:33 PM  

theknuckler_33: Cletus C.: theknuckler_33: Cletus C.: RyogaM: Cletus C.: Huh? Their attack was a failure? Better send them a memo.

Send Who a memo? You realize the group does not exist any longer, correct? It has been rolled up by the Libyans within weeks of the attack. An attack with 50+ men that kills only 4 Americans and which results in the group ceasing to exist? Yes, that is a failure. What is now happening is sending a message to all the other bad actors in the area that all they need to do to be a" success" is kill 4 Americans. That's stupid and short-sighted. I also notice you completely failed to answer any of the questions I posed re: the planning of the group. Why is that?

Read this CNN timeline. Link It seems straightforward with no political comment or motive. The administration was all over the place with shadows and mirrors on this attack. Including several references, finally, to it being a planned, coordinated attack.

This story makes it clear the administration knew almost immediately what was happening and how it was in no way spontaneous or a reaction to some film.

That's all I'm saying. I never bought into the rest of the derp. Just the misleading statements coming from the White House.

So, you're upset about the statements from the white house in the immediate aftermath? That's it? No "Obama denied help", or "Obama could have prevented it, but he sucks so he didn't", or "SEALs ordered to 'stand down'"? You are complaining about the statements in the immediate hours after chaos?

Really?

No. Never.

So, can you articulate what your complaint is with the administration on this issue? Please don't just say "misleading statements", you just said that those statements were NOT your complaint.


I did clarify later what I meant by No. Never.
 
2012-11-02 07:57:06 PM  

Som Tervo: PLEASE ONE OF YOU MORONS EXPLAIN WHAT OBAMA DID THAT CAUSED ANYTHING BAD TO HAPPEN!!!

None of you have shiat do you? Just b-b-b-b-b-but fox news says they heard it from their friends uncle that something something!


He met with foreign leaders without kicking them in the balls. Now they see us as weak.
 
2012-11-02 07:57:27 PM  
So Benghazi is the new Truther 9/11? It doesn't matter what proof the agencies provide it's still a cover-up. Conspiracy theorists are adorable.
 
2012-11-02 07:59:38 PM  

Zapruder: Took almost two months for Obama to bribe the entire CIA into lying and covering for him. Maybe he would've gotten it done sooner and gotten his lie out to America if he wasn't busy creating a hurricane and sabotaging our soldiers' weapons overseas.

/trickster president


You saying the president is a sort of low key, lie-smith?
 
2012-11-02 08:05:30 PM  

Cletus C.: theknuckler_33: Cletus C.: theknuckler_33: So, you're upset about the statements from the white house in the immediate aftermath? That's it? No "Obama denied help", or "Obama could have prevented it, but he sucks so he didn't", or "SEALs ordered to 'stand down'"? You are complaining about the statements in the immediate hours after chaos?

Really?

No. Never.

So, can you articulate what your complaint is with the administration on this issue? Please don't just say "misleading statements", you just said that those statements were NOT your complaint.

I did clarify later what I meant by No. Never.


Found it. I gotta say I'm having a hard time understanding your reaction to that. I mean, does it really make a difference if they came out 2 hours after the attack and said "terrorism, no doubt!" vs. what they did say at the time? Does that really make a difference to you? I mean, it's a word and has no effect on events. I just don't get it. If you don't believe they denied help, or could have otherwise prevented the deaths, then what difference does it make what they said in the immediate hours afterwards (or even days)? Why does that matter to you? I really just don't get it.
 
2012-11-02 08:06:56 PM  
So the GOP is really going to go with "but Benghazi!" as their campaign death-rattle?

Ask 10 republicans what "Benghazi" is:
4 think it's the name of a terrorist organization
3 think it's the name of a green energy company
1 thinks it's Obama's real first name
1 thinks it's the name of a drone-strike aircraft
1 believes Romney is responsible for Bin Laden's death
 
2012-11-02 08:08:35 PM  

vygramul: [www.bitlogic.com image 300x300]


A+. Smarted, funnied, and bookmarked for future threads.
 
2012-11-02 08:10:16 PM  

GameSprocket: Som Tervo: PLEASE ONE OF YOU MORONS EXPLAIN WHAT OBAMA DID THAT CAUSED ANYTHING BAD TO HAPPEN!!!

None of you have shiat do you? Just b-b-b-b-b-but fox news says they heard it from their friends uncle that something something!

He met with foreign leaders without kicking them in the balls. Now they see us as weak.


www.patrickrobinson.com

I wish he would just kicked me in the balls
 
2012-11-02 08:14:01 PM  
The most salient points of the timeline:

Attack begins at 9:40p.m.

25 minutes after being notified, backup was on the way from the annex to the compound

1:21 after being requested (11:11 p.m.) drone surveillance arrives over the mission compound

1:50 after the attack began (11:30 p.m.) all U.S. personnel, except for Stevens, who is missing, depart the mission

- Over the next roughly 90 minutes, the annex receives sporadic small arms fire and rocket-propelled grenade rounds. The security team returns fire and the attackers disperse at approximately 1 a.m. (The first attack ended after about 3:20)

- At about the same time, a team of additional security personnel lands at the Benghazi airport and negotiates for transport into town. Upon learning the ambassador is missing and that the situation at the annex has calmed, the team focuses on locating the ambassador and tries to obtain information on the security situation at the hospital. (AT APPROXIMATELY 1a.m. -- LESS THAN THREE HOURS FROM WHEN THE WORD FIRST GOT OUT, DOZENS OF SPECIAL FORCES AND CIA AGENTS HAD ARRIVED FROM TRIPOLI, 480 MILES AWAY)

- It's still predawn when the team at the airport finally manages to secure transportation and an armed escort. Having learned that Stevens is almost certainly dead and that the security situation at the hospital is uncertain, the team heads to the annex to assist with the evacuation.

- They arrive with Libyan support at the annex at 5:15 a.m., just before the mortar rounds begin to hit the annex. The two security officers are killed when they take direct mortar fire as they engage the enemy. That attack lasts only 11 minutes before dissipating. (THIS ATTACK OCCURRED 4 HOURS AFTER THE FIRST ATTACK HAD STOPPED AND ONLY LASTED 11 MINUTES.)

- Less than an hour later, a heavily-armed Libyan military unit arrives to help evacuate the compound of all U.S. personnel.


Let me repeat this one bit:

AT APPROXIMATELY 1a.m. -- LESS THAN THREE HOURS FROM WHEN THE WORD FIRST GOT OUT -- DOZENS OF SPECIAL FORCES AND CIA AGENTS HAD ARRIVED FROM TRIPOLI, 480 MILES AWAY. That's fast.

To sum up:
Short of sending in jets to kill everyone (which could have killed our backup as they fought their way in and allied Libyan soldiers) around the compound/annex they did everything they could.

There, that should satisfy everyone.
 
2012-11-02 08:14:37 PM  
Oh so now NPR is getting around to talking about the Benghazi thing. How nice. How unsurprising they are playing CYA for Obama as usual too.

What we already know about Benghazi is absolutely damning to this administration and that is why they are stonewalling it.
 
2012-11-02 08:15:22 PM  
We've lost 2000 troops in Afghanistan. 4500 in Iraq.

I think 4 people pales in comparison to the heavy handed monumental f*ckup Bush caused by invading two countries, Iraq in particular.

This is all a political assault derpfest 4 days before an election, intended as Fox's October Surprise, when the hard truth is that Romney is Bush 2.0 and the casualties inflicted on Benghazi will pale in comparison to four years of Romney.
 
2012-11-02 08:16:16 PM  

randomjsa: Oh so now NPR is getting around to talking about the Benghazi thing. How nice. How unsurprising they are playing CYA for Obama as usual too.

What we already know about Benghazi is absolutely damning to this administration and that is why they are stonewalling it.


What praytell is that?
Please lay it out in timeline form as I did above.
 
2012-11-02 08:17:52 PM  

Mantour: GameSprocket: Som Tervo: PLEASE ONE OF YOU MORONS EXPLAIN WHAT OBAMA DID THAT CAUSED ANYTHING BAD TO HAPPEN!!!

None of you have shiat do you? Just b-b-b-b-b-but fox news says they heard it from their friends uncle that something something!

He met with foreign leaders without kicking them in the balls. Now they see us as weak.



I wish he would just kicked me in the balls


I would think that would have been just as effective. If he knew that special forces could find him at any time and kick him in the nads, he would be too freaked out (and sore) to cause more trouble.
 
2012-11-02 08:19:19 PM  
i.imgur.com

'Benghazi is not a meme' is now a meme
 
2012-11-02 08:21:51 PM  
Correction:
The CIA and Special Forces guys arrived approx. 3:20 after attacks began, not "less than three hours."
 
2012-11-02 08:24:05 PM  

AirForceVet: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Dusk-You-n-Me: Excellent article.

? Unnamed sources and no time line. Yeah, gold standard article.

And the article did point out that here was basically no help around. In Libya? If there wasn't then that in and of it self was a major farking screw up. No help less then 6 hours away?! Bull-shiat.

The article pointed out the Americans were heavily armed and supported by Lybian forces. What were you expecting us to have in Lybia? The Seventh Calvary? The 82nd Airborne?

/I'm not fond of armchair generals.


Armchair general? He's an armchair moron.
 
2012-11-02 08:24:59 PM  

Rapmaster2000: cannotsuggestaname: Metalupis: a few people I know on FB keep harping on this story, maybe this will get them to calm down (probably not)

ugh, I keep seeing insanity spewed by my right wing friends about this. One of them just posted this insane image about 15 minutes ago. I think I may need to unfriend some people, even though I have known them for a couple of decades.

[img.photobucket.com image 640x682]

I whittle the derpers off of my news feed. I didn't have the heart to unfriend my racist aunt even after she wrote a screed about blacks on welfare. Difficulty: my aunt has 4 children by different fathers and has spent much of her life on welfare.


This reminds me of several people I went to high school with. They are all single mothers with multiple children and have all been on Medicaid and welfare, but they sure do bash Obama over all the blacks he helps with welfare.
 
2012-11-02 08:27:34 PM  

HeartBurnKid: Seriously, there is not a goddamn thing that you said that was accurate.


He said he is frightened, which certainly is true.

/It's getting to the point where we may need primate biologist to study the mating habits of Republicans to determine if a state of fear is a mating signal.
//Never mind, Republicans hate sex
 
2012-11-02 08:29:27 PM  

EngineerAU: /It's getting to the point where we may need primate biologist to study the mating habits of Republicans to determine if a state of fear is a mating signal.


It certainly is for the women involved.
 
2012-11-02 08:32:06 PM  

OgreMagi: DeathBySmiley: Quick: Obama is competently handling a natural disaster using the same administration that Romney wanted to shut down, and Bush sat on and did nothing with. Find something!

The delay after Katrina (which wasn't much of a delay but the media ran with that story) was the result of a power pissing match by the governor of Louisanna. The Feds were ready to go when they said they were ready to go, the governor tried a power grab.

"Fast and Furious"? No, old and busted.

Not old and busted. People are still dying as a result of Obama's failed ATF cluster-fark.

College Records? No, we tested it with Trump and it flopped.

Don't care.

Benghazi? What does Mr. Ghazi have to do with this?

What, it's a city? Hell, just run with it.

Somebody farked up. What happened was no surprise. The ambassord and the security people had asked for additional security over a month before the attack. They predicted that kind of attack. So failure #1, before it happened. Who ultimately refused the needed security?

During the SEVEN HOUR attack, help was refused, help that was only two hours away. That's failure #2. Who refused the help during the attack?

After the attack, Obama and his people repeated the lie that the attack was a spontaneous demonstrationg over a bad movie that no one saw. They knew this was not true yet they repeated that lie for weeks. That's failure #3 and that is directly Obama's fault.

People pretending that Benghazi is a nonissue are capable of allowing Obama to make any farking mistake in the world. I find that not only pathetic, but rather frightening.


You're repeating a lot of bad information here. Please read this analysis from snopes.

To paraphrase: help was never refused, Obama never said there was a demonstration, and the video was the stated motivation for the attack from day 1.

Any obfuscation of those simple facts came from the media, although Fox News was the only outlet on record that went to air with *most* of the now-debunked conjecture that you mention.
 
2012-11-02 08:34:28 PM  

OgreMagi: Lionel Mandrake: OgreMagi: The delay after Katrina (which wasn't much of a delay but the media ran with that story)

This is where I stopped reading your post.

Which is why you remain ignorant. Before the hurricane the Feds said it could take as much as 72 hours for them to enter the disaster areas after the storm cleared enough to proceed. They were there well within that 72 hours, but the news outlets went "OMG they took longer than a day!", completely ignoring that they said they would take longer than a day.



In fairness, the feds knew beforehand that Katrina would strike and could have entered the areas before the hurricane made landfall.
 
2012-11-02 08:42:00 PM  

Cletus C.: Uh, wait. The "no" applies to whether I ever bought into the denied help, could have prevented it, or the SEALS crap. No, I never bought that. And yes, I am complaining about the statements in the immediate hours, several days and even weeks after the attack. Or chaos, as you call it.


What statements? Obama went before the press on the day of the attack and called it an attack, and an act of terror. He never once even implied that it could have been a riot or a demonstration that became violent.
 
2012-11-02 08:50:57 PM  

randomjsa: Oh so now NPR is getting around to talking about the Benghazi thing. How nice. How unsurprising they are playing CYA for Obama as usual too.

What we already know want to believe about Benghazi is absolutely damning to this administration and that is why they are stonewalling it.


FTFY
 
2012-11-02 09:01:05 PM  
Liberals blame Bush for sending a hurricane to NO, derpsters blame Obama for Muslim extremism. Same amount of validity.

Maybe Obama should have increased security in Benghazi and then not LIED about the people behind the attack.
 
2012-11-02 09:06:01 PM  

thrgd456: Liberals blame Bush for sending a hurricane to NO, derpsters blame Obama for Muslim extremism. Same amount of validity.

Maybe Obama should have increased security in Benghazi and then not LIED about the people behind the attack.


When did he lie about the people behind the attack? The White House blamed Ansar al Sharia on day one, and from what I've read, that has never changed.
 
2012-11-02 09:10:05 PM  

thrgd456: Liberals blame Bush for sending a hurricane to NO


Once you write something like this, the rest of what you say can safely be ignored.
 
Displayed 50 of 374 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report