• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Benghazi Report- a clusterfuck

RJKarl

RJKarl

Banhammer'd
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
78,116
Reaction score
3,112
Location
HB, CA
http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2013/benghazi/#/?chapt=0

I realize the RWers here will immediately say "cover up". Of course that's what they have been told to think and say. If you actually read this exhaustive and well researched piece, you'll see there are many factors involved.

No, AQ was not involved.

Yes, the film was a factor.

Yes, the State Department's Embassy Security officials failed.

No, Hillary didn't make that decision.

Yes, she should have fired many of them.
 
What was the commander-in-chief of the United States armed forces doing through the night of September 11, 2012, while he knew Americans were under jihadist siege in Libya? You won’t learn the answer to that question by reading the mini-book-length, six-“chapter” revisionist history of the Benghazi massacre cooked up by David D. Kirkpatrick and the New York Times.

The Times report is a labor of love in the service of President Obama and, in particular, the Hillary Clinton 2016 campaign ramp-up. Former secretary of state Clinton, of course, was a key architect of Obama’s Libya policy. She was also chiefly responsible for the protection of American personnel in that country, including our murdered ambassador, J. Christopher Stevens, and the three other Americans killed by Muslim terrorists — State Department technician Sean Smith and a pair of former Navy SEALs, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods. Still, the Times is banking on your not noticing that in its laborious 7,500 words, Kirkpatrick’s account utters the word “Clinton” exactly . . . wait for it . . . zero times.

The word “Obama” comes in for a mere six mentions, four of which are impersonal references to the current administration. The other two are telling, though fleeting.

One is a rehearsal of the president’s vow to exact “justice” against anyone found responsible for this “terrible act” of killing four Americans, including the formal representative of our nation. As it happens, the only person on the planet to have felt the lash of Obama’s justice is Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the California-based “producer” who filmed the infamous “anti-Mohammed” movie trailer, Innocence of Muslims. In a despicable violation of constitutional free-speech principles, and a bow to sharia blasphemy rules that forbid criticism of Islam, Obama and Clinton publicly portrayed Nakoula and his “film” as the Benghazi culprits — implicitly accepting the Islamic-supremacist premise that verbal insults, no matter how obscure and trifling, justify mass-murder attacks.

more here:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/367510/down-times-bengahzi-rabbit-hole-andrew-c-mccarthy
 
I have a hard time deciding which volume of the double album known as "The Miseducation of RJ Karl" is my favorite. So many good choices...
 
Honest question, what do you (applies to everyone/personal opinion) think the ramifications of the handling of the Benghazi attack should be?
 
The people in charge of security at embassies should have been fired. They are the ones who screwed up.

The House Members who voted to cut the security budget for our embassies should have to explain why they voted subsidies to mega-farms and oil companies but wouldn't protect our foreign service officers.
 
That's a start
 
So RJ is in favor of more defense spending, but only when a Democrat is in the White House or Jews are involved.

Got it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
ONW said:
Honest question, what do you (applies to everyone/personal opinion) think the ramifications of the handling of the Benghazi attack should be?
Click to expand...

Did you mean to focus your question on the handling of the attack, rather than the attack itself?

The other western interests were withdrawn as the security situation deteriorated. Our people in that Agency utterly and completely blew it. If they didn't have the security, they should have pulled their people out. The attack was both entirely foreseeable and in fact foreseen (Chris Stephens (DCED) cables say as much) by everybody involved. Our government bungled the "attack."

As to the "handling" of the attack, I think I learned that Hillary Clinton is an even better politician than I gave her credit for. She went 4-4 on the hold 'em, fold 'em, when to walk away, and when to run test. The apologies for the devolution of the talking points confirm that you can fool some of the people all of the time.
 
Last edited:
No, the aftermath, what would people consider justice?
 
ONW said:
No, the aftermath, what would people consider justice?
Click to expand...

As to which party? I would be surprised if the Administration does anything to push that attack or its handling to the front page any time soon. I don't think there's going to be anything happening to anybody. It seems they've moved on.
 
I'm not asking what has happened, I'm asking what would satisfy you to the point you would consider the matter resolved.
 
ONW said:
I'm not asking what has happened, I'm asking what would satisfy you to the point you would consider the matter resolved.
Click to expand...

The only thing I have ever desired was proper political fallout. The people who screwed up should be held responsible with their jobs because of the public scrutiny. So at this point I would be satisfied with Hillary Clinton coming under proper scrutiny (by the media) for her failures when she runs in 2016. Having to own up to the fact that she failed to do the most important facet of her job. Protect her subordinates who are abroad.

I have never suggested sinister motives. Just incompetence and a consequential political maneuvering (ie: lying) to try and mitigate the political fallout. They screwed up, it was during an election so they lied about how bad it was and their role in it. Come clean instead of feeding propaganda to reporters that is less than true.
 
There was no lying. There was no AQ involvement.
 
Wrangor said:
The only thing I have ever desired was proper political fallout. The people who screwed up should be held responsible with their jobs because of the public scrutiny. So at this point I would be satisfied with Hillary Clinton coming under proper scrutiny (by the media) for her failures when she runs in 2016. Having to own up to the fact that she failed to do the most important facet of her job. Protect her subordinates who are abroad.

I have never suggested sinister motives. Just incompetence and a consequential political maneuvering (ie: lying) to try and mitigate the political fallout. They screwed up, it was during an election so they lied about how bad it was and their role in it. Come clean instead of feeding propaganda to reporters that is less than true.
Click to expand...

What he said.
 
ONW said:
I'm conflicted RJ and wanted some alternative viewpoints.
Click to expand...

The problem is the right is so entrenched at finding Hillary and Obama at fault that they refuse to come up with a rational response. The reality is the decisions that were made about security were made by career managers who have served multiple POTUS and Secretaries of State. The decisions were made below the top levels and always have been.

The biggest difference here is that for the first time that I can remember in my lifetime Congress refused to fund embassy security at the levels requested by the professionals who have made a career of protecting our foreign service personnel. A big part of this story is the blind hatred of Obama by the GOP. Without question much of the blood is on their souls.

That being said, they should have reassessed allocation of the funds they had. Some heads should have rolled.

Making Susan Rice a scapegoat is ludicrous. She was given talking points by others. She tried to accurately portray the information she knew.

The #1 thing we need to do is to have Congress act like they have for every POTUS other than Obama. These things were above politics until he was elected.
 
Anybody who thinks that the administration shares no blame at all for lax security at a diplomatic location in a Middle Eastern country on the anniversary of 9/11 is completely out to lunch. Everything about this-- from the initial spin, to Hillary's "concussion", to her scripted outburst in front of the committee just screams Hillary 2016. A fucking blind squirrel can see that. Hillary has never taken responsibility for anything, never accomplished anything of note in a position of power, yet the woman thinks she can be President (as do, apparently, a lot of idiots out there).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top