Is Benghazi Obama's Waterloo?

[Phurfur 70]

What evidence is there that anyone in the White House was watching these live feeds? Everything I've read, even the Fox News stuff, says they could have been viewed by the White House. Meaning they could have opened up the feeds and watched if they wanted to... like the technology exists. But who says they actually were watching them? And why?

 

I have to admit this whole thing is really really confusing. The video cover up was dumb and didn't make a whole lot of sense. But what doesn't make even more sense, was why would Obama specifically refuse to send help to the people? For what purpose would that decision be made? Especially right before an election....

 

Or maybe it doesn't make sense because we as the public do not know every intimate detail of what went down that night and why certain military decisions were made and by whom.

 

This went on for over 7 hours! If he didn't know anything about it, it shows how inept this administration is and that they need to be replaced.

 

Don't you see that either way it shows Obama failed as a leader and American employees were left to die alone in a hostile country? Or are my standards just too high?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

At this point, Obama's best defense is that he was on the golf course for those 7 hours and couldn't be bothered.

[DankNuggs 305]

This went on for over 7 hours! If he didn't know anything about it, it shows how inept this administration is and that they need to be replaced.

 

Don't you see that either way it shows Obama failed as a leader and American employees were left to die alone in a hostile country? Or are my standards just too high?

I saw a show on how it went down and they were attacked in multiple places and while fleeing in automobiles like it was Blackhawk Down. It was a declaration of war type of effort. Obama didn't want to be forced into a position where he'd have to actually do something or risk looking retarded.instead he just lied about it like a small child explaining why didn't do his homework

[nikki2200 4]

This is why I said that at a minimum, there is a significant process problem if our people could be attacked for 7 hours and either nobody saw it or nobody had the authority to do something about it.

 

 

 

Oh I agree. I often felt that way when Bush was persecuted. I'm sure it was different though.

 

No. It's not any different. It's not within the rights of the general public to be informed on every intimate detail of every military action/decision that takes place and never has been. I'm pretty consistent on this philosophy and was even when Bush was criticized. I think it's getting a lot worse now with the prominence of the internet and our constant need for real time full disclosure on everything and media sources now providing 24/7 news coverage and having access to information that they were NEVER allowed before. I think it's kind of sick actually and some day it is going to cost American lives somewhere, whether it be a Democratic or Republican president. Some media outlet is going to report classified information and someone is going to die because of it - bank on it.

 

Anyways, I'll get off my soap box. I just don't think it makes any sense at all that a conscious decision was made by a person with authority to make such a decision not to provide aid unless there was a damn good reason not to. If it was complete ineptitude, then the military and the administration should be dealing with that. Or there could have been other reasons that we are unaware of that led to that decision. I'm fairly certain the military has a pretty good process for internally investigating fock ups of this nature if that is in fact what it was, so I will leave it to the experts and the people that actually have access to the information instead of sitting here philosophizing on why the president wanted our ambassador to Libya and some CIA agents to die a few weeks before he is trying to get re-elected to a second term. :shrugs:

[DankNuggs 305]

No. It's not any different. It's not within the rights of the general public to be informed on every intimate detail of every military action/decision that takes place and never has been. I'm pretty consistent on this philosophy and was even when Bush was criticized. I think it's getting a lot worse now with the prominence of the internet and our constant need for real time full disclosure on everything and media sources now providing 24/7 news coverage and having access to information that they were NEVER allowed before. I think it's kind of sick actually and some day it is going to cost American lives somewhere, whether it be a Democratic or Republican president. Some media outlet is going to report classified information and someone is going to die because of it - bank on it.

 

Anyways, I'll get off my soap box. I just don't think it makes any sense at all that a conscious decision was made by a person with authority to make such a decision not to provide aid unless there was a damn good reason not to. If it was complete ineptitude, then the military and the administration should be dealing with that. Or there could have been other reasons that we are unaware of that led to that decision. I'm fairly certain the military has a pretty good process for internally investigating fock ups of this nature if that is in fact what it was, so I will leave it to the experts and the people that actually have access to the information instead of sitting here philosophizing on why the president wanted our ambassador to Libya and some CIA agents to die a few weeks before he is trying to get re-elected to a second term. :shrugs:

Amazing how small an accountability standard you hold Obama to vs what Bush was held to. Absurd.

 

Telling the truth about it likely opened him up to having to send in some type of military reponse that he'd desperately try to avoid. Or force him to pull ambassadors out of whack job areas which looks weak and a step backwards from his Arab spring.

 

That's the logic of this whole thing

[drobeski 3,061]

Nikkeeee, his policy is not to offend muslims.

That's your answer to why.

[nikki2200 4]

Amazing how small an accountability standard you hold Obama to vs what Bush was held to. Absurd.

 

Telling the truth about it likely opened him up to having to send in some type of military reponse that he'd desperately try to avoid. Or force him to pull ambassadors out of whack job areas which looks weak and a step backwards from his Arab spring.

 

That's the logic of this whole thing

 

What accountability standard did I hold Bush to? I said the same things when Bush was in office. And I have defended him on the Iraq war here several times.

 

As for your logic.... to me it's a reach. It is unreasonable to assume that the response to this would be a war with Libya and he didn't want that to happen.

 

Listen.... al-Qaeda was behind this. I'm going to go ahead and assume that there may be a slew of classified intelligence that accompanies the events that went down in Libya. Why the administration lied about that at first, and why the events went down the way they did is not public knowledge. There could be a DAMN GOOD REASON why you sitting there playing armchair commander in chief are not being informed of all the details. There is probably a good reason why the republican led House a few weeks prior to an election is doing little more than making some noise about this. There is probably a good reason Romney has dropped this as a talking point in his campaign. Unfortunately, unless you are appointed Secretary of State, you will probably never know what those reasons are. And frankly it's none of your ###### business.

 

That's all.

[nikki2200 4]

Nikkeeee, his policy is not to offend muslims.

That's your answer to why.

 

DOH! I totally forgot about that. Thanks for the clarification.

[Phurfur 70]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72g7qmeP1dE

[drobeski 3,061]

DOH! I totally forgot about that. Thanks for the clarification.

Anytime

[Vikings4ever 550]

I have to admit this whole thing is really really confusing. The video cover up was dumb and didn't make a whole lot of sense. But what doesn't make even more sense, was why would Obama specifically refuse to send help to the people? For what purpose would that decision be made? Especially right before an election....

My thinking is that someone in the chain of command didn't want to put forces at risk in case they were ambushed when they came to help. Hence Panetta's statement:

 

"(The) basic principle is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on; without having some real-time information about what's taking place," Panetta told Pentagon reporters. "And as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, Gen. Ham, Gen. Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation."

 

I doubt it was Obama himself who made the call. But, like I said before, he obviously tried to bury the issue by blaming it on the video rather than admitting it was a planned attack.

[Phurfur 70]

Come on people, this is Obama’s MO; he can’t make a quick decision. Remember it took him 2 days before he pulled the trigger on bin Laden.

[Little Rusty 18]

CIA agents confirm Obama told them not to Aid Ambassador Chris Stevens – The White House Disinformation Campaign on Libya

 

http://beforeitsnews.com/obama/2012/10/cia-agents-confirm-obama-told-them-not-to-aid-ambassador-chris-stevens-the-white-house-disinformation-campaign-on-libya-2445322.html

[NorthernVike 2,087]

I liked nikki more as the bored whorra than a political operative.

[BudBro 183]

Come on people, this is Obama’s MO; he can’t make a quick decision. Remember it took him 2 days before he pulled the trigger on bin Laden.

also remember, he didn't pull the trigger nor did he call the shot. someone else made that decision. and it was likely bin laden jr if it was a bin laden at all. sr was confirmed dead many years ago.

[nikki2200 4]

I was never a whora.

 

I don't even see this as politics. I see it as a strange story that is related to an al-Qaeda terrorist attack that we clearly do not know all the details surrounding so I don't get why people are freaking out over this.

[MDC 7,466]

Come on people, this is Obama’s MO; he can’t make a quick decision. Remember it took him 2 days before he pulled the trigger on bin Laden.

 

In 7 years Bush didn't even pick up the gun.

[nikki2200 4]

My thinking is that someone in the chain of command didn't want to put forces at risk in case they were ambushed when they came to help. Hence Panetta's statement:

 

 

 

I doubt it was Obama himself who made the call. But, like I said before, he obviously tried to bury the issue by blaming it on the video rather than admitting it was a planned attack.

 

 

I'm sure if they made a conscious decision not to provide military support, there was a good reason. That reason probably being that it would put more people in danger and they did not think the mission would be successful. These were terrorists. They could have had chemical weapons. They could have had a freaking nuke. And that's why they aren't telling the public exactly what happened. Because it's really not our concern. Unless we think that every last detail of every military decision is fully disclosed to the public so we can pick it apart and see whether or not we would have made the same decision given the same information and whether we agree with their call on the matter. Is that what we are saying needs to happen?

[NorthernVike 2,087]

In 7 years Bush didn't even pick up the gun.

I didn't think Bush could run for President again.

[NorthernVike 2,087]

I was never a whora.

 

 

 

Keep telling yourself that sweetie.

[MDC 7,466]

I didn't think Bush could run for President again.

 

That's good. Those Benghazi folks would've been waiting 7 years for help.

[SUXBNME 1,509]

I was never a whora.

.

You used to be my whora until you cheated on me with your good for nothing new fock toy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

At least I still have OldMaid. She's nastier

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

I'm sure if they made a conscious decision not to provide military support, there was a good reason. That reason probably being that it would put more people in danger and they did not think the mission would be successful. These were terrorists. They could have had chemical weapons. They could have had a freaking nuke. And that's why they aren't telling the public exactly what happened. Because it's really not our concern. Unless we think that every last detail of every military decision is fully disclosed to the public so we can pick it apart and see whether or not we would have made the same decision given the same information and whether we agree with their call on the matter. Is that what we are saying needs to happen?

 

I think that at some point in the process, Romney was made privy to some details, and that is what got him off of harping on Benghazi.

 

Another way to look at it... Senators from both parties are on the oversight committees, and they have access to the facts. If they aren't making noise of a MAJOR nature, there is probably a reason.

 

Of course, if Obama DID decide to come out, lay all the info on the table, and clear up the issue, the same people blasitng him now would then blast him for revealing national security secrets. Its a lose-lose endless circle jerk, as usual.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Will FTDC ever figure out his lame ass fishing trips are a failure?

[TheBlade 3]

I don't even see this as politics. I see it as a strange story that is related to an al-Qaeda terrorist attack that we clearly do not know all the details surrounding so I don't get why people are freaking out over this.

First of all, I don't for a second buy the notion that Obama didn't know what was going on very quickly into the incident. If he didn't know, then he has an easy scapegoat. All he has to do is come out and say he wasn't given proper information on this incident in a timely fashion. The person(s) responsible have tendered their resignation and we will work to ensure this doesn't happen again. Then he can go into some political talk about how America won't stand for this type of attack, yada, yada, yada. It's not acceptable, but people understand that mistakes happen. But he didn't do that.

 

Instead, the WH put out this ridiculous theory that some obscure YouTube video is responsible for being the root cause. And what really stinks about the whole thing is the lengths they went to in order to sell that video as being the root cause. The whole thing wreaks of a cover-up for something they are afraid will sink them.

 

My personal opinion is that a conscious decision was made by either Obama himself or somebody close to him to not take action. To me it makes sense. The strongest area Obama has to run on has been his foreign policy, especially the strides supposedly made in the Middle East and with AQ. If there was suddenly a terrorist attack led by AQ, that would throw a massive wrench in his position as it relates to the Middle East and AQ, especially this close to the election. If he takes military action to defend the consulate, then he has to admit that his foreign policy hasn't made as many gains as he had hoped. Plus there then raises the very real possibility of a protracted military action because of retaliation, etc., and he wears double egg on his face at a critical time in his campaign. Add into this his propensity to not want to use force or make military decisions and you have a recipe for a political mess that cost American lives. It certainly wouldn't be the first time on either side of the fence that decisions were made for political reasons that resulted in dead Americans.

 

I may be off on some of this, but I think I'm a lot closer than many would want to admit. I ultimately think Obama and his administration took a calculated gamble that this incident happened close enough to the election that they could keep it under wraps until after the election was over. If it came out after that, it would be a minor footnote in history. But, it didn't quite work out that way, and daily more and more information keeps coming out that makes things worse for the Obama camp.

 

As for the Romney camp not making a huge issue out of it, I think they see this issue as having enough legs on it's own without them having to really push it. By not pushing it, they come out looking much better by letting people making up their own minds.

 

Like I said, I could be off, but it's JMHO.

[Phurfur 70]

I'm sure if they made a conscious decision not to provide military support, there was a good reason. That reason probably being that it would put more people in danger and they did not think the mission would be successful. These were terrorists. They could have had chemical weapons. They could have had a freaking nuke. And that's why they aren't telling the public exactly what happened. Because it's really not our concern. Unless we think that every last detail of every military decision is fully disclosed to the public so we can pick it apart and see whether or not we would have made the same decision given the same information and whether we agree with their call on the matter. Is that what we are saying needs to happen?

 

You sound like a fool trying to defending this loser.

 

BTW: The military never ever lets anyone sit unless it is ordered from above. One of the Navy Seals that died was told to stay away but he went to help anyway and it cost him his life.

 

And Obama was afraid of Chemical Weapons?

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

First of all, I don't for a second buy the notion that Obama didn't know what was going on very quickly into the incident. If he didn't know, then he has an easy scapegoat. All he has to do is come out and say he wasn't given proper information on this incident in a timely fashion. The person(s) responsible have tendered their resignation and we will work to ensure this doesn't happen again. Then he can go into some political talk about how America won't stand for this type of attack, yada, yada, yada. It's not acceptable, but people understand that mistakes happen. But he didn't do that.

 

Instead, the WH put out this ridiculous theory that some obscure YouTube video is responsible for being the root cause. And what really stinks about the whole thing is the lengths they went to in order to sell that video as being the root cause. The whole thing wreaks of a cover-up for something they are afraid will sink them.

 

My personal opinion is that a conscious decision was made by either Obama himself or somebody close to him to not take action. To me it makes sense. The strongest area Obama has to run on has been his foreign policy, especially the strides supposedly made in the Middle East and with AQ. If there was suddenly a terrorist attack led by AQ, that would throw a massive wrench in his position as it relates to the Middle East and AQ, especially this close to the election. If he takes military action to defend the consulate, then he has to admit that his foreign policy hasn't made as many gains as he had hoped. Plus there then raises the very real possibility of a protracted military action because of retaliation, etc., and he wears double egg on his face at a critical time in his campaign. Add into this his propensity to not want to use force or make military decisions and you have a recipe for a political mess that cost American lives. It certainly wouldn't be the first time on either side of the fence that decisions were made for political reasons that resulted in dead Americans.

 

I may be off on some of this, but I think I'm a lot closer than many would want to admit. I ultimately think Obama and his administration took a calculated gamble that this incident happened close enough to the election that they could keep it under wraps until after the election was over. If it came out after that, it would be a minor footnote in history. But, it didn't quite work out that way, and daily more and more information keeps coming out that makes things worse for the Obama camp.

 

As for the Romney camp not making a huge issue out of it, I think they see this issue as having enough legs on it's own without them having to really push it. By not pushing it, they come out looking much better by letting people making up their own minds.

 

Like I said, I could be off, but it's JMHO.

 

See, I disagree with the underlined part. Quite frankly, nothing could have given Obama more juice than a terrorist attack that he could come out, wave the flag, deliver some strong speeches. and rally the country. The President seems to always get a hefty bump after such an event (see 9/11). Americans would rally around the leader, etc.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

See, I disagree with the underlined part. Quite frankly, nothing could have given Obama more juice than a terrorist attack that he could come out, wave the flag, deliver some strong speeches. and rally the country. The President seems to always get a hefty bump after such an event (see 9/11). Americans would rally around the leader, etc.

Your own 'theory" says a Obama is a colossal idiot for blaming a youtube video for two weeks.

[nikki2200 4]

I think that at some point in the process, Romney was made privy to some details, and that is what got him off of harping on Benghazi.

 

Another way to look at it... Senators from both parties are on the oversight committees, and they have access to the facts. If they aren't making noise of a MAJOR nature, there is probably a reason.

 

Of course, if Obama DID decide to come out, lay all the info on the table, and clear up the issue, the same people blasitng him now would then blast him for revealing national security secrets. Its a lose-lose endless circle jerk, as usual.

 

Ding. Ding. Ding.

 

Yes. There is a lot of weird mystery surrounding this incident. We also now know it involved al-Qaeda which could lend itself to dozens and dozens of reasons why the whole story with all the details isn't readily available to the public. AND THERE IS A REASON THE REPUBLICANS ARE NOT BALLS OUT PUSHING THIS ISSUE A WEEK BEFORE A CRITICAL ELECTION.

 

My god people....

 

Oh I also want to add Hillary falling on a grenade for Obama, which I bet everyone would agree is highly uncharacteristic of her, makes things even more interesting. Yes there is information being kept from the public. And I'm willing to bet there is a really really good reason for that.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

Your own 'theory" says a Obama is a colossal idiot for blaming a youtube video for two weeks.

 

I have no idea what happened. Neither do you. Perhaps the video was the impetus for the attack. Perhaps its bullsh!t. Who knows. But pretending you do is pretty disingenuous.

[TheBlade 3]

Of course, if Obama DID decide to come out, lay all the info on the table, and clear up the issue, the same people blasitng him now would then blast him for revealing national security secrets. Its a lose-lose endless circle jerk, as usual.

I disagree with this. I don't believe anything should be released that will compromise national security or cost American lives. That being said, they could've released quite a bit more information and given people a better idea of what happened. The right fringe would still cry foul, but most reasonable people would understand the necessity to limit information and appreciated the efforts to keep people informed.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

I disagree with this. I don't believe anything should be released that will compromise national security or cost American lives. That being said, they could've released quite a bit more information and given people a better idea of what happened. The right fringe would still cry foul, but most reasonable people would understand the necessity to limit information and appreciated the efforts to keep people informed.

 

I agree with that. I was referring to RP, Drobs, Phurfur, and their ilk.

[Little Rusty 18]

Facebook Censors Navy SEALS to Protect Obama on Benghazi-Gate

 

Over the weekend, Facebook took down a message by the Special Operations Speaks PAC (SOS) which highlighted the fact that Obama denied backup to the forces being overrun in Benghazi.

 

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/10/30/Facebook-Censors-Navy-SEALS-To-Protect-Obama-on-Benghazi-Gate

[nikki2200 4]

Facebook Censors Navy SEALS to Protect Obama on Benghazi-Gate

 

Over the weekend, Facebook took down a message by the Special Operations Speaks PAC (SOS) which highlighted the fact that Obama denied backup to the forces being overrun in Benghazi.

 

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/10/30/Facebook-Censors-Navy-SEALS-To-Protect-Obama-on-Benghazi-Gate

 

I always knew Mark Zuckerberg was Bilderberg. This confirms it!!!! Thanks for the info.

[TheBlade 3]

See, I disagree with the underlined part. Quite frankly, nothing could have given Obama more juice than a terrorist attack that he could come out, wave the flag, deliver some strong speeches. and rally the country. The President seems to always get a hefty bump after such an event (see 9/11). Americans would rally around the leader, etc.

I think you're absolutely right in that Obama would've had a huge surge had he taken swift, decisive action. I think it would've gone a very long way to assuage middle of the road swing voters. But, I think his camp missed this one. I don't think they saw it for the boost (not to mention the absolute right thing to do) that it could've been.

 

Whatever the truth is, I hope we get some reasonable idea of what it is before the election as I think this plays out much bigger in the election than many give it credit for.

[drobeski 3,061]

It was most likely a botched hostage/rescue/ obama use it to seal the election deal. Obama never expected his radical islamist pals to end up saying ###### you america and murdering and raping the guy.

 

Yes, he's that rotten.

[TheBlade 3]

It was most likely a botched hostage/rescue/ obama use it to seal the election deal. Obama never expected his radical islamist pals to end up saying ###### you america and murdering and raping the guy.

 

Yes, he's that rotten.

 

What's with the rape thing?? I've seen that word thrown around a few times in regards to this. Was the guy actually raped on top of everything else, or is this just another case of people being dramatic??

[drobeski 3,061]

The lady in charge testified it was watched real time.

Fact...

watched by whom ?

[DankNuggs 305]

What accountability standard did I hold Bush to? I said the same things when Bush was in office. And I have defended him on the Iraq war here several times.

 

As for your logic.... to me it's a reach. It is unreasonable to assume that the response to this would be a war with Libya and he didn't want that to happen.

 

Listen.... al-Qaeda was behind this. I'm going to go ahead and assume that there may be a slew of classified intelligence that accompanies the events that went down in Libya. Why the administration lied about that at first, and why the events went down the way they did is not public knowledge. There could be a DAMN GOOD REASON why you sitting there playing armchair commander in chief are not being informed of all the details. There is probably a good reason why the republican led House a few weeks prior to an election is doing little more than making some noise about this. There is probably a good reason Romney has dropped this as a talking point in his campaign. Unfortunately, unless you are appointed Secretary of State, you will probably never know what those reasons are. And frankly it's none of your ###### business.

 

That's all.

 

People held Bush to pretty extreme transparency standards when Monday morning quarterbacking intelligence. In that case they may or may not have been acting in reasonable intelligence that proved to be incorrect. We know Obama immediately knew it was terrorist.

 

That's crazy, the only reason he wouldn't want the public to know the truth would be because the public would demand a response that he wouldn't want to give.

 

I'd love to have seen him in debate 3 tell the audience it was none of their business when asked about why he flat out lied and tried to minimize what actually happened. The truth was going to very shortly come out. Very odd.

[Phurfur 70]

So we all agree that Obama was watching the YouTube video rather than the live feed of the assassinations.