- Joined
- Oct 20, 2013
- Messages
- 24,855
- Reaction score
- 10,591
- Location
- daily dukkha
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
The bipartisan report laid out more than a dozen findings regarding the assaults on a diplomatic compound and a CIA annex in the city. It said the State Department failed to increase security at its mission despite warnings, and blamed intelligence agencies for not sharing information about the existence of the CIA outpost with the U.S. military
The attacks were preventable, based on extensive intelligence reporting on the terrorist activity in Libya — to include prior threats and attacks against Western targets — and given the known security shortfalls at the U.S. Mission,” the panel said in a statement
Senate report: Attacks on U.S. compounds in Benghazi could have been prevented - The Washington Post
my bad didn't see the other thread
This is where our efforts should be focused, addressing actual problems, this is fair and good criticism. I just hope there's none of that "Obama let them die" bull****.
This is where our efforts should be focused, addressing actual problems, this is fair and good criticism. I just hope there's none of that "Obama let them die" bull****.
No time for this ... gotta get to some of those Chris Christie threads .......I agree. Holding Obama responsible for his policy decisions is outrageous.
I agree. Holding Obama responsible for his policy decisions is outrageous.
I agree. Holding Obama responsible for his policy decisions is outrageous.
Yeah, it's almost as good as the one in post #4 that you wholeheartedly agree with.As no one said that, nice strawman. :coffeepap
Good morning, mam. Hope you are well. I honestly don't know the vast metrics involved in Obama's decision making process, but it's certainly a curiosity. The result of an administration policy - the small footprint thing in Benghazi - is somehow not his responsibility. In fact, we are to believe that actually no one person can be named anywhere who is responsible which is doubly curious. I guess it was all just a wild and crazy hodgepodge of decisions which unfortunately resulted in some people being killed, but what the hell. People die every day.:agree: There is one puzzle I haven't figured out yet, though. If no one ever tells him what's going on, which unfortunately seems to be the case from what I've been reading, what criteria does he use to arrive at any decision he makes?` Seems kinda haphazard to me. Does he use an astrologer, or a dart board, or a "jobs jar," or something I haven't thought of yet?
Good morning, humbolt. :2wave:`
Yeah, it's almost as good as the one in post #4 that you wholeheartedly agree with.
No, that would be incorrect. He speaks to the article and past threads of a similar bent. You speak to something that really isn't a position anywhere.
So then it's okay to mention that the president is responsible for his administration's policies because that's generally an accepted position everywhere - I didn't need to state it. I just thought that it would be appropriate to mention this acknowledged fact in light of the comment that Obama didn't have some significant input on the policy - even though no one has mentioned that he is personally responsible. I haven't seen anyone in this thread claim Obama just let them die.
I'm sure there have been such comments. Ostensibly, Obama is responsible for everything that happens under his watch. I'm not suggesting - hyperbolically or any other way - that he is personally responsible. However, because no other person has been identified as the chief architect of the policy concerning Benghazi, we are forced to look to him in the absence of any other named person. Somebody enunciated the policy.Yes, in the past there has been comments of "let them die." And he is clearly referring to that. No where has anyone said we should not hold Obama responsible. However, it is prudent not to get hyperbolic about his responsibility.
I'm sure there have been such comments. Ostensibly, Obama is responsible for everything that happens under his watch. I'm not suggesting - hyperbolically or any other way - that he is personally responsible. However, because no other person has been identified as the chief architect of the policy concerning Benghazi, we are forced to look to him in the absence of any other named person. Somebody enunciated the policy.
Not the point. You suggested there was an argument to not hold him responsible. No such argument has been made, really ever. Only that it be properly framed, as you just did.
There have been arguments to the effect that Obama didn't know, couldn't have known, and was thus not accountable for the result. Perhaps not here - I haven't read all the threads associated with this event here, and I don't intend to. The point is that if Obama is not responsible, and Wiseone seems to be making that point in post #4, then who in the hell is? I want a name of the Cabinet level person who made the policy decision regarding Benghazi because they are they only ones with the power to do that beside the president himself. So if it's not Obama...The effort has been to spread the responsibility so thin and so far as to not hold anyone accountable for anything, and claim is was a systemic failure. That's unacceptable.
you don't think the possibillity exists that what caused the tragic deaths in benghazi was simply bureaucratic confusion?
more likely a covert CIA ops gone bad. the Anex was supposed to retrieve Libyan weapons. Stevens went jogging in Bengazi many mornings.you don't think the possibillity exists that what caused the tragic deaths in benghazi was simply bureaucratic confusion?
In just-declassified testimony, General Hamm (AFRICOM CG) testified that "within minutes" of the attack starting, live drone coverage was available in both his command headquarters, and being consumed by Washington, and that he briefed the SecDef and Chairman JCS that it was a terrorist attack before they went to brief the President. This went up too high too rapidly to be blamed on bureaucratic fumbling.
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton last week said she was "deeply concerned" that Gaddafi's troops were participating in widespread rape in Libya.
"Rape, physical intimidation, sexual harassment, and even so-called 'virginity tests' have taken place in countries throughout the region," she said.
Donatella Rovera, senior crisis response adviser for Amnesty, who was in Libya for three months after the start of the uprising,
says that "we have not found any evidence or a single victim of rape or a doctor who knew about somebody being raped
Amnesty questions claim that Gaddafi ordered rape as weapon of war - Africa - World - The Independent
As no one said that, nice strawman. :coffeepap
I agree. Holding Obama responsible for his policy decisions is outrageous.
He and other folks should be held responsible, things like "Agencies not communicating with each other" which prevented intelligence from being shared and perhaps prevented the State Department from having as much warning about these attacks as it should have is exactly where we should be looking and holding people responsible, President not excluded.
But the idea that Obama, less than two months before an election, would literally make a decision to "let" four Americans die because for God knows what reasons is just plain silly. I use the word 'let' because I'm trying to especially highlight the argument that it was a specific conscious decision on his part to not save these people when it was in his power. It makes no sense whatsoever from either a pragmatic standpoint, again what looks better 2 months before an election a heroic save or 4 deaths, or a human standpoint that any human would just four guys die because he's that much of an asshole.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?