Clinton testifying re Benghazi

[songfourone]

Of course you fail to address the point. How nice to know that you guys would fob off your own failures onto a question of appropriations, especially when it led to several deaths. How very reassuring.

It is you that is failing to get the point.


Rumsfeld: It isn't a matter of money. It isn't a matter on the part of the army of desire. It's a matter of production and capability of doing it. As you know, ah, you go to war with the army you have---not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time.---You can have all the armor in the world on a tank and it can (still) be blown up...

http://crooksandliars.com/2006/12/15...t-a-later-time

[soulflower]

As for the video "nonsense"

To Libyans who witnessed the assault and know the attackers, there is little doubt what occurred: a well-known group of local Islamist militants struck the United States Mission without any warning or protest, and they did it in retaliation for the video. That is what the fighters said at the time, speaking emotionally of their anger at the video without mentioning Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or the terrorist strikes of 11 years earlier. And it is an explanation that tracks with their history as members of a local militant group determined to protect Libya from Western influence.

“It was the Ansar al-Shariah people,” said Mohamed Bishari, 20, a neighbor of the compound who watched the assault and described the brigade he saw leading the attack. “There was no protest or anything of that sort.”

The fighters said at the time that they were moved to act because of the video, which had first gained attention across the region after a protest in Egypt that day. The assailants approvingly recalled a 2006 assault by local Islamists that had destroyed an Italian diplomatic mission in Benghazi over a perceived insult to the prophet. In June the group staged a similar attack against the Tunisian Consulate over a different film, according to the Congressional testimony of the American security chief at the time, Eric A. Nordstrom.



http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/16/wo...pagewanted=all

[Grindelwald]

Of course you fail to address the point. How nice to know that you guys would fob off your own failures onto a question of appropriations, especially when it led to several deaths. How very reassuring.

Yes, what the righties don't want to hear gets ignored.

Speaking of failing to address the point...

[songfourone]

And you don't see the difference between them and our ambassador in a war torn Muslim country as 911 approaches? Please tell me you aren't this obtuse.

And no, I do not see where one life is any more important than anothers. Any of the soldiers that have given their life for their country worth any less?

[Grindelwald]

Hardly the subject here is it? Bringing in unrelated matter to divert the discussion does nothing to counter the point previously made. The reason that Bhengazi is getting this scrutiny is twofold, first because it happened at all and second because there was an effort to deflect and cover in the lead up to the election. Hillary passing the buck was hardly reassuring.

It is highly relevant, no surprise you provide nothing but pathetic dodges. It's called selective knowledge.

[veritas]

And no, I do not see where one life is any more important than anothers. Any of the soldiers that have given their life for their country worth any less?

Again, do you not see the difference between soldiers and civilians? Soldiers are expected to go into harm's way. Civilian employees are not. This death could and should have been prevented and all the damage control by the Obama brigades won't change that fact. We've only lost five ambassadors to attacks in our long history and Obama is now on a very short list. What makes this one worse is that we are in a post-911 world.

[veritas]

Speaking of failing to address the point...

What point might that be? Fobbing off your failures on the GOP by bringing up appropriations? Oh yea, I addressed that.

[veritas]

It is highly relevant, no surprise you provide nothing but pathetic dodges. It's called selective knowledge.

Iraq has nothing to do with this topic. I made numerous lengthy posts in here on that subject before you showed up and I'll probably do so again if the mood strikes me. The only thing selective here is the memory of the liberal apologists.

[bmore_ken]

Don't get sore patting yourself on the back, chump, 'specially when you're claiming some sort of imaginary victory.

Nothing imaginary about it. We'll never truly know what really happened. It's the CIA

[Grindelwald]

Iraq has nothing to do with this topic. I made numerous lengthy posts in here on that subject before you showed up and I'll probably do so again if the mood strikes me. The only thing selective here is the memory of the liberal apologists.

It would be if it supported your agenda, but since it doesn't, it isn't relevant.

[veritas]

It would be if it supported your agenda, but since it doesn't, it isn't relevant.

Agenda? What agenda might that be? I don't have the power to impose any sort of agenda.

[ms maggie]

The failure of the effort hardly removes the fact that an effort was made. From Rice on TV to Obama at the UN, there was a continuing attempt to downplay any notions of terrorism and play up the demonstration over a video nonsense.

What if the attack had been the result of a demonstration gone violent?

Would that change the outcome? Would it change the security breakdown?

I don't get the emphasis on this. Seems to me there was a security breakdown and that should be the thing to look at. How did this happen and how can we ensure it doesn't happen again.

The fact that Rice was ambiguous on television and Obama slow to commit to the circumstances pale in comparison. The idea that this would have changed the outcome of the election is ludicrous. The Republicans by harping on this make their legitimate queries less impactful. Idiots.

[veritas]

What if the attack had been the result of a demonstration gone violent?

Would that change the outcome? Would it change the security breakdown?

I don't get the emphasis on this. Seems to me there was a security breakdown and that should be the thing to look at. How did this happen and how can we ensure it doesn't happen again.

The fact that Rice was ambiguous on television and Obama slow to commit to the circumstances pale in comparison. The idea that this would have changed the outcome of the election is ludicrous. The Republicans by harping on this make their legitimate queries less impactful. Idiots.

The material point here is that a spontaneous demonstration, by its nature, is something that is unexpected and happens quickly. A general state of unrest and semi-anarchy is something else and it is this which prompted Stevens' requests for additional security in the weeks leading up to the attack. His requests should have been granted.

As for this sinking Obama in the election, that was a long shot but the issue needed more in depth attention than the Dems were giving it prior to election day. That political considerations motivated both sides is to be expected.

[ms maggie]

The material point here is that a spontaneous demonstration, by its nature, is something that is unexpected and happens quickly. A general state of unrest and semi-anarchy is something else and it is this which prompted Stevens' requests for additional security in the weeks leading up to the attack. His requests should have been granted.

As for this sinking Obama in the election, that was a long shot but the issue needed more in depth attention than the Dems were giving it prior to election day. That political considerations motivated both sides is to be expected.

On the anniversary of 9/11? Unexpected? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactio...nce_of_Muslims

Scroll down to the map.

[veritas]

On the anniversary of 9/11? Unexpected? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactio...nce_of_Muslims

Scroll down to the map.

My comment has more to do with why Stevens' requests should have been granted than with whether any demonstration in fact led to his death. However, as I said, with 911 approaching, we should have been especially vigilant.

[Terry K]

According to the CIA's timeline of events the attack on the consulate was over by 11pm.

Ty Woods and other CIA agents responded to the attack on the consulate within 25 minutes. There's no evidence that he or anyone else was told to "stand down"

Check your CIA timeline again......the attack(s) lasted from 9:40 pm to 5:15 am.....over 7 hours.......and more than ample time for a rapid response team to arrive.

[soulflower]

Let's say for argument's sake that the Obama administration did in fact attempt to downplay the fact that Benghazi was a terror attack. If that's the case, what is the consequence of them doing that?

It didn't cause anyone any physical harm and it wouldn't have changed the outcome of November's election.

Secondly, even if Ambassador Stevens had more security, there's still no guarantee that he would be alive. Afterall, the CIA base in Benghazi was more adequately secured than the State Department's location yet they still came under attack and two of the four Americans were killed there.

There are some parts of the world where no amount of security is adequate enough to prevent guerilla warfare type attacks. Even military bases come under attack in war zones.

[soulflower]

Check your CIA timeline again......the attack(s) lasted from 9:40 pm to 5:15 am.....over 7 hours.......and more than ample time for a rapid response team to arrive.

No. You're just are a selective reader.

The attacks on the Consulate ended by 11:30pm after all the Americans were evacuated. There was a lull in the violence for a few hours after midnight.

There was a second wave of attacks at the CIA base a mile away from the consulate which began around 5am. That's when Ty Woods and Glenn Dougherty were killed...

[ms maggie]

My comment has more to do with why Stevens' requests should have been granted than with whether any demonstration in fact led to his death. However, as I said, with 911 approaching, we should have been especially vigilant.

I agree.

Which is why I think the emphasis on when it was acknowledged as an act of terror is misplaced. The key issue is why was the ambassador's warning ignored.

[flyboy56]

According to the CIA, there was no drone surveillance in the air over Benghazi until an hour or so after the attacks started

And according to Ms. Lamb's testimony she and other's were watched the attack via live feed. I'm inclined to believe Ms. Lamb over the CIA.