Bangazi hearings today

[Benko]

I'm curious about people's reaction.

[Pointedstick]

Isn't that just a given? 

[Benko]

I believe you are letting the american people off the hook.

I am no Obama fan, but he was re-elected by people after seeing what he is like (and if you have any illusions about anyone named Clinton by now...).

"the people in government are idiots?"
Exactly why do you think they are idiots?  They are selfish human beings with varying levels of competence.

[MediumTex]

I voted I don't care.

Violence against Americans happens all over the world every day.

The U.S. government bungled the way it reported this event, but the event itself was unremarkable--what were people expecting to happen in Libya shortly after its government had been toppled?  When the Iraqi government was toppled attacks on Americans occurred almost every day for years (ditto for Afghanistan).  In the Benghazi attack, it was literally one attack on one day.  I'm surprised that something like that would even make the news in the U.S.

I agree that in retrospect more security could have been provided in Benghazi and a more straightforward account of the event could have been given, but you could say exactly the same thing about the Iraq and Afghanistan wars on a scale about 1,000 times greater than the Benghazi attack, and yet the media has seemingly completely lost interest in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Looks to me like a tempest in a teapot.

[Benko]

MT,

This is relevant because:

1.  They knew immediately it was terror and lied to the public for weeks (claiming it was a response to some video).    This was done because it was right before an election.

2.  The attack followed marked security CUTS approved by Clinton.

3.  They could have tried to intervene, but Obama made the call not too and lied about this as well (no one short of him could have approved/not approved this).  Not intervening might have been the right call (we can't know) but the way it was handled raises questions.

While I assume the boards liberals rank all of the above as irrelevant (unlike what they would have done had any of this happened under Bush), it is disturbing that you find none of this relevant.

[Reub]

There should have been one more possible answer:

"I believe that this is a major error and was followed by an illegal coverup that is much worse than Watergate."

[Pointedstick]

While I assume the boards liberals rank all of the above as irrelevant (unlike what they would have done had any of this happened under Bush), it is disturbing that you find none of this relevant.

I'm with MT, and it's not that the facts you list are irrelevant... it's that it seems petty to focus on a single attack where political incompetence resulted in dead Americans because dozens if not hundreds of examples of same happen every year. It smacks of an attempt to hang an albatross around the neck of disfavored politicians rather than actually honestly investigate the situation. Why are these particular lives so much more tragic to have lost than all the lives lost in the idiotic and pointless Iraq war? Where's the outrage over the thousands of servicemen killed in a war where the entire stated reason for entry turned out to be false? When's Instapundit gonna call for that hearing?

The Benghazi attack isn't some kind of isolated event that marks a shameful act of political incompetence, its just more of the same. IMHO.

If we really want to make Americans safer, I think we should stop intentionally putting them in harm's way for little potential gain. Not just in Libya, but in Iraq, Afghanistan, everywhere.

[Benko]

For a guy who claims he doesn't like labels... well, you sure seem to like labels.

The context of my label comment was because there was a lot of mental masturbation over the term libertarians and other terms regarding which bellieved or did not believe in varying degrees of gov't intervention.  Putting energy into the labels was a distraction from the basic point of the discussion (as best as I remember).

In this thread my point was that I expect you, doodle, the rest of the usual suspects to downplay the Bengazi issues, but hearing MT do it (because I expect a more neutral perspective from him) is as I said disturbing. 

If you have any comments about my points of concern, I'd love to hear it.

[Pointedstick]

In this thread my point was that I expect you, doodle, the rest of the usual suspects to downplay the Bengazi issues, but hearing MT do it (because I expect a more neutral perspective from him) is as I said disturbing. 

Well, behind this statement is the expectation that MT would agree with you. Do you disagree with the points he raised, or is it just shock that he's not on your side?

For what it's worth, I find MT's position to be fairly reasonable and hold a very similar one myself. And I don't think either of us would call ourselves liberals at all.

Maybe--just maybe--the outrage over this matter is truly, legitimately overblown. Isn't that even a possibility?

[Benko]

I'm with MT, and it's not that the facts you list are irrelevant... it's that it seems petty to focus on a single attack where political incompetence resulted in dead Americans because dozens if not hundreds of examples of same happen every year.

Number of dead AMBASSADORS in the history of this country?

Number of US citizens killed abroad in the months before a presidential election?

[Pointedstick]

I'm with MT, and it's not that the facts you list are irrelevant... it's that it seems petty to focus on a single attack where political incompetence resulted in dead Americans because dozens if not hundreds of examples of same happen every year.

Number of dead AMBASSADORS in the history of this country?

I honestly don't see why this is relevant. Are you saying this this would be less of a big deal if the dead had all been Blackwater contractors or civilian mechanics or something?

Number of US citizens killed abroad in the months before a presidential election?

Well, we are still involved in a number of foreign military actions. I see no reason why the Americans would stop being killed in other parts of the middle east in the run-up to the election.

I mean, what am I missing here? Four days ago, five servicemen were killed in an IED attack. The day before that, three in a military plane crash. Many more have been shot over the past few weeks. Why are these deaths less outrageous? I really honestly don't understand it.

[clacy]

I voted I don't care.

Violence against Americans happens all over the world every day.

The U.S. government bungled the way it reported this event, but the event itself was unremarkable--what were people expecting to happen in Libya shortly after its government had been toppled?  When the Iraqi government was toppled attacks on Americans occurred almost every day for years (ditto for Afghanistan).  In the Benghazi attack, it was literally one attack on one day.  I'm surprised that something like that would even make the news in the U.S.

I agree that in retrospect more security could have been provided in Benghazi and a more straightforward account of the event could have been given, but you could say exactly the same thing about the Iraq and Afghanistan wars on a scale about 1,000 times greater than the Benghazi attack, and yet the media has seemingly completely lost interest in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Looks to me like a tempest in a teapot.

I don't think it's the event that is remarkable.  What is remarkable, is that the entire administration went on a misinformation campaign to change the narrative of who, why and how the attack occurred.

Why is that?....

That is what I want to know and what makes this case remarkable.  I can understand tactical mistakes being made in the heat of the moment.  Supporting or choosing not to support an Ambassador in a politically sensitive part of the world is something that can be debated.

Lying to the American public for two weeks, is not ok with me.  Why did they chose to go that route?  Who made the decisions to knowingly change the narrative to something they obviously would have known was untrue?

[Pointedstick]

Lying to the American public for two weeks, is not ok with me.  Why did they chose to go that route?  Who made the decisions to knowingly change the narrative to something they obviously would have known was untrue?

I suspect they lied because they believed--correctly--that the details of the situation would make them look bad. Which in my mind makes this utterly unremarkable because the government is constantly lying to the American people to deflect its myriad blunders. It's like a daily occurrence. Right?

[Benko]

"just more of the same"
More of the same of what?  What americans have died overseas that you see this as more of the same of?  Soldiers in areas of conflict?  Not being able to see the difference between the death of a soldier in a dangerous area and death of a US dimplomate tells me a lot about where you stand.  Civilized countries do not lightly kill diplomatic representatives of other countries.  Do you really not get this?
Of course it is a tragedy if any human dies.

"were people expecting to happen in Libya shortly after its government had been toppled? "
What was apparently common sense to MT, was beyond Clinton who lowered security.  That is part of the point. 

[murphy_p_t]

I'm with MT, and it's not that the facts you list are irrelevant... it's that it seems petty to focus on a single attack where political incompetence resulted in dead Americans because dozens if not hundreds of examples of same happen every year.

Number of dead AMBASSADORS in the history of this country?

I honestly don't see why this is relevant. Are you saying this this would be less of a big deal if the dead had all been Blackwater contractors or civilian mechanics or something?

I find this highly relevant.

The reporting is that requests were made repeatedly for military assistance. Same assistance was activated, but then told to stand down.

I have not heard any justification for this order to stand down. Ultimately, Obama/Clinton are responsible for this order? Has he taken any responsibility for this order to deny assistance to American civilians under attack?

Also, prior to the attack, requests were made to beef up security...again, the requests were denied. This seems to be gross negligence...best case scenario?

[moda0306]

Didn't Obama call the event an act of terror the same day of the attack?  Even if it was over a movie, we'd all still be calling it, essentially, an act of terror, would we not?  The difference being that the attack was "organized" vs a riot of intolerant, murderous, assholes.  Either way I'd push the "delete" button on them all (NOT all Muslims... all murderous Libyan "rioters"/terrorists).

And since when does an attack on the U.S., even if it's a partial result of government incompetence of the administration involved (caugh9/11caugh), result in an unpopular President.  If I was President and had my political wits about me (and only cared about winning), I'd be WANTING this to be a terrorist attack.  If 3,000 people in NYC had died on 9/11 of a flu pandemic or a huge accident, George W's ratings wouldn't have shot to 80% or whatever they were.  I really see no strategic benefit to trying to convince people that this was all over a movie, and not a "real terrorist attack."  I don't believe much coming out of Mrs. Clinton's mouth, but I truly don't think this was part of the lie, if there was one.  If it had been a riot over a movie, and Obama declared it a planned terrorist attack, I think the right would be going after him now to try to "wag the dog" to get people behind him a la 9/11, and try to pretend that there aren't big problems in mainstream Islam.  Since it truly was a planned act of terror, the strategically correct thing to do would have been to rally support against Al Qaeda, not try to blame it on a movie.  I'm dumbfounded why people think this was some sort of deliberate strategic move to down-play the attack.

Just like George before him, Obama, as a politician in charge of this country (just as a CEO of a company would likely do) has been rallying the troops (us) for the last 4 years touting how successful his administration has been in eliminating terror cells accross the U.S., especially those related to 9/11.  Do I trust his analysis because he says this?  Hell. No.  However, it's the same BS you're going to get from every president or CEO trying to "lead" a group of people.  "Look what I've done. Hire me again to do more.  God Bless America."

Nobody likes to take responsibility for what happens under their watch.  Incompetence, bureaucracy, and cover-up is human in nature.  It's just when it happens in government we can't simply "stop shopping" there anymore.

I agree with MT and PS.  This is a big deal like 4 dead children on the south side of Chicago is a big deal.  It's just the world we live in, and has to be taken in context.

And pardon those of us that, while curious about what hapened, don't trust the "fair and balanced" analysis of those whose lack of intellectual curiosity helped Bush mislead us into a war in Iraq, resulting in tens/hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths and thousands of American deaths.

This really isn't a "blame Bush" response as much as a "I don't know whose analysis to trust" response.  The people I know that are "most informed" on Bengazhi thought that Obama is a Muslim Communist from Kenya.  I shit you not... these people know EVERYTHING about Libya, and I don't trust a f*cking thing out of their analysis.  I usually don't like to go ad hominem, but there are so many bendable facts out there that I have to automatically discount the "analysis" from people who seem driven to find facts based on their ideology and not the other way around.

Let's put it this way, every President since George Washington has probably made mistakes that 1) in hindsight, were obviously preventable, but the bureaucracy of government missed it, and 2) downplayed the nature of the mistake or simply tried to ignore it altogether.

If Presidents openly called out everytime a bureaucratic mistake of theirs (or their cabinet) cost American or other lives they'd be apologizing all day long.

[Pointedstick]

"just more of the same"
More of the same of what?  What americans have died overseas that you see this as more of the same of?  Soldiers in areas of conflict?  Not being able to see the difference between the death of a soldier in a dangerous area and death of a US dimplomate tells me a lot about where you stand.  Civilized countries do not lightly kill diplomatic representatives of other countries.  Do you really not get this?
Of course it is a tragedy if any human dies.

I guess I don't really consider Libya to be a civilized country--especially not in the wake of a popular revolution leading to a civil war. Furthermore, wasn't this a terrorist attack? It wasn't like the Libyan government dispatched soldiers to kill our ambassadors (which would be a big deal, and a justification for war). They knew they were in a dangerous area. It comes with the job. An ambassador in a volatile middle-eastern country ruled by a dictator during a time of widespread popular revolutions is exposed to inherently more dangerous situations than an ambassador to France or Sweden.

Now that said, yes, their request for more security should absolutely have been granted, and yes, they should have had the protection they needed one way or the other. I agree that it's a tragedy that they died due to some stupid political mismanagement, and it really highlights the insecurity and incompetence of this administration.

But again, I find that every administration has been insecure and incompetent and gotten people killed as a result of it. This incident simply doesn't strike me as particularly noteworthy compared to things like the pointless Iraq war which got more than 2,000 Americans killed, the easily-preventable 9/11 attacks (the intelligence was there, just ignored) which got more than 3,000 Americans killed, or the Vietnam War which got almost 50,000 Americans killed.

And Abraham Lincoln's utter mishandling of the slavery debate sparked a civil war (which he also completely bungled) that resulted in the deaths of more than 600,000 Americans and fomented deep cultural divides and 100 years of racial terror.

Oh yeah, and the hundreds of atmospheric nuclear tests which knowingly contaminated the entire continental United States with radiation, sickening or killing hundreds of thousands if not millions of Americans.

I mean, we're talking about four American civilians who were killed in an overseas terrorist attack during a popular revolution. Let's have a little perspective.

[moda0306]

"just more of the same"
More of the same of what?  What americans have died overseas that you see this as more of the same of?  Soldiers in areas of conflict?  Not being able to see the difference between the death of a soldier in a dangerous area and death of a US dimplomate tells me a lot about where you stand.  Civilized countries do not lightly kill diplomatic representatives of other countries.  Do you really not get this?
Of course it is a tragedy if any human dies.

"were people expecting to happen in Libya shortly after its government had been toppled? "
What was apparently common sense to MT, was beyond Clinton who lowered security.  That is part of the point.

Maybe putting an embassy in the first place in a completely back-hole 3rd world country is the main issue here... especially when I hear that the main protectors of an embassy are supposed to be the government of that country.  Wow, what an idiotic idea. 

But we've done this before.  It's not new to have embassies in 3rd world countries whose populations have ill-will towards the U.S.  If this is a bad strategy (which I'd probably concur with, though I haven't heard the arguments for having them in such unstable countries) then this isn't all that relevent.

If we're going to place embassies in 3rd world Muslim countries, I would just state that I wouldn't be surprised with a hostage-taking here and a terrorist attack there.  Not to downplay it, but I really wouldn't expect any less.

A full eclipse is unique, and can hurt your eyes.  Uniqueness shouldn't make us horrified.  Lying Americans into a war that results in the death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, displaced millions, thousands of dead U.S. soldiers, and tens of thousands of injured soldiers is simply far worse than Benghazi.  You can't just say "yeah but people die in war... it's expected" and then switch to Benghazi because it's got some unique qualities and unique failures of bureaucracy and strategy.

In the end, I know that my government is making decisions that will decide life or death to thousands of people every year.  Complete incompetence resulting in what Iraq resulted in is something I'd MUCH rather see my government focus on avoiding than an embassy security threat in some 3rd world country here and there.

This simply pales in comparison when it comes to the size of potential blunders that our massive military potential and international presence could bring to fruition.  We've got embassies everywhere, the ability to destroy the world 30 times, are uber-involved in an area of the world with the most volatile religion and most oil out of anywhere else, and we're playing spy-games all over the world.  Are we really going to act like this thing in Benghazi is some huge deal?  Most administrations probably kill more people via mini-blunders in their first month of office than died in Benghazi as a result of this attack.

[moda0306]

"just more of the same"
More of the same of what?  What americans have died overseas that you see this as more of the same of?  Soldiers in areas of conflict?  Not being able to see the difference between the death of a soldier in a dangerous area and death of a US dimplomate tells me a lot about where you stand.  Civilized countries do not lightly kill diplomatic representatives of other countries.  Do you really not get this?
Of course it is a tragedy if any human dies.

I guess I don't really consider Libya to be a civilized country--especially not in the wake of a popular revolution leading to a civil war. Furthermore, wasn't this a terrorist attack? It wasn't like the Libyan government dispatched soldiers to kill our ambassadors (which would be a big deal, and a justification for war). They knew they were in a dangerous area. It comes with the job. An ambassador in a volatile middle-eastern country ruled by a dictator during a time of widespread popular revolutions is exposed to inherently more dangerous situations than an ambassador to France or Sweden.

Now that said, yes, their request for more security should absolutely have been granted, and yes, they should have had the protection they needed one way or the other. I agree that it's a tragedy that they died due to some stupid political mismanagement, and it really highlights the insecurity and incompetence of this administration.

But again, I find that every administration has been insecure and incompetent and gotten people killed as a result of it. This incident simply doesn't strike me as particularly noteworthy compared to things like the pointless Iraq war which got more than 2,000 Americans killed, the easily-preventable 9/11 attacks (the intelligence was there, just ignored) which got more than 3,000 Americans killed, or the Vietnam War which got almost 50,000 Americans killed.

And Abraham Lincoln's utter mishandling of the slavery debate sparked a civil war (which he also completely bungled) that resulted in the deaths of more than 600,000 Americans and fomented deep cultural divides and 100 years of racial terror.

Oh yeah, and the hundreds of atmospheric nuclear tests which knowingly contaminated the entire continental United States with radiation, sickening or killing hundreds of thousands if not millions of Americans.

I mean, we're talking about four American civilians who were killed in an overseas terrorist attack during a popular revolution. Let's have a little perspective.

+1!

Except the Lincoln part regarding slavery.  Several Southern states seceded before he even took office, and he didn't have very wildly abolitionist language even before then... just didn't want slavery spreading...

But that's another discussion .

[Pointedstick]

Except the Lincoln part regarding slavery.  Several Southern states seceded before he even took office, and he didn't have very wildly abolitionist language even before then... just didn't want slavery spreading...

But that's another discussion .

They seceded as a direct result of his wining the election because of his stated positions regarding slavery. They weren't dumb; they could see the writing on the wall. Let's not forget that Lincoln was the first president of the Republican party which was created as an anti-slavery party. Not that being anti-slavery was bad--but clearly pushing it so quickly and in the manner that Lincoln and the Republicans did was enormously traumatic to the southern states.

I firmly believe that slavery in America could have been done away with absent a civil war, as indeed it was in most slave countries. Yes, there were differences here, but nobody said something like that was easy. It would have taken a statesman, and Lincoln was no statesman. he was a plainspoken political lightweight with little experience who was immediately faced with a pressing crisis upon assuming office. Ring any bells? 

[Tyler]

i don't think its remarkable in the sense incompetence, political expedience being used to make life and death decisions, coverups and press manipulation, and American deaths, are all pretty much an everyday thing now...
i wish it was seen as remarkable and that people weren't numb to this sort of thing from seeing so much of it, or that this could some how be the straw that broke the camels back and we pillory, tar feather and run out of town on a rail all the key players, and forever more hold our elected officials (in both party's) to the newly established higher standards.... but that ain't going to happen....

Personal opinion - the poll needs a 5th option. This is purely political, and I do care.

As has been said, terrorists attacking an embassy is not even newsworthy anymore. Politicians directly lying about the cause of the attack in the absolutely stupidest and most destructive way possible (blaming and apologizing for free speech) is highly newsworthy. That the reasoning was transparently political and there's still a dumb filmmaker in prison over this is criminal.  And the fact that the whole thing was ignored at the time by the media in order to influence an election deserves attention

For the record I'd have the same opinion regardless of the party in charge. The power-jockeying political "game" is getting out of hand, and something needs to change.

That is a good question. My guess is that, country-wide, Benghazi outrage is 80% ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome), and 20% "this is the one".

In general, I have observed that, in both politics and business, people with power very rarely pay a meaningful price for their mistakes. But that is the definition of power, I suppose.

But while many Republicans appeared eager to keep Benghazi alive as a political issue, not all Republicans seemed as concerned about the issue, or the Obama administration’s forthcoming.

“I’ve been able to read all the cables, I’ve seen all the films. I feel like I know what happened in Benghazi; I’m fairly satisfied,”? said Sen. Bob Corker, Tenn., the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on MSNBC. “I’m fairly satisfied.”?

Source: http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/20 ... probe?lite

probably a good estimate for the general population.... i would guess amongst politicians its 98 % how much political advantage can we get from making a big fuss about it and 2% real concern. it wouldn't surprise me a bit if republicans push a bit then back off and nothing comes of it ... they will want the same treatment when it's their screw up...

somebody used the description "shameless politicians" i will add a +1 to that... it seems to apply to both sides of the spectrum on either side of any scandal

[murphy_p_t]

I mean, we're talking about four American civilians who were killed in an overseas terrorist attack during a popular revolution. Let's have a little perspective.

weren't 2 of the Marines...in any case, I don't this its highly relevant.

I wish we had a little of your perspective coming from Pravda ABCNCBCBSMSNBC during the Boston bother.

[MediumTex]

This is clearly a hot button issue, but for whatever reason the people who hated Obama to start with seem to think it's a bigger deal than the people who liked Obama to start with.

It's not that I liked Obama to start with, it's just that Obama's response to the attack is exactly the kind of political hackery I would expect from any politician trying to cover his ass leading up to an election.  That's what is unremarkable to me--a politician bending the truth to minimize political damage, except in this case it backfired.

Such truth bending, however, did NOT backfire when Reagan used it during Iran Contra, when Bush I used it in covering up the April Glaspie/Saddam Hussein meeting disaster before the first Gulf War, when Clinton used it during his "wag the dog" missile strikes on Afghanistan and when Bush II used it as a false pretext for war in Iraq.

Politicians lie and sometimes they lie on a massive scale.  Why are we outraged when a politician's lies are exposed?

It's actually the libertarian in me--not the liberal--who looks at this case and says "What's the big deal?  One more politician lying to cover up foreign policy incompetence?  Isn't that what every 20th century President except Calvin Coolidge did?"

Do we think that a Republican President would have done any different in this case?  Bush II sure didn't ever own up to sending too small a force into Iraq, and that was IMHO a vastly larger error than failing to provide enough security for our ambassador in Libya.  Bush II failed to provide enough security for a whole army, which led to countless unnecessary deaths of U.S. forces and Iraqi civilians.

All politicians do these things.  It's in their nature.  It's how they get into positions of power in the first place.  I don't know why some people seem so much more outraged when Obama does it.  It's like going to a greyhound track and criticizing a single dog for chasing the rabbit.

I appreciate the idea that our leaders should have integrity and be honest and morally upright and fulfill our ideals of what a leader should be, but all politicians basically riff on these ideals through their shallow and inconsistent assumption of the roles they think will make us vote for them, sometimes more convincingly than others, but virtually always with dishonesty and deception as the guiding principles.

Once you see through the fog of deception created by most politicians, what you see are a group of people desperately clinging to personas incredibly detached from the reality of their true natures, and this phenomenon is completely independent of any party label or affiliation.

[Reub]

I believe that the fall guy, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, who made the "heinous" video that Obama and his cronies lied about is still in jail on a probation violation.

http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/video-maker- ... ns-jailed/

In that same article, it mentions how Hillary Clinton promised the father of one of the dead Marines that they would see to it that the person who made the video would be jailed and prosecuted.

Now that's chutzpah!

[Benko]

This is not Nuremberg, and I have not asked for an Auto da Fe.

"really highlights the insecurity and incompetence of this administration." [PS]
At a very basic level, Clinton played a large role in the incompetence of this situation, and very possibly will be president.  So perhaps if what really happened is made public including her role, perhaps she will handle a similar situation better if it comes up when she is president.  I may not be crazy about her politics, but unlike Obama, I think that she at least can be competent when she wants to i.e. she has (I assume) actually had to work for a living at some point. 

Beyond that I think that whatever happened should be made public (rather than buried by a compliant press).