Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A study in failure: Benghazi

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Doc's waiting for DNA evidence, three black lesbian eyewitnesses, and a court-appointed head shrinker before he'll believe that Obama farted.
    John Brown did nothing wrong.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by regexcellent View Post
      That one's just too easy. The idea that the Tea Party was secretly about racism and that the whole "reduce the size of government" thing is a front. Mhm.

      New rule: anyone who suggests Iraq War related conspiracy theories immediately goes on ignore, along with truthers and birthers and anyone who denies that we landed on the moon.

      So, it turns out that there WAS an AC-130 over Benghazi, and that it was ordered not to fire. Not only that, but the targets it would have fired at were almost certainly sufficiently distant to safely engage without hitting American personnel. I suppose they were worried about civilian casualties? If true, that would be sickening, since our people who died were civilians too.
      Isn't it a conspiracy theory argument to say that Obama and his administration refused to send help because they wanted to deliberately let the terrorists kill those Americans?
      A lot of Republicans are not racist, but a lot of racists are Republican.

      Comment


      • They knew too much.
        “As a lifelong member of the Columbia Business School community, I adhere to the principles of truth, integrity, and respect. I will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.”
        "Capitalism ho!"

        Comment


        • Originally posted by MrFun View Post
          Isn't it a conspiracy theory argument to say that Obama and his administration refused to send help because they wanted to deliberately let the terrorists kill those Americans?
          I highly doubt Obama was personally involved in what happened in Benghazi. What upsets me is the fact that he hasn't been straight with us, and the fact that he managed to get some patsy arrested for making a video which was totally unrelated to the attack.

          Comment


          • Isn't it a conspiracy theory argument to say that Obama and his administration refused to send help because they wanted to deliberately let the terrorists kill those Americans?

            Yes. But no one here is making that argument. Note the thread title: "a study in failure", not "betrayal."

            That said, the doddering "it was all a video" line afterwards is, in my view, an unforgivable instance of either deception, gross incompetence or both.
            Last edited by Zevico; October 28, 2012, 19:38.
            "You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."--General Sir Charles James Napier

            Comment


            • Hey, where do Klingons buy their combat boots?

              Spoiler:
              At Kahless Shoe Source!
              1011 1100
              Pyrebound--a free online serial fantasy novel

              Comment


              • With respect to "a study in failure", at least the administration is providing aid and comfort to the grieving family members, winning the hearts and minds.

                Joe Biden to Charles Woods at his son's funeral “Did your son always have balls the size of cue balls?”

                analysis of the incident by Steyn

                One assumes charitably that the vice president is acknowledging in his own inept and blundering way the remarkable courage of a man called upon to die for his country on some worthless sod halfway across the planet. But the near-parodic locker-room coarseness is grotesque both in its inaptness and in its lack of basic human feeling for a bereaved family forced to grieve in public and as crowd-scene extras to the political bigshot. Just about the only formal responsibility a vice president has is to attend funerals without embarrassing his country. And this preening buffoon of pseudo-blue-collar faux-machismo couldn’t even manage that.
                Oops.
                "Just puttin on the foil" - Jeff Hanson

                “In a democracy, I realize you don’t need to talk to the top leader to know how the country feels. When I go to a dictatorship, I only have to talk to one person and that’s the dictator, because he speaks for all the people.” - Jimmy Carter

                Comment


                • Broader implications.

                  “Where do They come from, those whom we so much dread,
                  As on our dearest location falls the chill
                  Of their crooked wing….” –W.H. Auden, “Crisis,” (1940)

                  The attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi that resulted in the murder of four Americans has become a huge issue. There are many stories and rumors that are still being debated and more information is coming out. What I’m going to try to do here is to analyze the enduring themes raised by this tragic event.


                  Why Do They Hate Us?

                  There is a debate over the causes of terrorism and anti-Americanism in the world. One possible view is that the principal problem is that of genuine conflict. The adversaries hold certain ideological ideas — say, revolutionary Islamism — to which American society and policies are antithetical. The collision (as with communism, Nazism, and aggressive Japanese militarism in earlier decades) is inevitable. The United States is inconveniencing the totalitarians both because of what it does (policies) and because of what it represents (freedom, democracy, capitalism).

                  The other view currently dominates among many Western academic “experts,” politicians, mass media, and even governments. That concept is that the hatred is our own fault. We have done things in the past — which require apologies — and are doing things in the present that make people angry at America who otherwise would be friendly.

                  An exception is made for a “tiny minority of extremists,” mainly a code word for al-Qaida, but the more sophisticated argument is that such people would have no following if America handled things properly.

                  Thus, in this case, if American facilities are attacked in Cairo and Benghazi it must have been something America did wrong, to wit, an insulting video made by an immigrant from the Middle East about Islam.

                  Diagnosing the problem tells one what the cure is: sensitivity; respect; tightening rules against such insults; bowing and scraping; refusing to identify radicals and terrorists with Islam in any way; giving large amounts of money; helping the Muslim Brotherhood so it will be grateful later; telling the NASA director to make up stuff about Muslim contributions to space travel, etc.

                  That is the path the Obama Administration, with major support from the intellectual-cultural establishment, has followed.

                  Why Do Some of Us Hate Ourselves?

                  The answer to this question follows from the first answer. If “we” are responsible for the hatred and conflict, then we have done evil and must repent. We are the problem or, as one much-feted American intellectual put it, the United States is the cancer of the world.

                  In the Benghazi case, however, it is hard to come up with more than a video, according to the dominant view. After all, didn’t the United States “liberate” Libya from a terrible dictator? Of course, the problem is that from the standpoint of the radicals, the United States merely became Libya’s new master, blocking the revolutionary Islamist, Sharia state they wanted, producing a “puppet” (who cares if it was elected?) government.

                  America is thus the prime enemy not because it did something evil but because it did something which the U.S. government regarded as good. If they hate us in Libya for sinful policies, then President Barack Obama, not the Egyptian-born video producer, is the chief sinner.

                  Is America a Bully or a Leader?

                  As noted above, the establishment view today is that America has been a bully in the past, acting unilaterally and not respecting the views of others. Obama has said this directly when speaking to foreign — including Middle Eastern — audiences.

                  But how does one stop being a bully? By showing that one isn’t tough, doesn’t protect one’s interests fiercely. Thus, in the Benghazi case, the U.S. government didn’t send the ambassador to Benghazi with Americans to guard him, nor did the consulate have Americans to provide security. To do so would be to show disrespect for the Libyans, to act in a way that might be perceived of as imperialistic.

                  Similarly, the president would not call in an airstrike against the attackers or send an armed rescue team to the consulate because to do so would have signaled an arrogance and aggressiveness, putting Americans first and not acting as a citizen of the world.

                  Who is the Enemy?

                  If the enemy is defined as solely al-Qaida this allows a policy of treating all other Islamists — even the Afghan Taliban! — as a potential friend. Both Vice-President Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, for example, explained that leading elements of the Taliban, a group complicit in the September 11 attacks, could be won over. Certainly, the Muslim Brotherhood — the world’s largest and most powerful international anti-American organization — was helped and treated as a potential ally.

                  Al-Qaida, however, is a relatively weak organization, capable of staging only sporadic terror attacks, with the exception perhaps of remote Somalia, Yemen, Afghanistan, and parts of Pakistan. It cannot take over whole countries. The fact that Egypt, the Gaza Strip, Lebanon, Turkey, and perhaps soon Syria are governed by Islamists is a far greater strategic threat.

                  Then why couldn’t the Obama Administration have said that the consulate was attacked by evil al-Qaida for no reason other than its lust to murder Americans, with the perfect symbolism of the attack having been staged on September 11?

                  There was a dual problem. First, the group involved was one the U.S. government had worked with during the Libyan civil war so it could not admit they were close to al-Qaida. Second, the official line was that al-Qaida had been defeated so it could not still be a threat. Therefore, an alternative narrative and a cover-up were needed.

                  Competence and Courage

                  Once upon a time a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination warned that if Obama was elected president he would not be reliable in a crisis, answering a 3 AM phone call requiring instant response. That claim, of course, came from Hillary Clinton. Benghazi was that phone call.

                  That conclusion is reinforced by the killing of al-Qaida leader Usama bin Ladin. Notice something of huge importance that has been neglected. Obama and his supporters bragged about his indecision on the no-brainer of getting the architect of the September 11 attacks. If he would hesitate on an obvious call like that one, how would he deal with a consulate under attack in Benghazi?

                  There is, or should be, a sacred trust between the U.S. government and those who put themselves in harm’s way for the sake of America. Everything should be done to protect and save them. In this case, however, the country’s leaders let those people down both before and during the crisis.

                  Note, too, how unintentionally revealingly Obama responded to this issue in the presidential debate. Once the crisis was over, Obama said, he swung into action, securing those who still survived, investigating who was responsible, and promising to punish them.

                  What about before and during the multi-hour assault? Silence. The details — for example, whether or not there was a drone overhead — obscure the fact that no proper preparations were made for the ambassador and consulate being unprotected and that passivity prevailed during the battle.

                  If the U.S. government didn’t trust the Libyans wouldn’t that show that America thought itself superior and its interests to override those of others? And isn’t that racist?

                  One could say that the Obama Administration’s failure to act denotes incompetence, and there is truth there. But the larger picture is that it was a failure due to its concept of America and the world. The real danger is not from totalitarian enemies grown bolder in the fact of American weakness and a loss of self-confidence. No, according to the prevailing view, it was rather excessive American self-confidence and strength in the past.

                  The effort to change those bad old ways, to open a new era with completely different behavior, the failure to perceive the real enemies and to understand America’s rights and duties were the causes of the incident in Benghazi, and many other setbacks as well.

                  The chickens have come back to roost and have roosted in the White House. And the vultures are gathering.

                  "You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."--General Sir Charles James Napier

                  Comment


                  • Zevico's link clearly identifies the "Blame America First" syndrome which Obama and his administration use as their guiding principle in foreign policy.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by DinoDoc View Post
                      Link? I don't doubt it but it would help with an argument on another board.
                      You have no ideas of your own, do you?
                      “As a lifelong member of the Columbia Business School community, I adhere to the principles of truth, integrity, and respect. I will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.”
                      "Capitalism ho!"

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by regexcellent View Post
                        Zevico's link clearly identifies the "Blame America First" syndrome which Obama and his administration use as their guiding principle in foreign policy.
                        Any intelligent analysis of the situation would have to include our own culpability in regards to the conflict. It's not about blame, it's about understanding the actual reasons for the conflict so we can stop doing the stupid type of things we've done to help create it. We are responsible for our own actions, we can change them, and we have far more power to influence the world than anyone else.

                        If we would own up to that responsibility instead of behaving like spoiled brats incapable of critical analysis of our own actions, the world would be a much better place for everyone (including us).

                        Comment



                        • There is an urgent need for full disclosure of what has become the “Benghazi Betrayal and Cover-up.” ...

                          We now know why Ambassador Christopher Stevens had to be in Benghazi the night of 9/11 to meet a Turkish representative, even though he feared for his safety. According to various reports, one of Stevens’ main missions in Libya was to facilitate the transfer of much of Gadhafi’s military equipment, including the deadly SA-7 – portable SAMs – to Islamists and other al Qaeda-affiliated groups fighting the Assad Regime in Syria…
                          Once the attack commenced at 10:00 p.m. Libyan time (4:00 p.m. EST), we know the mission security staff immediately contacted Washington and our embassy in Tripoli. It now appears the White House, Pentagon, State Department, CIA, NDI, JCS and various other military commands monitored the entire battle in real time via frantic phone calls from our compound and video from an overhead drone. The cries for help and support went unanswered…
                          This attack went on for seven hours. Our fighter jets could have been at our Benghazi mission within an hour. Our Special Forces out of Sigonella could have been there within a few hours. There is not any doubt that action on our part could have saved the lives of our two former Navy SEALs and possibly the ambassador.
                          Having been in a number of similar situations, I know you have to have the courage to do what’s right and take immediate action. Obviously, that courage was lacking for Benghazi. The safety of your personnel always remains paramount. With all the technology and military capability we had in theater, for our leadership to have deliberately ignored the pleas for assistance is not only in incomprehensible, it is un-American… The person who made that callous decision needs to be brought to light and held accountable.



                          There is an urgent need for full disclosure of what has become the “Benghazi Betrayal and Cover-up.” The Obama national security team, including CIA, DNI and the Pentagon, apparently watched and listened to the assault on the U.S. consulate and cries for help but did nothing.


                          Per Retired Admiral James A. Lyons, former commander in chief of the US Pacific Fleet and senior US military representative to the United Nations.
                          "You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."--General Sir Charles James Napier

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Hauldren Collider View Post
                            Condoleezza Rice worked alongside Powell! Bet she doesn't think the GOP is racist!
                            Hmm..

                            Originally posted by HP
                            WASHINGTON — Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says the Republican Party must adapt better to rapidly changing demographics in the United States, saying the GOP sent "mixed messages" in the election campaign on immigration and women's issues.

                            "On the immigration issue, which turned out to be very important, and some issues about women too, some mixed messages were sent," she said Friday on CBS' "This Morning. "And when you send mixed messages through the narrow funnel that is the media spotlight sometimes people hear only one side of that message."

                            "Right now for me the most powerful argument is that the changing demographics in the country really necessitates an even bigger tent for the Republican Party," she said.

                            Said Rice, "But when you look at the composition of the electorate, clearly we are losing important segments of that electorate and what we have to do is to appeal to those people not as identity groups but understanding that if you can get the identity issue out of the way then you can appeal on the broader issues that all americans share concerns for."
                            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2099505.html

                            Comment


                            • Kentonio, the GOP is split down the middle on the immigration issue. PS: Does that say "GOP is racist"? No.
                              If there is no sound in space, how come you can hear the lasers?
                              ){ :|:& };:

                              Comment


                              • Of course, there are some very reasonable Republicans who understand immigration is inevitable and beneficial to the country, and then there are others who are xenophobic, insular racists who just want to keep all the brown people out. We have exactly the same split in the UK Conservative Party. Luckily over here the good half managed to take hold of the party and as a result we don't get those 'mixed messages' any more.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X