Five months on, Benghazi killers back to work and business as usual

[Sava]

Not hardly. Perhaps you should actually learn what is going on in Libya even now instead of just living the Chris Matthews inspired life.

Well, you have my attention! Educate me about the TRUTH in Libya that OBAMA is covering up.

[PLATO]

Well, you have my attention! Educate me about the TRUTH in Libya that OBAMA is covering up.

Nice one.

[MrFun]

It's amazing how some people like Zevico, DD, and others on here want to dishonor the deaths of those who died at Benghazi just to score cheap political points against the Obama administration.

[Zevico]

Let's review:

1. Following 9/11, Bush invaded an entire country to attack the organisation responsible for it and the group complicit after the fact, the Taliban. (You may remember the Taliban as the group the current Administration is negotiating with to achieve peace in our time in Afghanistan. Strangely, the Taliban continues fighting despite the talks. Maybe an organisation that backed Al Qaeda after 9/11 isn't very peaceful after all?.) The Bush Administration funded intelligence and military operations designed to kill Bin Laden. It was commonly assumed that Bin Laden was hiding in Pakistan's tribal regions and there was no question that the Bush Administration was willing to enter Pakistani soil to kill him if need be. Obama continued Bush's policy and killed Bin Laden. Politically he was being about brave as a mouse. No one would fault him for the decision if things went wrong. I certainly wouldn't. It would be political suicide not to kill Bin Laden if it ever emerged that the opportunity to do so arose and was declined.
2. Five months after an attack on sovereign American soil, the Obama Administration has yet to do anything to attack, deter or stop the organisation responsible for the killings in any way even though they committed themselves to hunting down the people responsible for them. Indeed, the organisation responsible operates as openly as it did prior to the attacks without fear of reprisal or consequences.

Does the Administration plan on doing anything? At all? Or have they quietly decided that deterring American enemies in Libya is in the "too hard" basket? If so, don't the American people deserve an explanation as to why that might be? Shouldn't it be the subject of some debate?

[DaShi]

Unbelievable!

[Sava]

Nice one.

So we're back to the circular logic?

Once again, another situation where Obama has to prove a negative. No proof is enough for you *****. Still think he was born in Kenya?

[dannubis]

Let's review:

1. Following 9/11, Bush invaded an entire country to attack the organisation responsible for it and the group complicit after the fact, the Taliban. (You may remember the Taliban as the group the current Administration is negotiating with to achieve peace in our time in Afghanistan. Strangely, the Taliban continues fighting despite the talks. Maybe an organisation that backed Al Qaeda after 9/11 isn't very peaceful after all?.) The Bush Administration funded intelligence and military operations designed to kill Bin Laden. It was commonly assumed that Bin Laden was hiding in Pakistan's tribal regions and there was no question that the Bush Administration was willing to enter Pakistani soil to kill him if need be. Obama continued Bush's policy and killed Bin Laden. Politically he was being about brave as a mouse. No one would fault him for the decision if things went wrong. I certainly wouldn't. It would be political suicide not to kill Bin Laden if it ever emerged that the opportunity to do so arose and was declined.
2. Five months after an attack on sovereign American soil, the Obama Administration has yet to do anything to attack, deter or stop the organisation responsible for the killings in any way even though they committed themselves to hunting down the people responsible for them. Indeed, the organisation responsible operates as openly as it did prior to the attacks without fear of reprisal or consequences.

Does the Administration plan on doing anything? At all? Or have they quietly decided that deterring American enemies in Libya is in the "too hard" basket? If so, don't the American people deserve an explanation as to why that might be? Shouldn't it be the subject of some debate?

You REALLY want to suggest a similar course of action in Lybia as in Afghanistan ?

And if so, when are you going to put your money where your mouth is and enlist ?

[C0ckney]

it is beyond incredible that after nearly 12 years of utter failure in afghanistan, there are still people who think that continuing down the same path is preferable to negotiating with the various groups that the western media calls the taliban.

[Zevico]

You REALLY want to suggest a similar course of action in Lybia as in Afghanistan ?

I'm saying the Administration committed itself to hunting down the people responsible for the Benghazi attack. If it's changed its mind since then, I suggest they front up about it and we can discuss whether or not it was a good idea. If it has changed its mind, we can safely say that the Administration has failed to honour its commitment to the American people. Not to mention the victims' families. I am saying that this also lessens American credibility abroad and leads others to believe they can attack the US with relative impunity. That's dangerous. I am not saying an invasion is necessary.

[kentonio]

Just remind me which president it was who got Bin Laden, a decade after Bush 'committed' himself to bringing him to justice? It's almost like your vision of how America should deal with its foreign policy is outdated and ridiculous, isn't it?

[PLATO]

So we've gone from hoping the partisan divisions in America can be removed to throwing around terms like 'Liberal crap' and 'annointed one'?

I am duly chastised. Apologies MRT.

[PLATO]

Or how helping to overthrow a tyrant and deliver functioning democracy to a country without losing a single US life at the time, should be considered a failure in the eyes of people like PLATO and Ogie who supported the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq!?

It was not a failure to overthrow Ghadafi...it is a failure in how we did not plan for the aftermath. It was equally a failure in Iraq and Afghanistan. All three were worthy causes imo. The Bush administration failed miserably in the aftermath of both Iraq and Afghanistan. The Obama administration is failing in Libya.

The problem with U.S. foriegn policy seems to go deeper than eithier particular administration. My point is that whatever administration is in power, it is time we make some fundamental changes in how we intervene and, more importantly, what we do once we have intervened. How we did the intervention in Libya is obviously an improvement, but then each case is different. How we handle the aftermath of our intervention is something that does not seem to have improved imo. Government needs to be held accountable for this. Saying that "Bush wasn't held accountable" is no excuse not to hold the present administration accountable. Using that excuse to give Obama a pass is not good government...it is purely politics.

[PLATO]

Just remind me which president it was who got Bin Laden, a decade after Bush 'committed' himself to bringing him to justice? It's almost like your vision of how America should deal with its foreign policy is outdated and ridiculous, isn't it?

I would imagine that Shakil Afridi probably has a different impression......

[kentonio]

I would imagine that Shakil Afridi probably has a different impression......

Personally I think the CIA using a vaccination front is utterly disgusting and immoral, but I don't really see how Afridi is hugely relevant to this. He got thrown in jail for 33 years, does that really compare to the countless lives lost under Bush while failing to find and deal with Bin Laden?

[PLATO]

Personally I think the CIA using a vaccination front is utterly disgusting and immoral, but I don't really see how Afridi is hugely relevant to this. He got thrown in jail for 33 years, does that really compare to the countless lives lost under Bush while failing to find and deal with Bin Laden?

If you are going to do this as a matter of foriegn policy though you shouldn't through the people who help you to the wolves. I also do not see Bush as "failing" to deal with Bin Laden, but rather Obama's work as a continuation of what Bush did to find him.