Tom Ricks

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]smh23 wrote:

I’ve said again and again on these boards that the Obama administration’s response to the incident was unacceptable. But am I going to pretend that I think it’s a crime against humanity that Susan Rice said the attacks were sparked by a Youtube video? No, I’m not.[/quote]

LOL…you should just stop pretending smh. If it was unacceptable as you claim then what should we do about it? “Um…whatever you do DON’T BLAME OBAMA!”

And it was more than just Rice claiming that the deaths were caused by a video. It was the administrations stock answer because they didn’t want anyone to think there was actually (GASP)…TERRORISM going on in the middle east.

Obama said it was the video and so did Hillary Clinton. They deliberately lied to the American people just like Richard Nixon did. But in Nixon’s case he had a hostile media. In Obama’s case the media is a mere lap dog.

At first there was a cry for help from Benghazi that was ignored BY OBAMA. Did they watch the attack from a camera in a drone? Who knows? The MSLM won’t press it so who cares right?

We had Marines near by and we also had military jets that could have helped. BUT…not a finger was lifted because oh my let’s not get those nice Muslims anymore mad at us than they already are.

1-Obama refused to send protection in advance as was requested.

2-Obama stood by and watched (or could have) while the people in the embassy were wiped out.

3-Obama then tried to cover up the entire incident blaming it on a video.

Obama IS A JOKE!

A clueless joke.

If the media cared to report the truth Obama would be under fire daily. But there’s no danger in that happening is there smh?

22

[quote]ZEB wrote:

2-Obama stood by and watched (or could have) while the people in the embassy were wiped out.

[/quote]

Nonsense.

The attack was launched at 9:35 p.m. local time (3:35 p.m. Eastern). By 10 p.m., when Libyan reinforcements and Americans from the CIA annex arrived at the scene, the compound was in flames and Sean Smith was dead. Since Stevens was killed by smoke inhalation, we can presume that he too was either dead or close to death at this point.

That’s 25 minutes.

A drone arrived in the airspace above the compound and began providing a live video feed to Washington at 5:11 p.m. EST, one hour and thirty one minutes after the attack began.

Therefore, your statement is demonstrably bullshit.

This, after the “Stevens was raped” claim you made in your last post, is strike two for you in the facts department.

And you haven’t responded to the point I made in my last post (which was itself an echo of Ricks’ argument on Fox): where was the outrage when hundreds of security contractors died in Iraq under George W. Bush’s watch? Where is your moral outrage at Rumsfeld’s dismissal of soldiers’ pleas for better equipment during the brilliant invasion and occupation of Iraq?

Or did you not bat an eye at the time because the guy in the White House had been elected with an “R” next to his name on the ballot?

23

[quote]smh23 wrote:

Nonsense.

The attack was launched at 9:35 p.m. local time (3:35 p.m. Eastern). By 10 p.m., when Libyan reinforcements and Americans from the CIA annex arrived at the scene, the compound was in flames and Sean Smith was dead. Since Stevens was killed by smoke inhalation, we can presume that he too was either dead or close to death at this point.

That’s 25 minutes.

[/quote]

Actually no, the State Department and Whitehouse were made aware of desperate calls for help 12 hours earlier:

‘September 11, 9:40AM - the security manager of the team in the consulate sends a desperate call for help. Roads around the consulate are being barricaded for the pending attack. Other security personnel warn that the Libyan Police were mapping the consulate for the attacks that would come.’

And several months earlier:

'April - September: numerous requests for increased security in Benghazi are all denied or ignored.

August 15 - State Department warned Benghazi personnel were ‘sitting ducks’

‘…where was the outrage when hundreds of security contractors died in Iraq under George W. Bush’s watch?’

It’s the circumstances of these particular deaths that make them important. The pleas for help ignored, those wanting to help told to stand down, the lies about a spontneous demostration over some video etc.

24

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

2-Obama stood by and watched (or could have) while the people in the embassy were wiped out.

[/quote]

Nonsense.

The attack was launched at 9:35 p.m. local time (3:35 p.m. Eastern). By 10 p.m., when Libyan reinforcements and Americans from the CIA annex arrived at the scene, the compound was in flames and Sean Smith was dead. Since Stevens was killed by smoke inhalation, we can presume that he too was either dead or close to death at this point.

That’s 25 minutes.

A drone arrived in the airspace above the compound and began providing a live video feed to Washington at 5:11 p.m. EST, one hour and thirty one minutes after the attack began.

Therefore, your statement is demonstrably bullshit.[/quote]

I said they COULD HAVE BEEN WATCHING! I also said there will be no investigation because the media doesn’t care. Can you understand the difference?

Was he raped? Many say he was. But we do know he was murdered and his body was dragged through the streets. Did you see that video? Or…maybe you want to pretend that didn’t happen too. I understand anything to try to protect your fearless leader…the clueless liar Obama.

http://www.westernjournalism.com/washington-times-us-ambassador-to-libya-was-raped-before-he-was-tortured-killed/

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2012/09/us-ambassador-to-libya-was-raped-before-he-was-tortured-and-killed-savage.html

Here he is being dragged through the streets

And tell me what has been done about it?

NOTHING!

And I noticed you’re no longer trying to defend the outright lies told by Obama and his gang of liars. “It was all over an anti-Muslim video”…YUPPERS!

And where is your defense that the consulate asked for additional security and was denied?

Uh huh…

Does it make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside to know that Obama thinks he’s so much smarter than everyone else that he can tell these whoppers and get away with it?

The media covers it up and suckers like you continue to follow BLINDLY.

You defense of Obama and his team is actually surprising. I actually thought you were smarter than this smh.

25

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

Nonsense.

The attack was launched at 9:35 p.m. local time (3:35 p.m. Eastern). By 10 p.m., when Libyan reinforcements and Americans from the CIA annex arrived at the scene, the compound was in flames and Sean Smith was dead. Since Stevens was killed by smoke inhalation, we can presume that he too was either dead or close to death at this point.

That’s 25 minutes.

[/quote]

Actually no, the State Department and Whitehouse were made aware of desperate calls for help 12 hours earlier:

‘September 11, 9:40AM - the security manager of the team in the consulate sends a desperate call for help. Roads around the consulate are being barricaded for the pending attack. Other security personnel warn that the Libyan Police were mapping the consulate for the attacks that would come.’
[/quote]

Do you have a source for this?

“The guard, interviewed Thursday in the hospital where he is being treated for five shrapnel wounds in one leg and two bullet wounds in the other, said that the consulate area was quiet – “there wasn’t a single ant outside,” he said – until about 9:35 p.m., when as many as 125 armed men descended on the compound from all directions.”

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/09/13/168415/no-protest-before-benghazi-attack.html#storylink=cpy

According to this testimony, no attack–and no suspicion of an attack–existed before 9:35 p.m. local time in Benghazi.

Also, the point of the timeline I provided above was to disprove Zeb’s claim about Obama watching the people in the compound be “wiped out,” which he didn’t because he couldn’t because Stevens was dead within 25 minutes of the attack’s inception and well before a drone arrived in the airspace above Benghazi.

26

^^ Sexmachine: I’m pretty sure that’s meant to read “9:40 p.m.” and refers to the local time in Benghazi when the attack began, which leaves my timeline entirely intact.

If not, I’m pretty confused right now.

27

Holy FING pOO we agree

28

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

2-Obama stood by and watched (or could have) while the people in the embassy were wiped out.

[/quote]

Nonsense.

The attack was launched at 9:35 p.m. local time (3:35 p.m. Eastern). By 10 p.m., when Libyan reinforcements and Americans from the CIA annex arrived at the scene, the compound was in flames and Sean Smith was dead. Since Stevens was killed by smoke inhalation, we can presume that he too was either dead or close to death at this point.

That’s 25 minutes.

A drone arrived in the airspace above the compound and began providing a live video feed to Washington at 5:11 p.m. EST, one hour and thirty one minutes after the attack began.

Therefore, your statement is demonstrably bullshit.[/quote]

I said they COULD HAVE BEEN WATCHING! I also said there will be no investigation because the media doesn’t care. Can you understand the difference?

Was he raped? Many say he was. But we do know he was murdered and his body was dragged through the streets. Did you see that video? Or…maybe you want to pretend that didn’t happen too. I understand anything to try to protect your fearless leader…the clueless liar Obama.

http://www.westernjournalism.com/washington-times-us-ambassador-to-libya-was-raped-before-he-was-tortured-killed/

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2012/09/us-ambassador-to-libya-was-raped-before-he-was-tortured-and-killed-savage.html

Here he is being dragged through the streets

And tell me what has been done about it?

NOTHING!

And I noticed you’re no longer trying to defend the outright lies told by Obama and his gang of liars. “It was all over an anti-Muslim video”…YUPPERS!

And where is your defense that the consulate asked for additional security and was denied?

Uh huh…

Does it make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside to know that Obama thinks he’s so much smarter than everyone else that he can tell these whoppers and get away with it?

The media covers it up and suckers like you continue to follow BLINDLY.

You defense of Obama and his team is actually surprising. I actually thought you were smarter than this smh.
[/quote]

As you well know, I am not defending Obama. Again, I don’t approve of his administration’s handling of the attack and its aftermath.

I’m saying that the right’s breathless, in some cases giddy reaction to the incident was overblown, especially in light of their dismissive attitude toward American casualties incurred under George W. Bush. Again, more security contractors–and many more Americans in general–died as a direct result of that flailing dunce’s policy decisions. And again: how about if a top Obama administration official came out and said: “You protect ambassadors with the security forces you have, not the security forces wish you have.” You think Fox would like that? Would you?

Conversely, MSNBC’s reaction to the crisis has been equally inadequate: they’ve been playing pure defense.

Regarding your factual misstatements: you said Obama “could have been watching”–incorrect, because Stevens was dead by the time a drone arrived and provided feed. That’s pretty simple. I guess you could say he could have been watching if he had been standing on the ground in Benghazi, but that’s pretty meaningless.

And this part is important: Stevens’ alleged “rape.” You say: “was he raped? Many say he was.” Really? Who? Partisan idiots? I’ve already shown you that the news report–A LIBYAN WEBSITE–on which that information was based wrongly attributed it to AFP and was then entirely retracted.

This gets at the giddiness of partisan conservatives I mentioned above: you like to say that Stevens was raped because it adds an element of lurid sensationalism to the story. On a visceral level, it renders the entire incident somewhat more repulsive. It adds to the suffering and the humiliation and therefore to the depth of the Obama administration’s failure.

In other words, you cling on to a disgusting and entirely uncorroborated and untrustworthy report simply because it serves your political purpose.

29

smh23,

One more post and while you are fixated on two non essentials to the story you cannot explain why your President didn’t act when he could have and should have!

  1. Not sending more security when it was asked for in advance.

  2. Not sending help during the incident when help was nearby.

  3. Not only lying to the American people claiming it was an anti-Muslim video that caused the murders. But getting every top official to lie as well.

  4. The generally corrupt main stream liberal media has said very little about this and continues to try to cover it up.

Obama has failed us economically and now foreign policy wise as well.

And you wonder why there is outrage on the part of conservatives in this country?

If you post back you can answer the above four points if you are able.

30

[quote]smh23 wrote:

As you well know, I am not defending Obama. Again, I don’t approve of his administration’s handling of the attack and its aftermath.

[/quote]

31

[quote]ZEB wrote:
you are fixated on two non essentials to the story
[/quote]

See the post I quoted above. I’m not interested in defending Obama’s handling of the attack because I don’t approve of it.

Regarding the “two non essentials,” I figure it can’t hurt to expose falsehoods on a board about politics. Furthermore, as I argued in my last post, the line about Stevens’ alleged rape is indicative of something rather more insidious than mere misinformation.

On the whole, though, I think you and I more or less agree on the two points under discussion: 1. Obama handled the Benghazi attack poorly; and 2. Fox is full of partisan hacks.

32

[quote]ZEB wrote:
What I’ve found interesting is that prior to FOX News the mainstream media was only tilted a bit left. And usually only around major elections, otherwise it was close to being balanced. When FOX surfaced the main stream meida started leaning even further left as if to say “Oh yeah!”

Now because of FOX we don’t have anything even close to being balanced anymore. This is actually a giant step backward. But then again why shouldn’t the news media follow our entire culture?[/quote]

That’s an interesting take. I haven’t heard you express that opinion before, as far as I’m aware you always said the media was biased (as in, “not so slightly”) even before Fox. And that Fox represented a market-driven answer to demand to “not left biased” news to balance things out.

33

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
you are fixated on two non essentials to the story
[/quote]

See the post I quoted above. I’m not interested in defending Obama’s handling of the attack because I don’t approve of it.

Regarding the “two non essentials,” I figure it can’t hurt to expose falsehoods on a board about politics. Furthermore, as I argued in my last post, the line about Stevens’ alleged rape is indicative of something rather more insidious than mere misinformation.

On the whole, though, I think you and I more or less agree on the two points under discussion: 1. Obama handled the Benghazi attack poorly; and 2. Fox is full of partisan hacks.[/quote]

But taking a hold of a non essential point and defending it is not germane to the primary topic, that is the many mistakes made by Obama. I understand that you wanted to clear the air regarding the rape as we know it and that’s fine - Thank you. But it is less important whether he was raped. That is far overshadowed by the fact that he was badly mistreated, killed and dragged through the streets.

And of course there should be outrage on your part because…

Obama did not send more security when it was asked for in advance.

Obama did not send help during the incident when help was nearby.

Obama and company lied to the American people claiming it was an anti-Muslim video that caused the murders.

I don’t want to beat a dead horse and yes we do agree that the media is tilted too much one way or the other depending on where you go.

34

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
What I’ve found interesting is that prior to FOX News the mainstream media was only tilted a bit left. And usually only around major elections, otherwise it was close to being balanced. When FOX surfaced the main stream meida started leaning even further left as if to say “Oh yeah!”

Now because of FOX we don’t have anything even close to being balanced anymore. This is actually a giant step backward. But then again why shouldn’t the news media follow our entire culture?[/quote]

That’s an interesting take. I haven’t heard you express that opinion before, as far as I’m aware you always said the media was biased (as in, “not so slightly”) even before Fox. And that Fox represented a market-driven answer to demand to “not left biased” news to balance things out.

[/quote]

FOX is the most watched news network for a reason. The have captured a market that was not being serviced before. However, when they began they began with a wide swing right which, as I noted, caused the main stream liberal media to answer back with an even wider swing left. Sometimes I think that we, as a nation would have been better off had FOX never appeared on the scene, or somehow appeared on the scene even more powerfully than they have (if that would have been possible). Because while they have a large viewership it is still not large enough to over take all of the other left wing media combined, and which they (FOX) helped create. And where the majority of people still get their news.

Quite a conundrum, no?

35

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
you are fixated on two non essentials to the story
[/quote]

See the post I quoted above. I’m not interested in defending Obama’s handling of the attack because I don’t approve of it.

Regarding the “two non essentials,” I figure it can’t hurt to expose falsehoods on a board about politics. Furthermore, as I argued in my last post, the line about Stevens’ alleged rape is indicative of something rather more insidious than mere misinformation.

On the whole, though, I think you and I more or less agree on the two points under discussion: 1. Obama handled the Benghazi attack poorly; and 2. Fox is full of partisan hacks.[/quote]

But taking a hold of a non essential point and defending it is not germane to the primary topic, that is the many mistakes made by Obama. I understand that you wanted to clear the air regarding the rape as we know it and that’s fine - Thank you. But it is less important whether he was raped. That is far overshadowed by the fact that he was badly mistreated, killed and dragged through the streets.

And of course there should be outrage on your part because…

Obama did not send more security when it was asked for in advance.

Obama did not send help during the incident when help was nearby.

Obama and company lied to the American people claiming it was an anti-Muslim video that caused the murders.

I don’t want to beat a dead horse and yes we do agree that the media is tilted too much one way or the other depending on where you go.

[/quote]

We agree in general on Obama’s mishandling of the incident (though if you’re referring to Americans at the CIA annex as help nearby, they did arrive within twenty or twenty-five minutes of the attack, but were unable to find Stevens, who was probably already dead.)

36

[quote]smh23 wrote:
^^ Sexmachine: I’m pretty sure that’s meant to read “9:40 p.m.” and refers to the local time in Benghazi when the attack began, which leaves my timeline entirely intact.

If not, I’m pretty confused right now.[/quote]

Yes, you’re right it is meant to read p.m. However these weren’t:

'According to documents found on November 1, at 6:43 a.m. one of the guards saw a member of the police force in the upper level of a building across from the compound’s main gate. The guard reported that the person was photographing the inside of the compound and furthermore that this person was part of the police unit sent to protect the mission.

September 11, 2012: 9:43 a.m. Benghazi time (3:43 ET): Amb. Stevens sent cables to D.C., including a Benghazi weekly report of security incidents reflecting Libyans’ “growing frustration with police and security forces who were too weak to keep the country secure.”

37

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
you are fixated on two non essentials to the story
[/quote]

See the post I quoted above. I’m not interested in defending Obama’s handling of the attack because I don’t approve of it.

Regarding the “two non essentials,” I figure it can’t hurt to expose falsehoods on a board about politics. Furthermore, as I argued in my last post, the line about Stevens’ alleged rape is indicative of something rather more insidious than mere misinformation.

On the whole, though, I think you and I more or less agree on the two points under discussion: 1. Obama handled the Benghazi attack poorly; and 2. Fox is full of partisan hacks.[/quote]

But taking a hold of a non essential point and defending it is not germane to the primary topic, that is the many mistakes made by Obama. I understand that you wanted to clear the air regarding the rape as we know it and that’s fine - Thank you. But it is less important whether he was raped. That is far overshadowed by the fact that he was badly mistreated, killed and dragged through the streets.

And of course there should be outrage on your part because…

Obama did not send more security when it was asked for in advance.

Obama did not send help during the incident when help was nearby.

Obama and company lied to the American people claiming it was an anti-Muslim video that caused the murders.

I don’t want to beat a dead horse and yes we do agree that the media is tilted too much one way or the other depending on where you go.

[/quote]

We agree in general on Obama’s mishandling of the incident (though if you’re referring to Americans at the CIA annex as help nearby, they did arrive within twenty or twenty-five minutes of the attack, but were unable to find Stevens, who was probably already dead.)[/quote]

Against orders. They were told twice to stand down. Those orders would’ve come down via the Whitehouse and the State Dept.

38

[quote]H factor wrote:
It should be called MSNBC opinions or Fox opinions. At least Stewart is just a comedy program and doesn’t masquerade as serious news. Fox and MSNBC are the left and right versions of pure confirmation bias. [/quote]

Just because they both have a point of view doesn’t mean both are wrong.

One can be right whether you agree with it or not.

39

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
this board is an example of why media is at peril . If you say something one side does not like , it will be called delusional , stupid , they will try and lump you into a mythical class of people that have no grasp on reality . Every one has to be right all the time . Just think of all the posters that 10,000 posts and have never admitted to being wrong [/quote]

You’ve aptly described liberals on this board. The others mostly just ask for sources or some kind of proof besides, “weed makes you think better,” from a known pot smoker.

40

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
you are fixated on two non essentials to the story
[/quote]

See the post I quoted above. I’m not interested in defending Obama’s handling of the attack because I don’t approve of it.

Regarding the “two non essentials,” I figure it can’t hurt to expose falsehoods on a board about politics. Furthermore, as I argued in my last post, the line about Stevens’ alleged rape is indicative of something rather more insidious than mere misinformation.

On the whole, though, I think you and I more or less agree on the two points under discussion: 1. Obama handled the Benghazi attack poorly; and 2. Fox is full of partisan hacks.[/quote]

But taking a hold of a non essential point and defending it is not germane to the primary topic, that is the many mistakes made by Obama. I understand that you wanted to clear the air regarding the rape as we know it and that’s fine - Thank you. But it is less important whether he was raped. That is far overshadowed by the fact that he was badly mistreated, killed and dragged through the streets.

And of course there should be outrage on your part because…

Obama did not send more security when it was asked for in advance.

Obama did not send help during the incident when help was nearby.

Obama and company lied to the American people claiming it was an anti-Muslim video that caused the murders.

I don’t want to beat a dead horse and yes we do agree that the media is tilted too much one way or the other depending on where you go.

[/quote]

We agree in general on Obama’s mishandling of the incident (though if you’re referring to Americans at the CIA annex as help nearby, they did arrive within twenty or twenty-five minutes of the attack, but were unable to find Stevens, who was probably already dead.)[/quote]

No, I’m referring to the Marines that were about one hour away and the military planes that could have been dispatched. Obama allowed the people at the embassy to die without lifting a finger to help.

Simple.