Libya Thread Part Deux

[lo country]

Interesting stuff on 60 minutes interview now being released. Also boots on the ground reporting flash message to sit room advising unable to retrieve Ambassador's body. Hospital surrounded by Al-Queda Al Shariah. This report came approx6 hrs after initial message stating Consulate under attack. Admn knew rather quickly who was the cause of the action.

 

Worst attack on US Consulate since the Embassy was over run in 1979 Iran. The flag of Al-Queda flew at theEmbassy Tunisia. Yea, no big deal......no big deal at all......

 

Yea, friggin republicans and those damn reporters..............

[carlfense]

"Don't act like conservative media and politicians are looking for "answers." They're only looking for one answer."

 

And you complain about conspiracies. God forbid anyone actually care when they are mislead by their government.

It's not a conspiracy to suggest that people and pundits of a certain leaning desperately want to blame Obama for this. Heck, we've had at least one poster here admit exactly that.

[carlfense]

Yea, friggin republicans and those damn reporters..............

Be honest . . . could you name all four dead without looking?

 

This is about blame. (More specifically, this is about blaming a certain someone.) That's fine . . . but don't act like it's something that it's not. Also, you might want to come up with a convincing sounding argument about what exactly is being covered up.

[lo country]

Yea, friggin republicans and those damn reporters..............

Be honest . . . could you name all four dead without looking?

 

This is about blame. (More specifically, this is about blaming a certain someone.) That's fine . . . but don't act like it's something that it's not. Also, you might want to come up with a convincing sounding argument about what exactly is being covered up.

Absolutely can name them and their positions, but you know I can't prove that.

 

Covering up what actually happened and when they knew. IMO, it is what it is. A certain someone was very quick to claim credit for UBL. This same person is quick to say how tough he is on terrorists, yet when we get hit, and hard, by an Al-Queda affiliate he is silent. Odd don't you think?

 

Where are your facts debasing those put out by Fox and others. Easy to throw the straw man of conspiracy and "lack of facts".

 

By your title and previous posts, I am guessing that you are a defense atty. As such, if the prosecution (unsure civil or criminal so I will go with prosecutor) introduces evidence that completely contradicts your defense wouldn't you present a counter argument in either closing or cross? Wouldn't you try to dissuade the jury from believing the facts that are being put out painting your client in a bad light? Wouldn't you produce evidence contrary to the accusations?

 

Again, back to the facts. Can you deny that Obama, Clinton and Rice went approx 12 days without calling it a terrorist event and clinging to the idea it was the result of a viral 6 month old video? That the Consulate asked for more security prior to 9/11. That a cable was sent advising that the consulate could not stand a coordinated attack. That the Brits and Red Cross abandoned Benghazi sighting security issues. That there were at least 10 militant training camps in Benghazi. These are facts, reported prior to 9/11. Not hindsight as you alluded to earlier. The Ambassador was inadequately protected. They were in dire straits and it appears nothing was done to increase or harden the US mission there.

 

Lastly reports are coming out that the Consulate and Annex advised the situation room immediately that they were under attack. There are allegations that they requested help (QRF) from Italy and nothing was sent. The QRF actually came from Tripoli, several hours after the attack began. Again after Ty (SEAL) and possibly 2-4 others left the annex and went through a hostile environment for approx 1 mile to rescue those still trapped in the Consulate (Heroes IMO and deserving of having their story told). IIRC they had to charter a plane and had issues once they arrived to get to the consulate. went to the hospital first and found it surrounded by Al-Shariah. These are the facts, not opinions, theories or any other subterfuge you choose to throw out. The govt was woefully unprepared for this event. Then when it happened, refused to acknowledge what it was. If we are to believe that Obama called it a terrorist even the next day hen why did he, Clinton and Rice continue to say it was the result of mob action?

 

If this happened under the Republicans, I would expect someone to answer for the mistakes that were made. I have issues with the lack of statements as an American. Nothing more and nothing less.

[Michiganball]

"If this happened under the Republicans, I would expect someone to answer for the mistakes that were made. I have issues with the lack of statements as an American. Nothing more and nothing less."

 

You could expect it, but of course no one would answer for it. We had a war based on lies and no one answered for it, they just said, ops, sorry bad intel...the end.

[carlfense]

Absolutely can name them and their positions, but you know I can't prove that.

You’d be the first person that I’ve talked to that could do so but I will take your word for it.

 

Covering up what actually happened and when they knew.

That’s your opinion and that’s fine.

 

This same person is quick to say how tough he is on terrorists, yet when we get hit, and hard, by an Al-Queda affiliate he is silent.

Was it proven that it was an Al-Queda affiliate?

 

Easy to throw the straw man of conspiracy and "lack of facts".

^^^I don’t think that strawman means what you think that it means.

 

By your title and previous posts, I am guessing that you are a defense atty.

Keep guessing.

[carlfense]

Can you deny that Obama, Clinton and Rice went approx 12 days without calling it a terrorist event and clinging to the idea it was the result of a viral 6 month old video?

I can deny that because the facts incontrovertibly show that President Obama did call it an act of terrorism within approximately 24 hours.

 

That the Consulate asked for more security prior to 9/11. That a cable was sent advising that the consulate could not stand a coordinated attack. That the Brits and Red Cross abandoned Benghazi sighting security issues.

Agreed. Who saw the cables? What decision was made and why?

 

That there were at least 10 militant training camps in Benghazi.

Don’t know.

 

These are facts, reported prior to 9/11.

Sure. Who saw the facts?

 

Not hindsight as you alluded to earlier.

I don’t think that you understand what I meant by hindsight. I mean that you and others who are seeking to lay blame have the benefit of hindsight.

[carlfense]

The Ambassador was inadequately protected. They were in dire straits and it appears nothing was done to increase or harden the US mission there.

Agreed. Who knew what and when? Without knowing the future, should they have behaved differently?

 

Lastly reports are coming out that the Consulate and Annex advised the situation room immediately that they were under attack. There are allegations that they requested help (QRF) from Italy and nothing was sent. The QRF actually came from Tripoli, several hours after the attack began. Again after Ty (SEAL) and possibly 2-4 others left the annex and went through a hostile environment for approx 1 mile to rescue those still trapped in the Consulate (Heroes IMO and deserving of having their story told). IIRC they had to charter a plane and had issues once they arrived to get to the consulate. went to the hospital first and found it surrounded by Al-Shariah.

 

These are the facts, not opinions, theories or any other subterfuge you choose to throw out.

Actually, by your own admission those are allegations. Quite the difference.

 

The govt was woefully unprepared for this event.

Agreed.

[carlfense]

Then when it happened, refused to acknowledge what it was.

False.

 

If we are to believe that Obama called it a terrorist even the next day hen why did he, Clinton and Rice continue to say it was the result of mob action?

It doesn’t matter if you believe it. It happened. Whether you believe it or not, while a bit sad, is irrelevant.

 

If this happened under the Republicans, I would expect someone to answer for the mistakes that were made.

The Republicans have much bigger crimes to answer for. Thousands of deaths and torture among them. I’ll be patient. You should too.

[carlfense]

edit

[Ziggy]

Yea because this administration would never without info that hurt their election image like, waiting until after the election to release information about an Iranian attack on our unmanned drone. Saying it was on a classified mission is hardly an excuse, last I checked so was the UBL raid but we sure knew about that as soon as could possibly be released.

[carlfense]

Yea because this administration would never without info that hurt their election image like, waiting until after the election to release information about an Iranian attack on our unmanned drone. Saying it was on a classified mission is hardly an excuse, last I checked so was the UBL raid but we sure knew about that as soon as could possibly be released.

I don't think that I've said that this behavior is unique to one party.

[Army Husker]

David Petraeus, who was scheduled to testify next week during the congressional hearings regarding Benghazi, just resigned citing an extra-marital affair. Wonder if he will still be required to testify.

 

Edit: Nevermind; he won't be testifying.

[Conga3]

David Petraeus, who was scheduled to testify next week during the congressional hearings regarding Benghazi, just resigned citing an extra-marital affair. Wonder if he will still be required to testify.

 

Edit: Nevermind; he won't be testifying.

 

I was under the impression the "Administration" won't be sending him to testify on behalf of the CIA - because he doesn't work there anymore...

 

... BUT Congress can compel him to testify if they want to regardless.

 

eh?

[Army Husker]

David Petraeus, who was scheduled to testify next week during the congressional hearings regarding Benghazi, just resigned citing an extra-marital affair. Wonder if he will still be required to testify.

 

Edit: Nevermind; he won't be testifying.

 

I was under the impression the "Administration" won't be sending him to testify on behalf of the CIA - because he doesn't work there anymore...

 

... BUT Congress can compel him to testify if they want to regardless.

 

eh?

I dunno...haven't heard of a subpoena being issued. Not sure if they can issue one at this point; I would have to research if they can for an informative hearing.