Customer Discussions > Politics forum

Benghazigate: Did Obama Expect The Libyans to Save the Day?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 52 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Nov 17, 2012 2:48:45 PM PST
John M. Lane says:
Obama has stated that he ordered all possible actions taken to protect American personnel at Benghazi. Did he direct those orders to the February 17th Brigade, the Libyan formation which seemed to be tasked with providing security to the American consulate in Benghazi?

Did he also order American assets in the area to "stand down" and let the Libyans address the security issues? This might explain the apparent contradiction between the orders.

It also seems consistent with Obama's pro-Islamist orientation in the Middle East. Unfortunately, the Libyan security personnel mostly melted away when the attack started. Some may have even joined the al Qaeda-linked attackers.

Is that what Obama is covering up?

Posted on Nov 17, 2012 3:09:41 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 17, 2012 3:10:02 PM PST
Suggest you all read this article (There's a companion piece in the WaPo but the site is currently down - link below). A repeated pattern of intelligence failures in the Clinton and Obama administrations and look who's involved.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2002/01/osama200201?currentPage=1

"From the autumn of 1996 until just weeks before the 2001 attacks, the Sudanese government made numerous efforts to share this information with the United States-all of which were rebuffed. On several occasions, senior agents at the F.B.I. wished to accept these offers, but were apparently overruled by President Clinton's secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, and her assistant secretary for Africa, Susan Rice, both of whom would not comment for this story after repeated requests for interviews."

"Mohamed spent three years trying to get a meeting with the State Department's assistant secretary for Africa, Susan Rice, only to find himself fobbed off on junior officials."

"In the case of Sudan, 1996 through 2000, Madeleine Albright and her assistant secretary for Africa, Susan Rice, apparently preferred to trust their instincts that Sudan was America's enemy, and so refused to countenance its assistance against the deepest threat to U.S. security since 1945."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A64828-2002Jun29

Susan Rice's tarnished resume:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-susan-rices-tarnished-resume/2012/11/16/55ec3382-3012-11e2-a30e-5ca76eeec857_story.html

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 17, 2012 3:24:41 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 17, 2012 3:25:40 PM PST
Bush was responsible for the death of 3000 people in the 9/11 attack and 5000 American soldiers in Iraq based on a lie and we never heard a word from you right-wing hypocrites. You even backed him for torturing the detainees. Now, the death of 4 people, one who was not even supposed to be there, is really important to you because you want to connect this to Obama and scream "impeach".

Sore losers. Petraeus already gave satisfactory explanations. It is over.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 17, 2012 3:26:48 PM PST
Dragonwolf says:
I don't think the GOP leadership want to really go anywhere with this, they know it is a dead end that will cause them to look bad.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 17, 2012 3:36:41 PM PST
John M. Lane says:
How was Bush "responsible for the deaths of 3000 people in the 9/11 attack," BOgulrzbak. Are you a "truther?"

By the way, Bush didn't lie to get us into Iraq. Saddam's violations of the cease fire prompted the American led coalition to intervene, an intervention which was supported by the Democrats, by the way.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 17, 2012 3:38:00 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 17, 2012 3:45:14 PM PST
nameinuse says:
A minority of Democrats. Who were fed cherry picked, incomplete and inaccurate information to get the response the Bush administration wanted, John.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 17, 2012 3:38:17 PM PST
John M. Lane says:
I'm not concerned about how the GOP leadership looks, or how Obama's administration looks, Dragonwolf. I want to know how four Americans were killed when American assets were reportedly available which could have saved them.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 17, 2012 3:39:01 PM PST
John M. Lane says:
Thanks for the references, entropybydesign. I'll take a look at them.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 17, 2012 3:40:11 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 17, 2012 3:44:02 PM PST
nameinuse says:
I want to know how the al Qaeda pilots were overlooked leading to death of 3000 civilians, when in fact a security brief had been submitted to the Bush administration on that very thing, after one aQ pilot had been detained who was training for the same attack had already been identified and after AQ had already tried to blow up the WTC...but that doesn't look like it's going to happen, John.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 17, 2012 3:47:54 PM PST
Jim Penname says:
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

See Operation Desert Fox.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 17, 2012 3:49:57 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 17, 2012 3:56:04 PM PST
nameinuse says:
That's why they had sanctions in place against Iraq. And they never supposed Saddam's possession of weapons posed a threat to the United States. It posed a threat to the stability of the region.

Entirely different from proposing an invasion of Iraq.

Nice try but not even close, John. You missed it by a mile.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 17, 2012 3:51:24 PM PST
John M. Lane says:
That's a good point, nameinuse, but it's more appropriate to a 9-11 thread. To me, facts like that suggest overcompartmentalization. Remember, Bush's intelligence apparatus was still essentially the one he inherited from Bill Clinton and they'd added all sorts of bureaucratic hurdles and barriers which, I believe, reduced the efficiency of the system.

His CIA Director, George Tenant, was a Clinton appointee. Even an agile, effective intelligence apparatus might not have been able to connect the dots of what appeared to be an attack borrowed from a Tom Clancy novel.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 17, 2012 3:52:49 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 17, 2012 3:55:20 PM PST
nameinuse says:
Fog of war, John. Fog of war.

There isn't actually a separate set of rules for the administrations of political parties you like and the ones you don't. Sorry. But that's the truth.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 17, 2012 3:57:20 PM PST
John M. Lane says:
I might be missing lots of things by a mile, nameinuse. I'm willing to admit that.

By the way, it was Bush's CIA director, a Clinton holdover, who declared that Saddam's WMDs were a "slam dunk."

Ironically, it wasn't the WMDs that prompted the coalition's intervention. It was Saddam's refusal to cooperate with UN inspections and to stop shooting at Coalition aircraft over the "No Fly Zone."

And, one of Saddam's generals described moving all sorts of military gear into Baathist Syria to protect it from the aerial offensive Saddam anticipated. It was positioned so that it could be retrieved and deployed to meet the Coalition ground offensive which was expected to follow. Instead, the Coalition launched a ground/air offensive leaving Saddam no time to retrieve his WMDs from Syria. I suspect that his nuclear project was destroyed later in the Syrian desert by an IDF air raid.

Of course, I could be off by a mile.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 17, 2012 3:58:35 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 17, 2012 3:59:33 PM PST
Jim Penname says:
But you are wrong.
Sanctions had been in place since 1991.
And WE bombed the utter crap out of Iraq in 1998. On those very suppositions.
That Bill Clinton thought that all war could be handled from the air and by remote control does not change the fact that we made war on them. You didn't see fit to complain about it.
And now you are acting as though it never happened. Unrealistic.
Plus Iraq was going to have to get done.
You don't sit on somebody like that for generations, with the no fly zones CAP and corrupt oil for food.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 17, 2012 3:59:25 PM PST
John M. Lane says:
The "fog of war" has always been a problem, nameinuse. Clausewitz identified it, but so did Sun Tzu and others.

That's why they stressed the importance of accurate intelligence.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 17, 2012 4:00:08 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 17, 2012 4:04:06 PM PST
nameinuse says:
There was no weapons of mass destruction, John. Bush pre-empted Hans Blix's inspection of Iraqi facilities and ordered them out. That's about the only thing Bush's doctrine of pre-emptive strike actually did pre-empt as it turned out.

So yeah, you missed it by a mile and we spent a decade on a completely pointless war that only resulted in benefitting Iran.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 17, 2012 4:06:04 PM PST
John M. Lane says:
Actually there were, nameinuse. It was Saddam's violations of the cease fire, however, that triggered the military response by the Coalition which was supported by both Democrats and Republicans.

Your side supported the "pointless war", then changed sides which encouraged al Qaeda to drag it out. Now, you're trying to re-write history and blame it all on Bush.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 17, 2012 4:08:06 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 17, 2012 4:11:10 PM PST
nameinuse says:
Only a minority of Democrats in both the house and the senate supported the Iraq resolution, John. After being given selective, inaccurate and incomplete information on the situation, I might add.

Obama btw, always opposed the war. One of the key reasons why the Democrats nominated Obama over Hillary Clinton obviously.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 17, 2012 4:15:05 PM PST
John M. Lane says:
How was the information "selective," nameinuse? Every intelligence agency on the planet agreed with it and most still do. Look at Wikileaks sometime. There's all kinds of reports about Saddam era chemical weapons being rigged up as IEDs. One even used sarin and could have taken out 10,000 people if it hadn't been defused.

All of Saddam's commanders expected chemical weapons to be deployed and the better equipped Iraqi units had protective gear. Did Bush make all that up too?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 17, 2012 4:18:01 PM PST
Roger says:
That's an old excuse, John. The latest excuse is, wrong place at the wrong time. It's a changing America. Along with changes in social issues come changes in social excuses.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 17, 2012 4:18:57 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 17, 2012 4:22:04 PM PST
nameinuse says:
There was the yellow cake report floating around that was completely false, and they knew it to be false... and many analysts had also suggested that Saddam was intentionally giving the impression he had weapons that he did not because he believed that would, in fact, deter a ground invasion. But these were omitted, John.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 17, 2012 4:22:59 PM PST
Roger says:
I honestly don't think it's anything sinister. There was indeed some miscommunication and the attackers most likely picked up on it. It was the anniversary of 9/11 and they were probably just as ready as security was. I just hate how no one initially wanted to claim responsibility for it. I also hate the delay in informing the American public what was known. Whether Obama or Petraeus or anyone had any insight...

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 17, 2012 4:24:27 PM PST
John M. Lane says:
Speaking of "yellowcake," nameinuse, how do you explain the hundreds of tons of yellowcake located in Iraq and flown out to safe storage areas around the world? Where'd it come from if not Niger?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 17, 2012 4:27:54 PM PST
Jim Penname says:
I know you'll say it wasn't the same Yellow Cake.
Nevertheless
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/secret-us-mission-hauls-uranium-iraq/#.UKgrFY5opYU

"updated 7/5/2008 6:57:12 PM ET
Print Font:
The last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program - a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium - reached a Canadian port Saturday to complete a secret U.S. operation that included a two-week airlift from Baghdad and a ship voyage crossing two oceans.

The removal of 550 metric tons of "yellowcake" - the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment - was a significant step toward closing the books on Saddam's nuclear legacy. It also brought relief to U.S. and Iraqi authorities who had worried the cache would reach insurgents or smugglers crossing to Iran to aid its nuclear ambitions.

What's now left is the final and complicated push to clean up the remaining radioactive debris at the former Tuwaitha nuclear complex about 12 miles south of Baghdad - using teams that include Iraqi experts recently trained in the Chernobyl fallout zone in Ukraine."
‹ Previous 1 2 3 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Politics forum
Participants:  10
Total posts:  52
Initial post:  Nov 17, 2012
Latest post:  Nov 18, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 2 customers

Search Customer Discussions