GayPatriot

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2012/11/15/seven-questions-about-benghazi/trackback/

  1. I have an additional question.

    The pentagon put out that AFRICOM had no assets to send-not even armed drones or airplanes.

    I would like to know why.

    I know this release about the lack of assets is meant to sound like a defense, but to me at least it just makes my belief in the incompetence of the administration stronger.

    Comment by Just Me — November 15, 2012 @ 6:44 am - November 15, 2012

  2. What, if any, are the possible connections to this attack and our attack on Libya which resulted in the death of Muammar Gaddafi and others — the attack that Sec. of State Mrs. Bill Clinton laughed about?

    Comment by Ignatius — November 15, 2012 @ 10:27 am - November 15, 2012

  3. Why wasn’t security beefed up at the Benghazi compound despite repeated requests?

    Who knew that security costs money?

    The important quotes from the above article:

    CLINTON: “The scope of the proposed House cuts is massive, …The truth is that cuts of that level will be detrimental to America’s national security.”

    BEOHNER SPOKESMAN: “Right now, we need to stop the Washington spending spree so the economy can grow and the private sector can create more jobs. We have confidence that the soldiers and diplomats serving in harm’s way will have the resources they need to protect America.”

    This is from February 2011. So a year and a half before Benghazi, Clinton was warning that Republicans’ cuts to the State Department’s embassy security budget would endanger national security, while Republicans were confident that the diplomats were safe.

    And conservatives want to point fingers?

    Why was there even an U.S presence in the city despite warnings of militia activity?

    It’s the Middle East. There’s militia activity everywhere. That doesn’t mean we pull everyone out.

    What was Ambassador Stevens doing in Benghazi on 09/11?

    Why is this important?

    What did the president know on the day of the attack?

    What kind of question is this?

    What did he tell the military to do on that day? Did he issue any specific orders?

    The military doesn’t need to be micro-managed in this way. The military has its standard operating procedures and they prepare for any number of contingencies. I’m sure they were prepared given what was happening, but you can’t exactly just deploy the military whenever Americans get in trouble in the Middle East.

    Based upon what specific intelligence did Ambassador Rice and other administration officials decide to attribute the attacks to riots over an obscure Internet video?

    You people have to stop calling it obscure. This globally important and widely-distributed internet video triggered protests at our embassies throughout the Middle East. The fact that you’re trying to dismiss it as something that barely mattered and that nobody took note of proves how disingenuous you’re being with Benghazi. You wanted people to think that it was completely unreasonable to think that the video and the attack were connected in any way, because you were really hoping for a scandal that would hurt Obama ahead of the election.

    But there’s no scandal. It’s almost certainly the case that the attackers exploited the fact that there were protests going on all over the region, understanding that our intelligence and security forces would be overwhelmed and that this would leave us vulnerable. As a matter of fact, Dan approvingly quoted an article that described a protest outside the consulate that was about the video:

    “According to U.S. intel, the attack on the Benghazi consulate was pre-planned and unrelated to the protest over the movie outside the building, except to the extent that it used the latter as a diversion for security.”

    Now look at what Susan Rice said: “But based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy–sparked by this hateful video. But soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that– in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent.”

    Two months later, this remains the operating theory – there was a protest about the video at the consulate, and then the attackers showed up. Where did she ever say the attackers were motivated by the video? Where did she say that the video caused the attack?

    Why is the White House so unwilling to address questions about the attack?

    Don’t really know what you mean by that. Where have they not been forthcoming?

    Comment by Levi — November 15, 2012 @ 11:10 am - November 15, 2012

  4. This is from February 2011. So a year and a half before Benghazi, Clinton was warning that Republicans’ cuts to the State Department’s embassy security budget would endanger national security, while Republicans were confident that the diplomats were safe.

    But unfortunately for that argument, screaming liar boy, the cuts haven’t happened yet.

    So what you’re admitting, Levi, is that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama cut security unnecessarily and even while the ambassador was pleading for more, they were denying and obstructing it.

    Next, more blathering:

    It’s the Middle East. There’s militia activity everywhere. That doesn’t mean we pull everyone out.

    Strawman. You are obfuscating for why people were sent into harm’s way without a clear and compelling reason.

    Prove that it was essential for the Ambassador and his staff to be in Benghazi that day.

    Why is this important?

    Because the ambassador himself insisted that there was insufficient security for him to operate safely in Benghazi and that there were credible threats to his survival, as cited above, yet he was ordered to go there anyway.

    What was the clear and compelling reason to send people into a high-risk zone?

    What kind of question is this?

    The same kind as your whine, “What did Bush know on the day of 9/11?”

    The military doesn’t need to be micro-managed in this way. The military has its standard operating procedures and they prepare for any number of contingencies.

    Then the question is why they were ordered NOT to act and NOT to follow standard operating procedures.

    And even better, what the screaming and crying cultist Levi is trying to argue is that the military should be allowed to operate independently of civilian control — which is something that the screaming and crying cultist used to call a coup back in the Bush era.

    And finally:

    Where did she ever say the attackers were motivated by the video? Where did she say that the video caused the attack?

    You got smacked by this already, little liar. With quotes.

    Insane and unhinged cultist Levi has been ordered to beclown himself, and he’s doing a magnificent job of it.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 15, 2012 @ 11:27 am - November 15, 2012

  5. What, if any, are the possible connections to this attack and our attack on Libya which resulted in the death of Muammar Gaddafi and others — the attack that Sec. of State Mrs. Bill Clinton laughed about?

    This is relevant. We do need to understand why people want to attack us in the Middle East, but the answer to that question is kind of obvious. People attack us because we attack them. We’re seen as invaders and conquerors in that part of the world because our policy is hypocritical (in that we support brutal dictators when it suits us), clearly motivated by securing oil, and completely indifferent to the suffering that our economic sanctions and high-tech bombing campaigns inflict upon civilian populations.

    Many conservatives would accuse me of wanting to coddle the terrorists for even suggesting that our problems in the Middle East might be blowback from the foreign policy decisions we’ve made for the past few decades, and would prefer to understand terrorists as action movie villains who ‘hate us for our freedoms.’ Bush and his wars are going to be hamstringing us for decades in the region, and Obama is certainly not helping with his drone strikes. So long as we keep dropping bombs on people, we shouldn’t be surprised when a few of them decide to fight back.

    Hint: We could save ourselves a lot of this trouble if we didn’t need their oil. Massive investment in green/renewable energy is probably the best thing we could do to defeat Islamic terrorism.

    Comment by Levi — November 15, 2012 @ 11:30 am - November 15, 2012

  6. And the sociopathic cultist shows up for his daily therapy session.

    Comment by V the K — November 15, 2012 @ 11:50 am - November 15, 2012

  7. You know what the biggest problem is with sociopaths like Levi, V the K? Apparently, they vote.

    Comment by Bastiat Fan — November 15, 2012 @ 11:57 am - November 15, 2012

  8. Benghazi was the depot in which the CIA was supplying arms to the Libyan rebels. Ambassador Stevens was sent there to be kidnapped by the Muslim Brotherhood to be exchanged for the Blind Sheik in U.S. custody. This was engineered to make Obama look the hero by saving the Ambassador.

    Comment by Juan — November 15, 2012 @ 12:01 pm - November 15, 2012

  9. Two months later, this remains the operating theory – there was a protest about the video at the consulate, and then the attackers showed up. Where did she ever say the attackers were motivated by the video? Where did she say that the video caused the attack?

    I’m going to correct myself here. There was no protest at the consulate, but that doesn’t mean that in the days following the attack, Susan Rice was lying to suggest there was. As I demonstrated, the quote that Dan posted agreed exactly with Susan’s Rice’s statement about attackers joining the protest, so all this goes to show you is that there was confusion about what really is not a significant detail. The point remains that Rice never blamed the attack on the video or said that the attackers were motivated by the video, though again, it would have been a reasonable assumption for her to make given the other protests. Additionally, that the video-related protests served as a useful distraction for the attackers also remains a valid point.

    But, I was wrong to say that the government still believes there was a protest at the consulate.

    Comment by Levi — November 15, 2012 @ 12:01 pm - November 15, 2012

  10. Hint: We could save ourselves a lot of this trouble if we didn’t need their oil. Massive investment in green/renewable energy is probably the best thing we could do to defeat Islamic terrorism.

    Comment by Levi — November 15, 2012 @ 11:30 am – November 15, 2012

    Actually, Levi, we don’t need their oil; we have plenty of our own.

    But Obama and the Barack Obama Party won’t let us tap it.

    Nor will you and Barack Obama let us exploit nuclear energy, which is completely carbon-free, based on existing technology, and quite efficient.

    Rather, you want us to pump money into failed companies so that Obama Party donors can get fat bonuses and leave taxpayers holding the bag.

    So what we see, Levi, is that you really don’t want American energy independence or to be looking at rational solutions; you just want to leech and mooch off the government and are using “green energy” as an excuse.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 15, 2012 @ 12:09 pm - November 15, 2012

  11. 1. According to what I could decipher from earlier testimony in the House hearings, it would appear that a “light footprint” approach was taken to make our presence appear less threatening. The notion appears to have been that a stronger security presence would have precipitated attacks so we wanted a more “peaceful” posture. Again this is an empirical demonstration that there is no such thing as “peace through weakness”.

    Comment by crosspatch — November 15, 2012 @ 12:13 pm - November 15, 2012

  12. Well progress has been made, Levi admits he’s wrong. Of course he still doesn’t see anything suspicious, but believes President Bush was culpable in 9/11.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 15, 2012 @ 12:15 pm - November 15, 2012

  13. This is relevant. We do need to understand why people want to attack us in the Middle East, but the answer to that question is kind of obvious. People attack us because we attack them.

    Comment by Levi — November 15, 2012 @ 11:30 am – November 15, 2012

    But unfortunately, Levi, you and your fellow Obama supporters have screamed that attacking peoples’ religious beliefs, as you do against Christians, pushing economic sanctions against them, as you want against Christian-owned businesses, and even shooting them, as you applauded with the FRC, is perfectly justified — and that people are wrong if they retaliate for doing so.

    Thus, what this sets up is blatant racism and hypocrisy on your part. But that’s understandable when one is aware of your “progressive” mindset, which is to blame the United States and the Jews for all the world’s problems. Since radical and violent Islamists and European socialists agree with you on this, they are your natural allies; thus, you equivocate and spin and justify their actions, such as murdering Americans, in a way that you would absolutely sh*t yourself if Christians or any other religious groups were to do.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 15, 2012 @ 12:19 pm - November 15, 2012

  14. This is relevant. We do need to understand why people want to attack us in the Middle East, but the answer to that question is kind of obvious. People attack us because we attack them.

    Un-huh. Please explain how we ‘attacked’ the anti-quadaffy forces in Lybia prior to attack.

    Or is it that they are ‘Arabians’ that can’t understand western diplomatic protocol?

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 15, 2012 @ 12:21 pm - November 15, 2012

  15. I’m going to correct myself here. There was no protest at the consulate, but that doesn’t mean that in the days following the attack, Susan Rice was lying to suggest there was.

    Actually, it does, Levi.

    You see, you established the rule that if there was even ONE piece of evidence that indicated that Saddam Hussein did not have WMDs, that means any statement made by George W. Bush was a lie. You stated that prevalence of evidence was irrelevant and that even one piece of information to the contrary of the administration’s statements meant they were lying.

    There were in fact SEVERAL pieces of evidence indicating that there was no protest and that this was a planned terrorist attack.

    Therefore, your Barack Obama lied. Your Susan Rice lied.

    And since you screamed and pissed yourself that lying should equal prosecution and impeachment, you need to call for Susan Rice to be prosecuted and Barack Obama to be impeached.

    If you don’t, you are a hypocrite.

    But we already knew that. Once again, you’ve been stomped into the ground by conservatives who are demonstrating that they are much smarter than you and your fellow liberals and that you and your fellow Obama supporters are nothing but irrational and unhinged fanatics following a cult leader.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 15, 2012 @ 1:09 pm - November 15, 2012

  16. You know what the biggest problem is with sociopaths like Levi? Apparently, they vote.

    And run 90% of the MFM.

    Comment by V the K — November 15, 2012 @ 2:17 pm - November 15, 2012

  17. Levi,

    For some stupid as you can get reason, I am going to pretend that you can absorb this information:

    Electricity can be generated in many, many ways. It can not be stored easily. The high demand period do not necessarily coincide with when the sun is shining or when the wind is blowing.

    You can store electricity in batteries. The more efficient the battery, the more rare earth components it contains. Old batteries are as problematic as spent nuclear fuel rods and nuclear waste.

    At Niagra Falls, during the day, rushing water turns turbines and electric pumps send water to a containment lake above the falls. At night, when the demand hits, water is diverted into the containment lake from the Niagra River and it joins by falling through massive conduits with water flowing down the river below the falls and together the force (gravity) of water spins all the turbines to send out electricity to fill the peak demand.

    The “energy” conundrum lies in storing electricity and the inefficiency (loss) in transmitting it over long distances. Stand under high tension lines on a dark night holding a florescent tube and you will see how micro waves leaking from the lines light the tube.

    Coal, oil, natural gas, wood, rubbish, uranium all store energy. You convert that to making steam or firing a combustion motor and turbines spin on demand.

    In March I visited the largest solar field in the US near Harry Reid’s home in Searchlight, Nevada. It sent very supplemental electricity to the high tension lines to augment power from Hoover Dam. At the same time, Hoover Dam had most of its turbines off line and not generating electricity. Therefore, the solar farm was entirely redundant. Then, I went to Palm Springs, California to visit one the biggest wind farms in the country. During the day, 80% of the tubbiness were feathered and not producing, because the grid demand was very low.

    Until you can bottle the electricity you generate, but need at the moment, the whole effort is rather lame.

    When the first solar powered or windmill powered 747 takes off, I really want you to be on it.

    Now, let us be honest about the Middle East. You prefer us out of the world’s affairs as does Obama. You are essentially and isolationist except you want open borders.

    You might consider just what you want from the military, if anything. Instead of just spewing doctrine according to Levi all laced with hyperbole and blustering, you might attempt some introductory level of critical thinking.

    Now go have some cookies and warm milk. Sponge Bob is on.

    Comment by heliotrope — November 15, 2012 @ 4:41 pm - November 15, 2012

  18. For Obama’s entire political life he has been able to blame someone else whenever anything went wrong.
    He was famous for voting ”Present” instead of taking a stand.
    After becoming president he became known as our ”ditherer-in-chief,” when he spent months trying to decide about a surge or gay marriage or who to blame next.
    On this Benghazi screw up Obama cannot pass the buck.
    Either he authorized an across border action OR he didn’t.
    He’s been dithering (calling it an investigation) all this time because it all falls on him.
    BTW, a Real Admiral and three, maybe four Generals have all been removed during Obama’s dither.
    Seems he’s been trying to somehow deflect blame from himself but nothing is working.
    Eventually, whether he ever finishes his ”investigation” or not, enough of the truth will come out via ex-Admirals and Generals.

    Comment by Nan G — November 15, 2012 @ 7:53 pm - November 15, 2012

  19. “But Obama and the Barack Obama Party won’t let us tap it.”

    International Energy Agency foresees an energy-independent US within 10 years

    Comment by Passing By — November 15, 2012 @ 11:18 pm - November 15, 2012

  20. If you’re looking at the Republican harumphing over Benghazi and asking yourself, “Why are we supposed to be so mad about this again?” you’re not alone. …

    I can sum it up in two words: scandal envy. Republicans are indescribably frustrated by the fact that Barack Obama, whom they regard as both illegitimate and corrupt, went through an entire term without a major scandal. They tried with “Fast and Furious,” but that turned out to be small potatoes. They tried with Solyndra, but that didn’t produce the criminality they hoped for either. Obama even managed to dole out three-quarters of a trillion dollars in stimulus money without any graft or double-dealing to be found. Nixon had Watergate, Reagan had Iran-Contra, Clinton had Lewinsky, and Barack Obama has gotten off scott-free. This is making them absolutely livid, and they’re going to keep trying to gin up a scandal, even if there’s no there there. Benghazi may not be an actual scandal, but it’s all they have handy.”

    Comment by Passing By — November 15, 2012 @ 11:34 pm - November 15, 2012

  21. Dead bodies are not a ‘scandal’. It’s criminal negligence and accessory to murder and treason if he was truly running guns to al Qaeda.

    Comment by Annie — November 16, 2012 @ 2:23 am - November 16, 2012

  22. I’m amazed that anyone could attempt to rationalize Benghazi away as “scandal envy”. Pathetic. It just shows how morally corrupted some people have become.

    The question I have is “Who made the initial association of the attack on the Consulate to the video?” We now know now the video wasn’t the cause. Apparently General Petraeus knew that almost immediately after the attack began.

    Max Fisher of the Atlantic posted an article before the fires even died out (dated SEP 11 2012 2:22PM ET) that said “… they’re protesting an American film that insults Prophet Mohammed.” Where did he get that information from? There was no one in front of the Consulate ranting about a video. It was a planned terrorist attack?

    The video had been posted for over two (2) months with almost no attention. I Google searched it before September 11 and found 2 hits. But all of the sudden on September 11 it is all over the news as the cause for the attack. Anyone buying this story?

    Comment by David — November 16, 2012 @ 7:22 am - November 16, 2012

  23. @Annie.

    What got my blood boiling wasn’t Obama’s ‘not optimal’ statement about the dead. It was the ‘we will make it better’. He may beleive his own press about being the second coming, but he can’t ‘make it better’ for those four men.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 16, 2012 @ 1:45 pm - November 16, 2012

  24. [...] Seven Questions about Benghazi [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Who changed CIA “Talking Points” on Benghazi? — November 16, 2012 @ 5:16 pm - November 16, 2012

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

**Note: Your first comment is held for moderation. Avoid profanity, avoid personal attacks on fellow commenters, and avoid complaining about personal attacks (even on you). Feel free to disagree with anyone, but focus on their ideas; give us the information that you think they overlooked.**


Live preview of comment

Close this window.

0.199 Powered by Wordpress