logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> He Knew, Obama is a liar, does this change your opinion of him?
Barack Obama, serial liar.
You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.
Total Votes: 25
Guests cannot vote 
Bikerdad
post Oct 24 2012, 07:37 PM
Post #1


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,832
Member No.: 715
Joined: May-8-03

Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



White House told of militant claim two hours after Libya attack
QUOTE
Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.

Now, when assessing whether or not President Obama is a serial liar, we are going to use the strictest of standards, or more accurately, the most charitable. Thus, campaign promises aren't going to be considered. Sure, he promised that he would close Gitmo, but clearly he hasn't. Claims that others have made on his behalf which he let stand for years aren't going to be considered either. After all, perhaps he truly didn't know that his publicist/agent claimed in promotional material for years that he was born in Kenya. Nor are we even going to consider claims he made that fly in the face of common sense and would never pass the "reasonable doubt" test, such as his claim that he didn't know Reverend Jeremiah Wright was a spouting anti-American, racist black liberation theology from the pulpit, even though President Obama attended his church for 20 years.

“It was also there — at Trinity United Church of Christ on the South Side of Chicago — that I met Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., who took me on another journey and introduced me to a man named Jesus Christ. It was the best education I ever had.”

We aren't going to look events 40 years ago, of which there are no records. No, we're going to focus on simple, factual statements made by Obama about events, some of which Obama himself was party to, events that are in the public record. We've got three examples here. The first is his and his Administration's response to the Benghazi attack, linked above.

The second is a speech then Senator Obama gave at Hampton University, on June 5th, 2007. Departing from his prepared speech, Obama said (paraphrased):

Obama mentions the Stafford Act, which requires communities receiving federal disaster relief to contribute 10 percent as much as the federal government does. Senator Obama, as he was then, pointed out that this requirement was waived in the case of New York and Florida because the people there were considered to be "part of the American family." But the people in New Orleans, they've been stiffed -- "Where's your dollar? Where's your Stafford Act money? ... The people down in New Orleans they don’t care about as much!”

You can see the entire video of his speech here. The section in question starts roughly at the 22:00 mark, and continues for about two minutes.

So, where's the lie? On May 24, 2007, the Senate voted on the final amendments to HR2206, which included Stafford Act waivers for New Orleans. It passed the Senate 80-14. Senator Barack Obama voted against it. The "they" in his above quote apparently includes OBAMA and 9 other Democrat Senators (plus one independent), and only 3 Republicans. hmmm.gif

The third example is Obama lying to protect his Administration, again, about facts that are a matter of public record.

QUOTE
Asked about the Fast and Furious program at the Univision forum on Thursday (Sep 20th, 2012), President Obama falsely claimed that the program began under President George W. Bush.

“I think it’s important for us to understand that the Fast and Furious program was a field-initiated program begun under the previous administration,” the president said. “When Eric Holder found out about it, he discontinued it. We assigned a inspector general to do a thorough report that was just issued, confirming that in fact Eric Holder did not know about this, that he took prompt action and the people who did initiate this were held accountable.”

In actuality, the Fast and Furious program was started in October 2009, nine months into the Obama presidency. - ABC News



1} Do you believe Obama is a serial liar, merely a politician, or perhaps a mix?

2} What is the dividing line between annoying spin, and lying? Does the dividing line move depending on the ideological perspective of the spinner/liar?

3} "People died, Obama lied"? Accurate statement regarding Benghazi, or not?

4} IF it were established beyond any reasonable doubt that Obama himself in full knowledge lied about Benghazi and the video, should he resign? (Reasonable doubt means HE knew, not that he SHOULD HAVE known.)

5} Springboarding from #4, at what point is the distinction between malfeasance (lying) and ignorance irrelavent, i.e. whether lying or incompentent, ya gotta go?






Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
Mrs. Pigpen
post Oct 26 2012, 09:02 PM
Post #21


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,344
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Amlord @ Oct 26 2012, 04:08 PM) *
They attacked two different complexes in Benghazi which were a half mile apart with AK47s, RPGs and mortar fire. If it were one location, I'd say there was a chance of spontaneity. Two locations and given the coordinated nature of the attack (multiple flanks, suppressing fire, etc) I'd think this was in the works.


One location that didn't officially exist. And you can't imagine any possible reason why a full and open public disclosure of all potentialities wasn't immediately forthcoming?

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Oct 26 2012, 09:03 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
akaCG
post Oct 26 2012, 09:10 PM
Post #22


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
August 2012

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,846
Member No.: 10,787
Joined: November-25-09

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Oct 26 2012, 03:06 PM) *
QUOTE(Hobbes @ Oct 26 2012, 02:51 PM) *
Who goes to a demonstration carrying RPG's, anyway? Or even AK 47's? This being a random act doesn't even make superficial sense.


But a terrorist group awaiting opportunity (and they aren't short of them in this part of the planet) might jump on a mass demonstration and bring all the weapons they have at their disposal. That would make sense, IMO.

If I were in their position, that's what I would do (see Sun Tzu).

In this actual case (as opposed to some hypothetical case that Sun Tzu might or might not have anything to say about), however, there was no demonstration to "jump on".

Ambassador Stevens, having walked the Turkish envoy to the consulate's gate after the two of them had a lovely dinner and bid him a cordial farewell at about 8:40 PM, returned to the residence and retired to his room. All was quiet for the next 40 minutes or so, at which point the quiet was disturbed not by people gathering outside, pumping their fists and shouting "We condemn the video!" or somesuch, but by ... gunfire and explosions.

This post has been edited by akaCG: Oct 26 2012, 09:12 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amf
post Oct 27 2012, 02:55 AM
Post #23


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,372
Member No.: 1,540
Joined: October-23-03

From: Atlanta, GA
Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: Independent



Maybe this article will shed some light on the different stories coming from the administration:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...2911132288.html

To some, everything will seem nefarious when it comes to this administration. On the other hand, sometimes it's just a damn big political/bureaucratic organization trying to sort things out partially in public view. Should Obama have pulled a Cheney and overridden his intelligence agencies' analysis?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Oct 27 2012, 12:19 PM
Post #24


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,377
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(amf @ Oct 26 2012, 10:55 PM) *
Maybe this article will shed some light on the different stories coming from the administration:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...2911132288.html

To some, everything will seem nefarious when it comes to this administration. On the other hand, sometimes it's just a damn big political/bureaucratic organization trying to sort things out partially in public view. Should Obama have pulled a Cheney and overridden his intelligence agencies' analysis?


Perhaps a more current question is how would Mitt Romney handle a similar situation? Would he suddenly become honest and courageous, or would he become evasive and dismissive? Based on his past performances, I think the latter. He might even delegate the responsibility to an underling due to being the CEO of the USA and thereby above the fray.

In any case, it's an exercise of tortured interpretation of the English language to attempt distinguishing between an act of terror and a terrorist attack. It's saying the same thing in a slightly different way. Terrorists perform acts of terror, which is what defines them as terrorists. Those acts of terror are all terrorist attacks, being that not attacking would not be an act of terrorism. It would be an act of passivity, the realm of Gandhi.

So the bottom line is that not only has Romney stepped into a giant steaming pile, so have those trying to justify his blunder. This is an unfolding situation as the early voting continues and the actual storms head toward the East Coast. Milk and bread will be in short supply, and the early voting is likely intensifying. Shoot, polling place operatives may even forget to ask for the unnecessary IDs!

Curses, the weather. First the convention and now the election. Curses.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
trumpetplayer
post Oct 27 2012, 01:40 PM
Post #25


******
Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 438
Member No.: 7,739
Joined: May-22-07

Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Oct 27 2012, 07:19 AM) *
QUOTE(amf @ Oct 26 2012, 10:55 PM) *
Maybe this article will shed some light on the different stories coming from the administration:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...2911132288.html

To some, everything will seem nefarious when it comes to this administration. On the other hand, sometimes it's just a damn big political/bureaucratic organization trying to sort things out partially in public view. Should Obama have pulled a Cheney and overridden his intelligence agencies' analysis?


Perhaps a more current question is how would Mitt Romney handle a similar situation? Would he suddenly become honest and courageous, or would he become evasive and dismissive? Based on his past performances, I think the latter. He might even delegate the responsibility to an underling due to being the CEO of the USA and thereby above the fray.

In any case, it's an exercise of tortured interpretation of the English language to attempt distinguishing between an act of terror and a terrorist attack. It's saying the same thing in a slightly different way. Terrorists perform acts of terror, which is what defines them as terrorists. Those acts of terror are all terrorist attacks, being that not attacking would not be an act of terrorism. It would be an act of passivity, the realm of Gandhi.

So the bottom line is that not only has Romney stepped into a giant steaming pile, so have those trying to justify his blunder. This is an unfolding situation as the early voting continues and the actual storms head toward the East Coast. Milk and bread will be in short supply, and the early voting is likely intensifying. Shoot, polling place operatives may even forget to ask for the unnecessary IDs!

Curses, the weather. First the convention and now the election. Curses.



Bottom line is that you are trying to push this off on Romney somehow. Actually, Romney has been FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR to the nth power more forthcoming that THIS President. Using words, meaning, reality and context Romney wins. Those political blinders are killing your reasoning skills.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ringwraith
post Oct 27 2012, 11:49 PM
Post #26


******
Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 253
Member No.: 697
Joined: April-28-03

From: Houston, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



The entire way this has been handled by the current administration has been perplexing to say the least. Scary to say the most.

The following are what I have learned about the attack.

1. The President has yet to call a press conference and answer direct questions about this event choosing to release drips and drabs of information and avoiding answering direct questions with vague non answers about "continuing investigation" almost 7 weeks later.

2. The attack took approximately 7 hours start to finish.

3. It was under almost constant surveillance by 2 different unarmed drones giving a real time feed to U.S. assets, not to mention radio/phone communication with those under attack on the ground and the compound surveillance cameras.

4. Within the first 2 hours, elements of the Obama administration was informed of the claims of responsibility from Ansar al-Sharia and was stating this in e-mails throughout the intelligence and diplomatic community.

5. Apparently, 3 separate attempts to obtain military assistance while the attack was under way were rebuffed by the CIA according to assets on the ground in Benghazi. They were also told to stand down and in the case of at least several CIA assets this order was disobeyed.

6. The CIA (Petraeus) denies any such rebuff/stand down order came from the CIA.

I also understand that Obama, Panetta, and NSA Thomas Donilon were in the White House that evening and assuredly receiving updates on the situation.

It seems to me, that in a situation like this, when American diplomats/staff are in harms way on foreign soil and are requesting military assistance for their protection it would be the Presidents call since any such action would be violating foreign sovereignty...correct?

If all the above are true....then either someone in the circle above is grossly incompetent and didn't tell Obama what was going on OR Obama for whatever reason decided not to send aid to those under attack in Benghazi.

Someone please set me straight where I am wrong or making illogical suppositions.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paladin Elspeth
post Oct 28 2012, 01:27 AM
Post #27


*********
I want the 10th Doctor for President!

Sponsor
August 1, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,987
Member No.: 721
Joined: May-10-03

From: Between 2 Great Lakes
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Ringwraith @ Oct 27 2012, 07:49 PM) *
The entire way this has been handled by the current administration has been perplexing to say the least. Scary to say the most.

The following are what I have learned about the attack.

1. The President has yet to call a press conference and answer direct questions about this event choosing to release drips and drabs of information and avoiding answering direct questions with vague non answers about "continuing investigation" almost 7 weeks later.

2. The attack took approximately 7 hours start to finish.

3. It was under almost constant surveillance by 2 different unarmed drones giving a real time feed to U.S. assets, not to mention radio/phone communication with those under attack on the ground and the compound surveillance cameras.

4. Within the first 2 hours, elements of the Obama administration was informed of the claims of responsibility from Ansar al-Sharia and was stating this in e-mails throughout the intelligence and diplomatic community.

5. Apparently, 3 separate attempts to obtain military assistance while the attack was under way were rebuffed by the CIA according to assets on the ground in Benghazi. They were also told to stand down and in the case of at least several CIA assets this order was disobeyed.

6. The CIA (Petraeus) denies any such rebuff/stand down order came from the CIA.

I also understand that Obama, Panetta, and NSA Thomas Donilon were in the White House that evening and assuredly receiving updates on the situation.

It seems to me, that in a situation like this, when American diplomats/staff are in harms way on foreign soil and are requesting military assistance for their protection it would be the Presidents call since any such action would be violating foreign sovereignty...correct?

If all the above are true....then either someone in the circle above is grossly incompetent and didn't tell Obama what was going on OR Obama for whatever reason decided not to send aid to those under attack in Benghazi.

Someone please set me straight where I am wrong or making illogical suppositions.

I am not going to make any judgments on your suppositions, but I do want to add this to the mix in the discussion:

Obama did not deny requests for help in Benghazi: aide: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-d...--election.html
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hobbes
post Oct 28 2012, 02:54 AM
Post #28


Group Icon

**********
No More Mr. Nice Guy!

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 5,330
Member No.: 1,155
Joined: September-8-03

From: Dallas, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE
Obama did not deny requests for help in Benghazi: aide: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-d...--election.html


Which raises the question: "Then, who did?" By his own statements, it appears to have been Leon Panetta (or at least he has volunteered or been elected to take that stand)...which is still very much the administration. This would then raise the question, given the length of the attack, 'Wasn't Obama informed of this decision?'. I find it ludicrous to think he wouldn't have been. In which case, he could have countermanded the order, but didn't. In which case the statement above would be technically correct, while also being completely facetious.

FWIW...that link appears to have been taken down, unless its just something from my computer.

This post has been edited by Hobbes: Oct 28 2012, 02:56 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aquilla
post Oct 28 2012, 05:03 AM
Post #29


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 3,148
Member No.: 421
Joined: February-3-03

From: Missouri
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(Ringwraith @ Oct 27 2012, 06:49 PM) *
The entire way this has been handled by the current administration has been perplexing to say the least. Scary to say the most.

........

If all the above are true....then either someone in the circle above is grossly incompetent and didn't tell Obama what was going on OR Obama for whatever reason decided not to send aid to those under attack in Benghazi.

Someone please set me straight where I am wrong or making illogical suppositions.


Seems like a pretty accurate account and assesment to me. This entire thing is becoming increasingly alarming to me. mad.gif

Aquilla
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
scubatim
post Oct 28 2012, 05:14 AM
Post #30


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 2,409
Member No.: 8,004
Joined: September-30-07

From: Iowa
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Oct 27 2012, 08:27 PM) *
QUOTE(Ringwraith @ Oct 27 2012, 07:49 PM) *
The entire way this has been handled by the current administration has been perplexing to say the least. Scary to say the most.

The following are what I have learned about the attack.

1. The President has yet to call a press conference and answer direct questions about this event choosing to release drips and drabs of information and avoiding answering direct questions with vague non answers about "continuing investigation" almost 7 weeks later.

2. The attack took approximately 7 hours start to finish.

3. It was under almost constant surveillance by 2 different unarmed drones giving a real time feed to U.S. assets, not to mention radio/phone communication with those under attack on the ground and the compound surveillance cameras.

4. Within the first 2 hours, elements of the Obama administration was informed of the claims of responsibility from Ansar al-Sharia and was stating this in e-mails throughout the intelligence and diplomatic community.

5. Apparently, 3 separate attempts to obtain military assistance while the attack was under way were rebuffed by the CIA according to assets on the ground in Benghazi. They were also told to stand down and in the case of at least several CIA assets this order was disobeyed.

6. The CIA (Petraeus) denies any such rebuff/stand down order came from the CIA.

I also understand that Obama, Panetta, and NSA Thomas Donilon were in the White House that evening and assuredly receiving updates on the situation.

It seems to me, that in a situation like this, when American diplomats/staff are in harms way on foreign soil and are requesting military assistance for their protection it would be the Presidents call since any such action would be violating foreign sovereignty...correct?

If all the above are true....then either someone in the circle above is grossly incompetent and didn't tell Obama what was going on OR Obama for whatever reason decided not to send aid to those under attack in Benghazi.

Someone please set me straight where I am wrong or making illogical suppositions.

I am not going to make any judgments on your suppositions, but I do want to add this to the mix in the discussion:

Obama did not deny requests for help in Benghazi: aide: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-d...--election.html

Your link appears broken, maybe you can find the article with a better link?

Obama himself may not have denied requests, but it has been established that requests for more security was not fulfilled. This has not been denied and has been demonstrated clearly.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
vsrenard
post Oct 28 2012, 07:09 AM
Post #31


********
vsrenard

Sponsor
September 2008

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 1,065
Member No.: 5,438
Joined: September-6-05

From: SF Bay Area
Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Liberal
Party affiliation: Other



Here is a revised link:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-d...--election.html
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Oct 28 2012, 08:27 AM
Post #32


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,377
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(vsrenard @ Oct 28 2012, 03:09 AM) *


I find this alarming:

QUOTE
But Weekly Standard Editor Bill Kristol, in a post published Friday, doubted Panetta's explanation and said the fault must lie with Obama himself. "Would the secretary of defense make such a decision on his own? No," Kristol wrote. "It would have been a presidential decision."


Kristol's credibility fell apart when he pushed for the adventure in Iraq. I find it alarming that Republicans still give credence to this clown who can't think himself out of a flimsy paper sack. He also has zero experience with the military or any other dangerous situation.

But hey, nice try to get an October surprise going. There's not much more than a week left, and this kind of behavior just tells voters that electing Romney would be bringing back GWB . . . and Cheney sour.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amf
post Oct 28 2012, 11:34 AM
Post #33


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,372
Member No.: 1,540
Joined: October-23-03

From: Atlanta, GA
Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE
It was under almost constant surveillance by 2 different unarmed drones giving a real time feed to U.S. assets, not to mention radio/phone communication with those under attack on the ground and the compound surveillance cameras.


This is wrong.

The drones were in the air starting 2 hours after the attack began and what exactly could they see? It was midnight by then. It's a neighborhood with lots of shadows and hiding places. Lots of explosions and fire on the ground. People running around (are they locals looking to watch or running away? Are they fighters? Are they our people?). By daylight, 5 hours later, the fighters had all melted away.

The FBI didn't get to the surveillance cameras until a week or so ago when they finally were allowed in, so the first two hours and the first set of up-close images from the attack weren't accessible until then. The communications they had with the people on the ground was via sat phone and all that told them was what they could see from the "panic room" area where they had chosen to hide.

QUOTE
Obama himself may not have denied requests, but it has been established that requests for more security was not fulfilled


Indeed, so let's look at that. How many fighters were there? I've seen numbers anywhere from 35 to 150 at any one time. How many people do you think that a single ambassador who was known in the region for walking around amongst the people would it take to secure him from an attack like that? How big a force do you think is around the President at any time when he's away from the White House and would it secure him if the house he stayed in came under attack from a force of 35 fighters with small arms and RPGs?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
scubatim
post Oct 28 2012, 06:17 PM
Post #34


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 2,409
Member No.: 8,004
Joined: September-30-07

From: Iowa
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(amf @ Oct 28 2012, 06:34 AM) *
QUOTE
It was under almost constant surveillance by 2 different unarmed drones giving a real time feed to U.S. assets, not to mention radio/phone communication with those under attack on the ground and the compound surveillance cameras.


This is wrong.

The drones were in the air starting 2 hours after the attack began and what exactly could they see? It was midnight by then. It's a neighborhood with lots of shadows and hiding places. Lots of explosions and fire on the ground. People running around (are they locals looking to watch or running away? Are they fighters? Are they our people?). By daylight, 5 hours later, the fighters had all melted away.

The FBI didn't get to the surveillance cameras until a week or so ago when they finally were allowed in, so the first two hours and the first set of up-close images from the attack weren't accessible until then. The communications they had with the people on the ground was via sat phone and all that told them was what they could see from the "panic room" area where they had chosen to hide.

False, as I have pointed out in other threads, Charlene Lamb with the State Department testified to the House Oversight Committee that she witnessed the attacks nearly real time. Her words, not mine. Here is the hearing. I am still looking for a transcript, however feel free to watch the video for yourself. I, like a political nerd watched the hearing live.

QUOTE(amf @ Oct 28 2012, 06:34 AM) *
QUOTE
Obama himself may not have denied requests, but it has been established that requests for more security was not fulfilled


Indeed, so let's look at that. How many fighters were there? I've seen numbers anywhere from 35 to 150 at any one time. How many people do you think that a single ambassador who was known in the region for walking around amongst the people would it take to secure him from an attack like that? How big a force do you think is around the President at any time when he's away from the White House and would it secure him if the house he stayed in came under attack from a force of 35 fighters with small arms and RPGs?

Yes, in your expert opinion how many? I think at this point we defer to the experts that were actually on the ground asking for the security personnel. Who are you to question them? This isn't about how many fighters were there during the attack, but the threats that were known prior to the anniversary of 9/11 which prompted the requests. Don't try to distract the debate. Multiple requests were denied. This is covered thoroughly in the hearing. If you think you have reason to doubt Regional Security Officer Nordstrom, Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, and Ambassador Patrick Kennedy, please share. It is their testimony that request were made and not fulfilled.

QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Oct 28 2012, 03:27 AM) *
QUOTE(vsrenard @ Oct 28 2012, 03:09 AM) *


I find this alarming:

QUOTE
But Weekly Standard Editor Bill Kristol, in a post published Friday, doubted Panetta's explanation and said the fault must lie with Obama himself. "Would the secretary of defense make such a decision on his own? No," Kristol wrote. "It would have been a presidential decision."


Kristol's credibility fell apart when he pushed for the adventure in Iraq. I find it alarming that Republicans still give credence to this clown who can't think himself out of a flimsy paper sack. He also has zero experience with the military or any other dangerous situation.

But hey, nice try to get an October surprise going. There's not much more than a week left, and this kind of behavior just tells voters that electing Romney would be bringing back GWB . . . and Cheney sour.gif

First, let's look at the political slant on this...if this happened under the previous administration, you would be calling for the resignation and indictment of both President Bush and Vice President Cheney.

Second, someone in President Obama's administration denied the requests. President Obama has some responsibility in this as he is the head of the administration. I don't think his responsibility warrants any indictment, but I do feel that it is his responsibility to hold the individual that did deny these requests responsible and if necessary, ensure charges are brought.

It appears that President Obama was briefed of the threat and did nothing. I know you can't help but to defend him regardless of the evidence, it is exactly what one would expect. Instead of addressing the issue itself, you attack a journalist.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amf
post Oct 28 2012, 10:42 PM
Post #35


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,372
Member No.: 1,540
Joined: October-23-03

From: Atlanta, GA
Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE
Charlene Lamb with the State Department testified to the House Oversight Committee that she witnessed the attacks nearly real time. Her words, not mine


Actually, what you just said, straight from the bowels of talk radio is wrong. Here's the money quote from her testimony (thanks for the link, it was at the bottom of the page):

QUOTE
From that point on, I could follow what was happening in almost real-time.


Note she didn't say "watch". she said "she could follow" it. Operators were on the phone with people on the ground talking to them. The drones weren't in the air for over 2 hours. She couldn't witness anything first-hand.

QUOTE
Yes, in your expert opinion how many? I think at this point we defer to the experts that were actually on the ground asking for the security personnel. Who are you to question them?


Yes, let's ask the experts.

QUOTE
But Eric Allan Nordstrom, who served as the chief security officer at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli from September 2011 until July, testified that the “ferocity and intensity” of the attack on the rented Benghazi compound that served as a temporary consulate exceeded any violence that he’d seen in Libya or elsewhere.

“Having an extra foot of wall, or an extra half-dozen guards or agents would not have enabled us to respond to that kind of assault,” he said, adding that it “will signal a new security reality” for U.S. diplomatic missions.


Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/10/1...ck-couldnt.html

On the other hand, I agree that the person who made the call not to increase security should be fired or re-assigned. But it wouldn't have made a difference in the outcome once the group made the decision to attack. There would have just been more dead. And the right-wing would still use it as a reason to be angry at Obama.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hobbes
post Oct 28 2012, 11:17 PM
Post #36


Group Icon

**********
No More Mr. Nice Guy!

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 5,330
Member No.: 1,155
Joined: September-8-03

From: Dallas, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(amf @ Oct 28 2012, 05:42 PM) *
On the other hand, I agree that the person who made the call not to increase security should be fired or re-assigned


Even if that turns out to be the President? Even if someone just in his administration (which it would have had to be) that's pretty damning. Which scapegoat will be offered up...and will everyone buy into it, or dig deeper?

QUOTE
But it wouldn't have made a difference in the outcome once the group made the decision to attack. There would have just been more dead. And the right-wing would still use it as a reason to be angry at Obama.


Would agree with each of these statements...which is why I am much more concerned about what occurred during and after the attack than I am about what didn't occur prior to it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amf
post Oct 29 2012, 12:27 AM
Post #37


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,372
Member No.: 1,540
Joined: October-23-03

From: Atlanta, GA
Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Hobbes @ Oct 28 2012, 07:17 PM) *
QUOTE(amf @ Oct 28 2012, 05:42 PM) *
On the other hand, I agree that the person who made the call not to increase security should be fired or re-assigned


Even if that turns out to be the President? Even if someone just in his administration (which it would have had to be) that's pretty damning. Which scapegoat will be offered up...and will everyone buy into it, or dig deeper?

First of all, if the question of security of a single ambassador at a single consulate is a question the president is answering directly, yes FIRE HIM. Why? Because that's not his job. His job is the big picture vision stuff and big decisions. This was never a "big decision", regardless of the tragic outcome.

It's not going to even be a political appointee who made the decision. It's going to be someone in the state dept. bureaucracy responsible for diplomatic security. And even then... doesn't matter. Adding another 20 men wouldn't have made any difference in the face of 150 fighters with light and heavy weapons. Again, you'd have to have put more people than the President gets for on-the-go security and even then you'd still lose a lot of people.

We all know the real mistake was having an ambassador go into a danger zone, but we hate to blame the dead. He made the decision to go, knowing the risks. But he felt the potential rewards were worth that. He guessed wrong and the outcome sucked. Bad stuff happens and it's more fun to blame the people left behind than to blame the person who made the decision to put his own life at risk.

Will there be more to this story? Maybe. But conjecture ("General Ham was reassigned because he screwed up and didn't send in troops!") and false assertions ("They were watching everything in real-time!") are only making the water muddier, not clearer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
scubatim
post Oct 29 2012, 01:29 PM
Post #38


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 2,409
Member No.: 8,004
Joined: September-30-07

From: Iowa
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(amf @ Oct 28 2012, 05:42 PM) *
QUOTE
Charlene Lamb with the State Department testified to the House Oversight Committee that she witnessed the attacks nearly real time. Her words, not mine


Actually, what you just said, straight from the bowels of talk radio is wrong. Here's the money quote from her testimony (thanks for the link, it was at the bottom of the page):

QUOTE
From that point on, I could follow what was happening in almost real-time.


Note she didn't say "watch". she said "she could follow" it. Operators were on the phone with people on the ground talking to them. The drones weren't in the air for over 2 hours. She couldn't witness anything first-hand.

As I said, my information is from the hearing. Did you watch it? In the hearing Lamb testified that she witnessed the attack nearly real time. What you read was her prepared testimony, but after questioning, she admits that she watched it real time. Get off your defend the president at all costs and realize that something very bad happened and no one has taken responsibility.

QUOTE(amf @ Oct 28 2012, 05:42 PM) *
QUOTE
Yes, in your expert opinion how many? I think at this point we defer to the experts that were actually on the ground asking for the security personnel. Who are you to question them?


Yes, let's ask the experts.

QUOTE
But Eric Allan Nordstrom, who served as the chief security officer at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli from September 2011 until July, testified that the “ferocity and intensity” of the attack on the rented Benghazi compound that served as a temporary consulate exceeded any violence that he’d seen in Libya or elsewhere.

“Having an extra foot of wall, or an extra half-dozen guards or agents would not have enabled us to respond to that kind of assault,” he said, adding that it “will signal a new security reality” for U.S. diplomatic missions.


Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/10/1...ck-couldnt.html

On the other hand, I agree that the person who made the call not to increase security should be fired or re-assigned. But it wouldn't have made a difference in the outcome once the group made the decision to attack. There would have just been more dead. And the right-wing would still use it as a reason to be angry at Obama.

Maybe not made a difference in that attack, but the lack of security encouraged the attack. With more security, it might have prevented the attack. Are you saying that you don't support adding more security to our outposts in foreign lands?

This still doesn't excuse the fact that requests were made and not fulfilled. You are very good at deflecting when pushed to admit that the president's administration failed miserably on this.

And for what it's worth, don't lump me in with the right wing. It shows your ignorance of my political position.

QUOTE(amf @ Oct 28 2012, 07:27 PM) *
Will there be more to this story? Maybe. But conjecture ("General Ham was reassigned because he screwed up and didn't send in troops!") and false assertions ("They were watching everything in real-time!") are only making the water muddier, not clearer.

Watch the hearing before you spout off what you don't know. Education goes a long way.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Amlord
post Oct 29 2012, 02:00 PM
Post #39


Group Icon

**********
The Roaring Lion

Sponsor

Group: Moderators
Posts: 5,884
Member No.: 572
Joined: March-4-03

From: Cleveland suburbs, OH
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



Second guessing the security in Benghazi is simply not going to change anything. Yes, we poorly understood the security on the ground there and Ambassador Stevens and three others died because of it.

What we can look at is how the administration has informed the American people about what happened during the event and how they reacted to a fast moving situation.

For weeks, the President has said there is an ongoing investigation and that we don't know exactly what happened. They came out of the gate with the "spontaneous demonstration which got out of hand" story which we know now is bunk. The question is: when did the President know it was not true?

Now, however, the President is changing his story. Now he is saying that from the moment the attack began, he instructed the CIA and the military to secure the people in Benghazi and keep them from harm.

The quote:

QUOTE
“The minute I found out what was happening . . . I gave the directive to make sure we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to do. I guarantee you everybody in the CIA and military knew the number-one priority was making sure our people are safe.”


But we know that the CIA and the military did nothing that night. The State Department followed its protocols to evacuate the personnel to the second location (which was subsequently mortared, killing two people). But the CIA did nothing. The military, who had special forces available, did nothing.

Tyrone Woods twice called for military assistance. The President says that he ordered the military to do everything to secure these people. But the military did nothing.

Who are we to believe? If the President did order the DoD to secure these people and the people on the ground did ask for military assistance, why was nothing done? Were they waiting for the morning? Was the President not clear in his "directive to make sure we are securing our personnel"? Did the military disregard the Commander in Chief?

I find it doubtful that the military ignored the Commander in Chief.

DoD Secretary Panetta explained why they didn't do anything that night:

QUOTE(Leon Panetta @ October 25)
“A basic principle is you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on — without having some real-time information about what’s taking place.”


He seems to be directly contradicting what the President said.

Was Panetta going to follow the President's "directive to make sure we are securing our personnel" the next day or the next week? When was he going to follow orders?

The military had assets 480 miles away at Naval Air Station Sigonella.

Benghazi: Obama Emerges from the Fog of War
QUOTE
Rarely has a spontaneous mob so thoroughly intimidated our nation. And so much for sending our squads out every day in Afghanistan on patrol, when they don’t know what’s going on. The next time a platoon is told to take an objective, some corporal will say, “SecDef says we don’t have to go into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on.”


QUOTE
If General Dempsey had concluded that the U.S. military should do nothing, he would have reported his decision not to act back to his commander-in-chief before the latter went to bed to rest up for his campaign trip to Las Vegas the next day. After all, the ambassador was still missing. And brave Tyrone Woods was to die in a mortar attack five hours later. President Obama would naturally be more than a bit interested in why the military and the CIA did nothing after he explicitly ordered them “to make sure we are securing our personnel.”

Surely it is in the president’s best interests to release a copy of his order, which the military would have sent to hundreds in the chain of command. And if the president did not direct the NSC “to do whatever we need to do,” then who was in charge? When the American ambassador is attacked and remains out of American hands for over seven hours as a battle rages — and our military sends no aid — either the crisis-response system inside the White House is incompetent, or top officials are covering up.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post Oct 29 2012, 02:31 PM
Post #40


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,344
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Amlord @ Oct 29 2012, 10:00 AM) *
Second guessing the security in Benghazi is simply not going to change anything. Yes, we poorly understood the security on the ground there and Ambassador Stevens and three others died because of it.

What we can look at is how the administration has informed the American people about what happened during the event and how they reacted to a fast moving situation.

For weeks, the President has said there is an ongoing investigation and that we don't know exactly what happened. They came out of the gate with the "spontaneous demonstration which got out of hand" story which we know now is bunk. The question is: when did the President know it was not true?

Now, however, the President is changing his story. Now he is saying that from the moment the attack began, he instructed the CIA and the military to secure the people in Benghazi and keep them from harm.

The quote:

QUOTE
“The minute I found out what was happening . . . I gave the directive to make sure we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to do. I guarantee you everybody in the CIA and military knew the number-one priority was making sure our people are safe.”


But we know that the CIA and the military did nothing that night. The State Department followed its protocols to evacuate the personnel to the second location (which was subsequently mortared, killing two people). But the CIA did nothing. The military, who had special forces available, did nothing.

Tyrone Woods twice called for military assistance. The President says that he ordered the military to do everything to secure these people. But the military did nothing.

Who are we to believe? If the President did order the DoD to secure these people and the people on the ground did ask for military assistance, why was nothing done? Were they waiting for the morning? Was the President not clear in his "directive to make sure we are securing our personnel"? Did the military disregard the Commander in Chief?

I find it doubtful that the military ignored the Commander in Chief.

DoD Secretary Panetta explained why they didn't do anything that night:

QUOTE(Leon Panetta @ October 25)
“A basic principle is you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on — without having some real-time information about what’s taking place.”


He seems to be directly contradicting what the President said.

Was Panetta going to follow the President's "directive to make sure we are securing our personnel" the next day or the next week? When was he going to follow orders?


I don't want to agree, but I think I'm going to have to agree with pretty much everything above.

If Obama is stating that he gave the directive to secure personnel and whatever was needed and there was a conflict with Panetta, or if Panetta was acting on orders we should know. What a mess. ermm.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: November 15th, 2018 - 12:13 PM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.