Obama Watched Them Die in Benghazi

[madmax]

An expert's take on Benghazi, Ryan Crocker with Steve Inskeep:

Steve Inskeep: -- with which everyone I’m sure is familiar here. But I’d like to ask one question about what happened before. As a diplomat with the experience that you have had, knowing whatever you may know about this incident, was security sufficient at the consulate in Benghazi at that time?

Ryan Crocker: Many would point to the fact that we lost an ambassador and three other Americans as prima facie evidence that it wasn’t. But we are working in a very uncertain region at a very uncertain time. No one knew this better than my friend and colleague Chris Stevens. As Wendy alluded, we in NEA are a pretty small tribe. We all felt his loss. I knew him since he joined the department in 1991. I also know that there was no American diplomat who understood Libya better than Chris did – more than two years on the ground. He knew the dangers, he knew the risks. He knew the importance of Benghazi as the center of the revolution. He did not take unnecessary chances; he and his security advisors thought they had enough in place to keep him safe. But in the Middle East what you don’t know is often greatly heavier in weight than what you do. What we didn’t know was how well Al Qaeda was organized, ready and waiting. We didn’t know it. Was that an intelligence failure? I wouldn’t say so. Tracking Al Qaeda is pretty tough stuff and of course they have lost a lot more of them than we have lost of us as a result of their efforts.

Are there lessons to be learned? There are. One of the lessons I hope we don’t think we learned is let’s retrench, let’s have fewer engagements, let’s go out less, let’s do less, let’s know less. That would be a horrible way to acknowledge Chris’ sacrifice.

Steve Inskeep: Are you saying that a lesson for a layman like me is that diplomacy is a risk? That if you’re doing it properly, as he seemed to do it, you need to be prepared to take risks and we need to be prepared for the occasional loss of a life.

Ryan Crocker: Steve, that’s exactly what I’m saying. It’s as true for journalists as it is for the rest of us. The chances that you personally have taken, as well as your colleagues – and the losses – testify just to that. Look, we are the Foreign Service. Foreign because 75-80 percent of us are deployed abroad on any given day. The Marines consider themselves expeditionary – we are far more expeditionary than they are. We’re supposed to be. And we’re a service, just as our brothers and sisters who wear the uniform of the United States – indeed, we swear the same oath that they do, to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That doesn’t mean in the cafés of Paris and the patisseries of Belgium.

[madmax]

Originally Posted by hrdguera

Simple ... when there are three different stories than one of them might be the truth and the others are lies. Or you could have three lies. It seems you and many just want it to go away. The death of an Ambassador and some Seals has become a distraction. Sad.

No, SFB, I don't want it to go away. I want the truth and not go off half-cocked like you and dumbass.
You clowns are in your usual mode of "shoot first and ask questions later".

But the truth has been an inconvenience to you.. too many times in the past.

Every time you do this you end up with egg on your face... so much so that your cholesterol must have skyrocketed.

[hrdguera]

Originally Posted by madmax

No, SFB, I don't want it to go away. I want the truth and not go off half-cocked like you and dumbass.
You clowns are in your usual mode of "shoot first and ask questions later".

But the truth has been an inconvenience to you.. too many times in the past.

Every time you do this you end up with egg on your face... so much so that your cholesterol must have skyrocketed.

And you were in your usual mode; listening to Caesar fiddle while Rome burned.

[GradStdnt]

Originally Posted by hrdguera

Maybe Al Gore can get Michael Moore to make a movie that whitewashes away the entire incident. They could call it "A Real Inconvenient Truth."

Why don't they just face it and stop lying about it? They fucked up and played politics while people died and it was their own people.

What are your thoughts about the many American Soldiers who lost their lives in Iraq? Did you blame Bush? There sure wasn't much of an investigation into the alleged weapons of mass destruction.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...casualties.htm

[dumbass]

Originally Posted by madmax

It ain't "gonna happen" because you are hanging on for dear life to any possible shade of negativity.

I heard a bit on NPR this morning, an except from a panel discussion with Ryan Crocker. Put things into perspective from someone well versed in diplomatic positions in dangerous areas. I may dig up a transcript when I have more time.

I predict that you will claim a new brand of conspiracy theory once the investigation exonnerates the admin.

If this transparent administration has nothing to hide, what would be gained by not just honestly responding to direct questions and get on with their lives.

Obama's standard response to anything controversial is "It is under investigation". Fast and Furious was under investigation right up to the day that Eric (with)Holder had nowhere else to turn when Obama showed that he had his back by claiming Executive Privilege. They have been investigating Benghazi since September 12, 2012, more that 60 days now and will continue to do just that until they are backed into a corner again and I'll bet they shut the investigation down by claiming that it is classified or claim Executive Privilege again. They're establishing a standard defense which is apparently that they are above the fray and therefore they just stop responding and the unpleasantness will just go away. Unfortunately for the country, it appears to be working.

Neither you nor this administration can deny that they were promoting that damn movie as being the cause of the Benghazi attack. (Well, let me walk that back. You will more that likely continue to deny it forever.) What was to be gained by denying what the actual cause was?

[dumbass]

Originally Posted by madmax

An expert's take on Benghazi, Ryan Crocker with Steve Inskeep:

Steve Inskeep: -- with which everyone I’m sure is familiar here. But I’d like to ask one question about what happened before. As a diplomat with the experience that you have had, knowing whatever you may know about this incident, was security sufficient at the consulate in Benghazi at that time?

Ryan Crocker: Many would point to the fact that we lost an ambassador and three other Americans as prima facie evidence that it wasn’t. But we are working in a very uncertain region at a very uncertain time. No one knew this better than my friend and colleague Chris Stevens. As Wendy alluded, we in NEA are a pretty small tribe. We all felt his loss. I knew him since he joined the department in 1991. I also know that there was no American diplomat who understood Libya better than Chris did – more than two years on the ground. He knew the dangers, he knew the risks. He knew the importance of Benghazi as the center of the revolution. He did not take unnecessary chances; he and his security advisors thought they had enough in place to keep him safe. But in the Middle East what you don’t know is often greatly heavier in weight than what you do. What we didn’t know was how well Al Qaeda was organized, ready and waiting. We didn’t know it. Was that an intelligence failure? I wouldn’t say so. Tracking Al Qaeda is pretty tough stuff and of course they have lost a lot more of them than we have lost of us as a result of their efforts.

Are there lessons to be learned? There are. One of the lessons I hope we don’t think we learned is let’s retrench, let’s have fewer engagements, let’s go out less, let’s do less, let’s know less. That would be a horrible way to acknowledge Chris’ sacrifice.

Steve Inskeep: Are you saying that a lesson for a layman like me is that diplomacy is a risk? That if you’re doing it properly, as he seemed to do it, you need to be prepared to take risks and we need to be prepared for the occasional loss of a life.

Ryan Crocker: Steve, that’s exactly what I’m saying. It’s as true for journalists as it is for the rest of us. The chances that you personally have taken, as well as your colleagues – and the losses – testify just to that. Look, we are the Foreign Service. Foreign because 75-80 percent of us are deployed abroad on any given day. The Marines consider themselves expeditionary – we are far more expeditionary than they are. We’re supposed to be. And we’re a service, just as our brothers and sisters who wear the uniform of the United States – indeed, we swear the same oath that they do, to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That doesn’t mean in the cafés of Paris and the patisseries of Belgium.

This guy is an expert but Leon Panetta, you know, the guy kind of in charge of the military says that the military THE MILITARY needs to know ahead of time what to expect prior to a military action.but a diplomat just blindly and heroically accepts the sacrifice his life in the name of diplomacy.

Bullshit. They hung Stevens and the others out to dry. Obama himself wouldn't say that he had given a specific order to help them. He's damn quick to say he ordered the killing of ... never mind, you'll never get it .

[dumbass]

Originally Posted by GradStdnt

What are your thoughts about the many American Soldiers who lost their lives in Iraq? Did you blame Bush? There sure wasn't much of an investigation into the alleged weapons of mass destruction.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...casualties.htm

There is one thing that you overlook while making that remark. G.W. Bush went to congress and obtained their approval prior to taking that action. Hillary Clinton approved as did John Kerry and the vast majority. There was also a consensus that there was evidence of WMD's not just within the US congress but in many other countries including Russia.

I don't believe that the Iraq war was conducted correctly but at least G.W. Bush didn't act unilaterally nor is it correct that he singularly shoulder all of the blame and consternation.

[hrdguera]

Originally Posted by dumbass

There is one thing that you overlook while making that remark. G.W. Bush went to congress and obtained their approval prior to taking that action. Hillary Clinton approved as did John Kerry and the vast majority. There was also a consensus that there was evidence of WMD's not just within the US congress but in many other countries including Russia.

I don't believe that the Iraq war was conducted correctly but at least G.W. Bush didn't act unilaterally nor is it correct that he singularly shoulder all of the blame and consternation.

Thanks, DA.
I've been in a conference all afternoon. Here it is 6:00 PM and I still haven't left the office yet. We are helping design a pressure testing container to stop flying parts from flying out of enclosed pressure testing space during burst tests.

Your answer was pretty close to mine. Your answer was was better.

Gradstdnt-
My thoughts are that we were committed to stopping the (supposedly) WMDs from getting into the hands of terrorists and a rogue government that could harm American interests in the area. We were committed to allies in the area too. Luckily, it wasn't my decision. I knew too many people that actually were the boots on the ground. I'm not really sure if I have the ability or aloofness to order people into battle. I had worries just being the chair of a local draft board for 20 years. I could do the job but I wouldn't love it. Luckily, I never had to but I was trained to do it. After they would have left me the rest was up to people above my pay grade. I would have sent them but I still do know at what price to me although I knew what price those sent might have to pay. Still, I would rather it be me to decide than someone else. I always said that I could not be bought because I would never want to tell some mother that her child had to go because someone else paid to not go. Besides, my son was in the pool also. I wanted it done fair.

[madmax]

Originally Posted by dumbass

There is one thing that you overlook while making that remark. G.W. Bush went to congress and obtained their approval prior to taking that action. Hillary Clinton approved as did John Kerry and the vast majority. There was also a consensus that there was evidence of WMD's not just within the US congress but in many other countries including Russia.

I don't believe that the Iraq war was conducted correctly but at least G.W. Bush didn't act unilaterally nor is it correct that he singularly shoulder all of the blame and consternation.

But Bush sold the war on faulty intelligence. Worse, Cheney was "playing with" the CIA on this. The CIA was not in full agreement on the content of Powell's presentation to the UN.
The Bush admin capitalized on the post 9/11 fervor... do our disservice.

[madmax]

Originally Posted by hrdguera

And you were in your usual mode; listening to Caesar fiddle while Rome burned.

Rome ain't burning, SFB. The attack is in the past, we need the situation to be looked at responsibly.

Heed the words of those with the knowledge and experience, without an axe to grind.