US Ambassador to Libya reported killed

[Furrowed Brow]

New in the last few minutes is that the US ambassador to Libya has been killed after the embassy was attacked by crowds in response to a US made film depicting the prophet Muhammad.

If this is true then is very sad and condolences too anyone connected to the embassy and the ambassador.

One BBC reporter described the film by Sam Bacile as highly offensive. There are clips available on youtube

Well in the 13 min clip I fail to see anything that is offensive, and certainly not justification to start burning down embassies. However the film is so bad it feels like watching Monty Python or Mel Brooks. American actors with American accents faces smeared with boot polish and false beards and truly dreadful acting and dialogue. It is up there with Plan 9 from Outer Space.

However, to be true there is a tangible despising of Islam from the makers of the film. Though it is bad, so bad it is funny even, I wonder whether there are too many folk on both sides without a sense of humour.

There will now be more riots across the Middle East I fear.

Is feeling offended the right response to having your religious leader or prophet depicted in a way youdo not approve? Is the right response to shrug the shoulders and say “that was pathetic�. Even those of the Islamic faith who would not resort to violence do you feel angered by such a film or can you shrug it off as just stupid. If Islamic film makes made a film of Jesus in a similar fashion would Christians be offended? Would you shrug it off as pathetic?

[chris_brown207]

Haven't been following this thread for a while, and not sure where it is currently at, but thought I would post this update:

http://news.yahoo.com/whos-ruining-beng ... 06190.html

Looks like it was the intelligence community who altered the memo, the one that the White House staff had commented on after the fact - and that has gotten the most attention because of the possibility of a pre-election cover-up, etc. Key components that mentioned terrorists, etc, were removed in the name of security, and to protect informants.

Does this negate some of the conspiracy theories out there?

[nursebenjamin]

Haven't been following this thread for a while, and not sure where it is currently at, but thought I would post this update:

http://news.yahoo.com/whos-ruining-beng ... 06190.html

Looks like it was the intelligence community who altered the memo, the one that the White House staff had commented on after the fact - and that has gotten the most attention because of the possibility of a pre-election cover-up, etc. Key components that mentioned terrorists, etc, were removed in the name of security, and to protect informants.

Does this negate some of the conspiracy theories out there?

If you get out your Fox News decoder ring, then you'll be able to find the conspiracy.

[East of Eden]

The left are such hypocrites, if Bush had done this they would have been covering this 24/7.

Former Democratic pollster Pat Caddell put it well:

"The press's job is to stand in the ramparts and protect the liberty and freedom of all of us from a government and from organized governmental power. When they desert those ramparts...and become active participants...and decide...what truth that you may know, as an American, and what truth you are not allowed to know, they have then, made themselves a fundamental threat to the democracy, and in my opinion, made themselves the enemy of the American people. These people are going to destroy freedom in America."

[chris_brown207]

Been away for a while, but I saw this article in the news, and remembered that this used to be a fairly lively topic.

http://www.politicususa.com/2013/12/29/ ... obama.html

Apparently, a New York Times reporter conducted a months long investigation into the Benghazi incident. His findings reflect what was first concluded about the incident - there was no Al Queda involvement, and the impetus behind the attack was a anti-Islam movie that was incited a riot. Certainly wouldn't be the first, and probably won't be the last mass demonstrations from Muslim fundamentalists in these countries to something they deem to be anti-Islam. So I guess it shouldn't be surprising if the initial reports were actually correct.

Of course there was some push back on the report from House GOP members who have longheld that this was a terrorist incident organized by Al Queda, and that the White House attempted to cover this up to protect election results.

http://www.msnbc.com/melissa-harris-per ... azi-report

Not sure how much I will get to interact, but I thought this was an iteresting development.

[JohnPaul]

Been away for a while, but I saw this article in the news, and remembered that this used to be a fairly lively topic.

http://www.politicususa.com/2013/12/29/ ... obama.html

Apparently, a New York Times reporter conducted a months long investigation into the Benghazi incident. His findings reflect what was first concluded about the incident - there was no Al Queda involvement, and the impetus behind the attack was a anti-Islam movie that was incited a riot. Certainly wouldn't be the first, and probably won't be the last mass demonstrations from Muslim fundamentalists in these countries to something they deem to be anti-Islam. So I guess it shouldn't be surprising if the initial reports were actually correct.

Of course there was some push back on the report from House GOP members who have longheld that this was a terrorist incident organized by Al Queda, and that the White House attempted to cover this up to protect election results.

http://www.msnbc.com/melissa-harris-per ... azi-report

Not sure how much I will get to interact, but I thought this was an iteresting development.

This latest report simply evades and obscures the real issue, which was the refusal of the Obama administration to allow any response to calls for help from the Benghazi mission, and then punishing a couple of military officers who protested that refusal.

[chris_brown207]

Been away for a while, but I saw this article in the news, and remembered that this used to be a fairly lively topic.

http://www.politicususa.com/2013/12/29/ ... obama.html

Apparently, a New York Times reporter conducted a months long investigation into the Benghazi incident. His findings reflect what was first concluded about the incident - there was no Al Queda involvement, and the impetus behind the attack was a anti-Islam movie that was incited a riot. Certainly wouldn't be the first, and probably won't be the last mass demonstrations from Muslim fundamentalists in these countries to something they deem to be anti-Islam. So I guess it shouldn't be surprising if the initial reports were actually correct.

Of course there was some push back on the report from House GOP members who have longheld that this was a terrorist incident organized by Al Queda, and that the White House attempted to cover this up to protect election results.

http://www.msnbc.com/melissa-harris-per ... azi-report

Not sure how much I will get to interact, but I thought this was an iteresting development.

This latest report simply evades and obscures the real issue, which was the refusal of the Obama administration to respond to calls for help from the Benghazi mission, and then punishing a couple of military officers who protested that refusal.

Now I am confused, because I thought that the "real issue" was the GOP contention that this was an administration coverup in which the President, in a bid to protect election results, tried to obscure facts about Al Queda involvement? Could the "real issue" just be whatever the Republican's were hoping would have swayed the polls for the GOP during the 2012 election?

If it were just about military involvement - that question has been answered over a year ago. A number of senior military staffers, including the Joint Chief of Staff, questioned in Congress stated that they had recommended against military involvement and that they felt military intervention would not have saved Christopher Steven's life. And if this were the real issue, then why was there no addmission by the investigators that the previous administration had overseen over a dozen attacks on US embassies, the loss of 20 some Americans including one US Diplomat, and all with not a single military mobilization to the embassies in question?Not to mention they would probably need to explain why they were deciding to now start asking about military intervention after the only deadly embassy attack in this administration?

[JohnPaul]

Been away for a while, but I saw this article in the news, and remembered that this used to be a fairly lively topic.

http://www.politicususa.com/2013/12/29/ ... obama.html

Apparently, a New York Times reporter conducted a months long investigation into the Benghazi incident. His findings reflect what was first concluded about the incident - there was no Al Queda involvement, and the impetus behind the attack was a anti-Islam movie that was incited a riot. Certainly wouldn't be the first, and probably won't be the last mass demonstrations from Muslim fundamentalists in these countries to something they deem to be anti-Islam. So I guess it shouldn't be surprising if the initial reports were actually correct.

Of course there was some push back on the report from House GOP members who have longheld that this was a terrorist incident organized by Al Queda, and that the White House attempted to cover this up to protect election results.

http://www.msnbc.com/melissa-harris-per ... azi-report

Not sure how much I will get to interact, but I thought this was an iteresting development.

This latest report simply evades and obscures the real issue, which was the refusal of the Obama administration to respond to calls for help from the Benghazi mission, and then punishing a couple of military officers who protested that refusal.

Now I am confused, because I thought that the "real issue" was the GOP contention that this was an administration coverup in which the President, in a bid to protect election results, tried to obscure facts about Al Queda involvement? Could the "real issue" just be whatever the Republican's were hoping would have swayed the polls for the GOP during the 2012 election?

If it were just about military involvement - that question has been answered over a year ago. A number of senior military staffers, including the Joint Chief of Staff, questioned in Congress stated that they had recommended against military involvement and that they felt military intervention would not have saved Christopher Steven's life. And if this were the real issue, then why was there no addmission by the investigators that the previous administration had overseen over a dozen attacks on US embassies, the loss of 20 some Americans including one US Diplomat, and all with not a single military mobilization to the embassies in question?Not to mention they would probably need to explain why they were deciding to now start asking about military intervention after the only deadly embassy attack in this administration?

Of course it was a political issue for the Obama administration, but some of us see the refusal to send available help as a more important moral issue. And help was available, special forces an hour away in Tripoli and a larger force three hours away in Croatia.

[micatala]

Been away for a while, but I saw this article in the news, and remembered that this used to be a fairly lively topic.

http://www.politicususa.com/2013/12/29/ ... obama.html

Apparently, a New York Times reporter conducted a months long investigation into the Benghazi incident. His findings reflect what was first concluded about the incident - there was no Al Queda involvement, and the impetus behind the attack was a anti-Islam movie that was incited a riot. Certainly wouldn't be the first, and probably won't be the last mass demonstrations from Muslim fundamentalists in these countries to something they deem to be anti-Islam. So I guess it shouldn't be surprising if the initial reports were actually correct.

Of course there was some push back on the report from House GOP members who have longheld that this was a terrorist incident organized by Al Queda, and that the White House attempted to cover this up to protect election results.

http://www.msnbc.com/melissa-harris-per ... azi-report

Not sure how much I will get to interact, but I thought this was an iteresting development.

This latest report simply evades and obscures the real issue, which was the refusal of the Obama administration to respond to calls for help from the Benghazi mission, and then punishing a couple of military officers who protested that refusal.

Now I am confused, because I thought that the "real issue" was the GOP contention that this was an administration coverup in which the President, in a bid to protect election results, tried to obscure facts about Al Queda involvement? Could the "real issue" just be whatever the Republican's were hoping would have swayed the polls for the GOP during the 2012 election?

If it were just about military involvement - that question has been answered over a year ago. A number of senior military staffers, including the Joint Chief of Staff, questioned in Congress stated that they had recommended against military involvement and that they felt military intervention would not have saved Christopher Steven's life. And if this were the real issue, then why was there no addmission by the investigators that the previous administration had overseen over a dozen attacks on US embassies, the loss of 20 some Americans including one US Diplomat, and all with not a single military mobilization to the embassies in question?Not to mention they would probably need to explain why they were deciding to now start asking about military intervention after the only deadly embassy attack in this administration?

Of course it was a political issue for the Obama administration, but some of us see the refusal to send available help as a more important moral issue. And help was available, special forces an hour away in Tripoli and a larger force three hours away in Croatia.

Do you have any hard evidence such a refusal occurred?

I have seen quite a bit of discussion, including from military experts, that much of what some pundits claim we should have done in response was simply not feasible.

Some people suggested we should have sent in drones or missiles. This ignores that you need precise targeting information for those to work, and you also need to take into account potential collateral damage.

The same is true for other types of operations. Keep in mind, we did not know for a good part of this event where the ambassador was. Are we going to attack a compound, not knowing if we might be targeting the ambassador himself, and not knowing for sure if we would be attacking the perpetrators of the attack on the compound?

There was a small scale rescue mission engaged in by personnel in the area. From what I understand, they did, on their own, delayed action for about a half-hour.

I have not seen ANY credible evidence that the President "refused" to send available and appropriate help.


Do you have any evidence that any specific action, other than what was taken by those on the ground in Ben Ghazi, would have had any significant chance of producing a better outcome than what happened?




The mistakes in this episode seem to me to be due to actions or inactions well before the attack occurred. Why was the ambassador in such a poorly secured location on that particular day (9/11)? I think it is also a fair question to ask why there was not more security in the area, given the ambassador was in the area. There has been testimony that increased security of the kind requested months earlier would probably not have made a significant difference in this situation, but I still think it is a question worth getting an answer to.

The silliness about 'talking points' after the fact seems to me to be not only ridiculous partisan sniping, but largely irrelevant.

[cnorman18]

The FACTS are on the record and very well-documented indeed. You can read them in The Benghazi Hoax by David Brock.

It would be easy to dismiss these documented and verified FACTS without bothering to read the book, and rabid Obama- and Clinton-haters no doubt will do just that; it's much easier to dismiss and ignore the FACTS rather than actually be confronted with them.

It's easy to find out what's in the book. You can download the Kindle edition on your smartphone for 99 cents.

I DARE you.

[JohnPaul]

[Replying to post 188 by micatala]

micatala wrote:

Do you have any hard evidence such a refusal occurred?

Of course I have no "hard evidence," and it is unlikely the government will ever release any. Either way, it is certain that the Obama administration was either responsible or irresponsible for the American deaths at Benghazi.

My earlier post was more an expression of my personal feelings than an invitation to debate. I was especially disturbed when I read reports that at least two military officers had been disciplined for protesting the lack of action. I served in the US Air Force during the early 1950s, first as an aircrew member and then as an Alert Center Controller. I clearly remember the words I often spoke over my mike to pilots waiting in the Alert Hanger: "Scramble three dogs! Parasite Red! Go bucket!" I wish I had been in a position to speak those words during the Benghazi attack.