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?

[micatala]

[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.

Well, I am open to assigning responsibility in a rational way. I have already noted where I think mistakes may have been made. But this sounds like you are blaming Obama for the actions of a bunch of anti-American thugs.

If Obama is responsible for this, was George Bush responsible for 9-11? For people getting killed in Iraq after we invaded and dismantled the Army and other social structures? Was Clinton responsible for the Oklahoma city Bombing? for the attack on the Cole? For the attempted bombing of the WTC in the 1990's? Was Reagan responsible for the Marines who got killed in Beirut?

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.

I understand the emotional desire to see people saved, and to take action. But this does not respond to any of the issues I raised above about whether or which actions were likely to be more successful than the actions that were taken, nor the possible negative consequences of those actions.

[JohnPaul]

[Replying to post 191 by micatala]

micatala wrote:

Well, I am open to assigning responsibility in a rational way. I have already noted where I think mistakes may have been made. But this sounds like you are blaming Obama for the actions of a bunch of anti-American thugs.

Perhaps you misunderstood what I meant by "action." I (and apparently the military officers who were disciplined for protesting the lack of action) believe that every possible effort should have been made before and during the attack to protect and defend the Americans there, regardless of any imagined political consequences. I certainly do not mean that we should now nuke Libya in revenge.

I was stationed in Libya at Wheelus Field, the American airbase then located near Tripoli for 18 months in the 1950s (before Khadaffi took over). My contacts with the Libyan people were limited and superficial, of course, but I liked what I saw of them and thought they were hard-working, honest, and deserved better. I remember one young Libyan soldier who helped guard our airbase. He spoke very little English. I encountered him in the hot sun near the gate of our base and offered him a canteen of water. I had forgotten that it was the season of Ramadan and he could not eat or drink until sunset, so he refused the water but invited me to have tea with him at his home with his parents that evening. In very broken English, he told me that he was learning English at school and hoped to get a job with the Libyan government after his military service.

I also occasionally made flights to Cairo in Egypt and to Saudi Arabia. I am sorry to say that my (superficial) impressions of the Egyptians was that they were sleazy opportunists who could not be trusted, and the Saudis were unspeakable aliens.

[cnorman18]

From The Benghazi Hoax, chapter 14 -- "Hoax XIV: The Stand Down Order"

Along with the bogus "left behind" claims came a slight variation of the same general idea; that armed forces who were ready to go into Benghazi that night were mysteriously ordered to "stand down" -- presumably by someone at the highest levels and quite possibly by President Obama himself.

This was, for all intents and purposes, a conspiracy theory that was not only abetted but actively promoted by leaders of the Republican Party. Rep. Jason Chaffetz articulated this notion in an interview with Sean Hannity, telling the Fox host, "We had people that were getting killed, we had people who were willing to risk their lives to go save them and somebody told them to stand down"

The backstory for this accusation will sound familiar. Chaffetz and other Republicans were basing their harsh accusation on a tiny sliver of testimony, spun into something else, then amplified and repeated dozens of time. Once again, it originated with the muddled April testimony from diplomat Gregory Hicks.

In a private interview with House Oversight Committee staffers prior to his public testimony, Hicks said that a second small team of CIA and DOD personnel and contractors had been preparing to board a plane leaving Tripoli for Benghazi when its commander, Lt. Col. S. E. Gibson, "got a phone call from SOCAFRICA which said, 'you can't go now, you don't have the authority to go now.' And so they missed the flight... They were told not to board the flight, so they missed it."

When excerpts from the interview were released -- likely by Republicans on the committee or their staffs -- shortly before Hicks was scheduled to testify publicly, it would be spun as a "stand down" order that likely originated at the highest reaches of the Obama Administration. Note that even Hicks did not use the term "stand down" -- but when the Issa-Chaffetz-led effort held its public hearings, the idea was embedded in their questioning as if it were a well-established fact.

During a televised hearing before the House Oversight Committee, Jason Chaffetz asked Hicks how personnel in Tripoli "react[ed] to being told to stand down."

Hicks replied, "They were furious." He went on to quote Lt. Col. S. E. Gibson, saying "This is the first time in my career that a diplomat has more balls than somebody in the military."

That sure sounded dramatic, and following Hicks' testimony, Oversight Committee Chairman Issa asked in a press release, "Who gave the order for special operations forces to stand down, preventing them from helping their compatriots under attack?"

To Obama's detractors, this "stand-down order" proved their deeply rooted suspicion that the administration had refused to send help to U.S. personnel in harm's way, leading to their deaths. And they knew where they wanted to place the blame. "To a lot of people's understanding," explained Fox & Friends co-host Steve Doocy, "the only people who could say stand down would be the president of the United States or the secretary of defense." In the weeks that followed, the audience for Fox's prime-time programming would hear the accusation that such an order had been given at least 85 times.

In fact, no stand-down order had been given. Less than 90 minutes after the attacks began, then- Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey first briefed the president on the situation in Benghazi. According to Panetta, it was at this meeting that Obama ordered "all available DOD assets to respond to the attack in Libra and to protect U.S. personnel and interests in the region."

Dempsey explained why Gibson's team hadn't been sent to Benghazi during a June 12 Senate Budget Committee hearing. He told New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte that the team that was supposedly told to "stand down" had actually been "told that the individuals in Benghazi were on their way back and that they would be better used at the Tripoli Airport -- because one of them was a medic -- that they would be better used to receive the casualties coming back from Benghazi and that if they had gone, they would have simply passed each other in the air, and that's the answer I received." Dempsey concluded, "They weren't told to stand down. A "stand down" means don't do anything. They were told to -- that the mission they were asked to perform was not in Benghazi but was at Tripoli Airport."

In a June 26 closed hearing with the House Armed Services Committee, Lt. Col. Gibson himself denied having received a stand-down order. After the classified briefing with military officials including Gibson had concluded, the Republican-led committee released a statement saying, "Contrary to news reports, Gibson was not ordered to 'stand down' by higher command authorities in response to his understandable desire to lead a group of three other special forces soldiers to Benghazi." In July, Gibson's testimony would be corroborated by his commanding officer, Col. George Bristol.

Even if Gibson and his team of three soldiers had attempted to join the fighting, they would have saved no additional lives. According to Hicks' testimony, the plane that would have carried the team did not leave Tripoli until "sometime between 6:00 and 6:30 a.m." That departure time was at a minimum 45 minutes after the second attack on the CIA annex occurred.

Unlike the bogus allegation that was broadcast 85 times on Fox News, the true, corrected version was not similarly trumpeted.

Footnotes and sources are in the text -- which, I say once again, is available in a Kindle edition for smartphones and e-readers for all of 99 cents.

If anyone is interested in actually learning the FACTS, of course.

Further, I can find no reports anywhere of any military officers being "disciplined for protesting the lack of action" -- and that would be a matter of public record. There were four State Department officials who were, but that is quite a different matter.

I have to wonder, JohnPaul: What are your sources for your "information"? Where are the links?

[JohnPaul]

[Replying to post 193 by cnorman18]

cnorman18 wrote:

Further, I can find no reports anywhere of any military officers being "disciplined for protesting the lack of action" -- and that would be a matter of public record. There were four State Department officials who were, but that is quite a different matter.
I have to wonder, JohnPaul: What are your sources for your "information"? Where are the links?

The story was popular on the internet a few weeks ago, but seems to have faded some now. I don't know how to post links, but here are a couple of references I found after less than a minute's search:

There are reports that two high-ranking military officers, Rear Admiral Charles Gaouette and General Carter Ham, were fired by Obama for wanting to come to the assistance of the beleaguered U.S. missions in Benghazi

The terminations have a distinctly political odor surrounding them in at least three cases. In all three of these cases, Benghazi is at root. U.S. Army Gen. Carter Ham was heading the United States African Command when our consulate came under attack on September 11, 2012. Ham told Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) he was never given a "stand down" order preventing him from securing the consulate. Yet the Washington Times, citing sources in the military, said he was given the order and immediately relieved of command when he decided to defy it. The Times further noted that Ham "retired" less that two years after receiving the command when all other commanders of similar stature have stayed on far longer. Sources told TheBlaze Ham was highly critical of the Obama administration’s decision not to send reinforcements to Benghazi.

[micatala]

[Replying to post 193 by cnorman18]

cnorman18 wrote:

Further, I can find no reports anywhere of any military officers being "disciplined for protesting the lack of action" -- and that would be a matter of public record. There were four State Department officials who were, but that is quite a different matter.
I have to wonder, JohnPaul: What are your sources for your "information"? Where are the links?

The story was popular on the internet a few weeks ago, but seems to have faded some now. I don't know how to post links, but here are a couple of references I found after less than a minute's search:

There are reports that two high-ranking military officers, Rear Admiral Charles Gaouette and General Carter Ham, were fired by Obama for wanting to come to the assistance of the beleaguered U.S. missions in Benghazi

The terminations have a distinctly political odor surrounding them in at least three cases. In all three of these cases, Benghazi is at root. U.S. Army Gen. Carter Ham was heading the United States African Command when our consulate came under attack on September 11, 2012. Ham told Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) he was never given a "stand down" order preventing him from securing the consulate. Yet the Washington Times, citing sources in the military, said he was given the order and immediately relieved of command when he decided to defy it. The Times further noted that Ham "retired" less that two years after receiving the command when all other commanders of similar stature have stayed on far longer. Sources told TheBlaze Ham was highly critical of the Obama administration’s decision not to send reinforcements to Benghazi.

You can simply copy the URL off the URL line from your browser and paste it in. The DCR interface will make it live automatically.

[Goat]

[Replying to post 193 by cnorman18]

cnorman18 wrote:

Further, I can find no reports anywhere of any military officers being "disciplined for protesting the lack of action" -- and that would be a matter of public record. There were four State Department officials who were, but that is quite a different matter.
I have to wonder, JohnPaul: What are your sources for your "information"? Where are the links?

The story was popular on the internet a few weeks ago, but seems to have faded some now. I don't know how to post links, but here are a couple of references I found after less than a minute's search:

There are reports that two high-ranking military officers, Rear Admiral Charles Gaouette and General Carter Ham, were fired by Obama for wanting to come to the assistance of the beleaguered U.S. missions in Benghazi

The terminations have a distinctly political odor surrounding them in at least three cases. In all three of these cases, Benghazi is at root. U.S. Army Gen. Carter Ham was heading the United States African Command when our consulate came under attack on September 11, 2012. Ham told Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) he was never given a "stand down" order preventing him from securing the consulate. Yet the Washington Times, citing sources in the military, said he was given the order and immediately relieved of command when he decided to defy it. The Times further noted that Ham "retired" less that two years after receiving the command when all other commanders of similar stature have stayed on far longer. Sources told TheBlaze Ham was highly critical of the Obama administration’s decision not to send reinforcements to Benghazi.

You can simply copy the URL off the URL line from your browser and paste it in. The DCR interface will make it live automatically.

I think it is just good enough to mention the source was the "Washington time". They are.. hum.. highly conservative, and quite often, distort the facts. They are much worse than Fox News. It has lost money ever since it started, but has been financed by the Unification Church to the order of 1.7 to 2 billion dollars a year to keep it going.

[cnorman18]

[Replying to post 194 by JohnPaul]

Your quote Googles to rightwing rumor sites, e.g. The Washington Times, Breitbart and World Net Daily. These sources are about as reliable as a bus station bathroom wall. Sorry, but that is their record; all have been exposed as promoting unsubstantiated rumors as fact, and these stories are prime examples. Note even in the stories themselves on those sites, the statements are anonymous and unnamed: "Military sources" and the like. You can read that as "fabricated."

The facts regarding General Ham can be read here.

And here are some remarks by General Ham himself:

Yet, Gen. Ham, who some say was forced into retirement following the controversially-responded to incident, said that - in his military judgment – there was not a necessity to scramble fighter jets to the scene of the terrorist attack. He maintains that there was no clear purpose in doing so. However, the general did not elaborate as to why he felt that sending assistance to Benghazi was not necessary.

This, of course, was not reported by the rightwing websites that promoted the rumor of his being "fired" -- which, as the public record firmly establishes, never happened.


And here is the official Navy Inspector General's report regarding Rear Admiral Charles Gaouette. The link contains a PDF of the document itself, which contains some rather graphic language. The Admiral's being relieved of command had nothing whatever to do with Benghazi:

Rear Adm. Charles M. Gauoette was relieved of command of Stennis Carrier Strike Group in October, following an incident where Gauoette admonished USS John C. Stennis CO Capt. Ronald Reis for ship handling during a transit through the Strait of Malacca...

Th "incident" had to do with "racially insensitive remarks" and allegations of "abusive leadership." During the investigation, other examples of the former, as well as racially insensitive emails, came to light. It's all there in black-and-white, in official Navy documents.

The websites you're looking at, whatever their specific names, are rather clearly in the business of peddling partisan propaganda, rumor and innuendo more than the facts.

It's easy to post links. Just hit the "quote" button on any post that contains them, examine the quote box, and you'll see how it's done.

[JohnPaul]

[Replying to post 197 by cnorman18]

(sigh) You are making the common liberal spin of equating "right wing" with "lies." A well-intentioned difference of ideology is one thing, but make no mistake about it. We are not debating some abstract point of theology here. We are debating a coverup of murder and treason, and that is quite another thing. As I said before, Obama was either responsible or he was irresponsible.

[cnorman18]

[Replying to post 197 by cnorman18]

(sigh) You are making the common liberal spin of equating "right wing" with "lies." A well-intentioned difference of ideology is one thing, but make no mistake about it. We are not debating some abstract point of theology here. We are debating a coverup of murder and treason, and that is quite another thing. As I said before, Obama was either responsible or he was irresponsible.

(SIGH)

I DON'T equate "right wing" with "lies." I point out lies where they inarguably exist. That's not some abstract point of theology, either. You made statements; I have proven them false. That's not theology. That's a matter of objective TRUTH.

YOU are "making the common conservative spin" of IGNORING FACTS when they are presented to you, and continuing to promote your claims in the face of DIRECT and FACTUAL CONTRADICTIONS of them.

I have here TWICE proven several of your previous claims absolutely false, with links. You have not commented on these conclusive disproofs at all. Not a word.

You are now directly alleging a "coverup of murder and treason." Prove your claims or retract them -- and give your sources.

If all you have are unnamed "sources," rumors and innuendo -- "Where are these officers now?" is an example of the latter, if you're not familiar with the term -- then you have N-O-T-H-I-N-G.

I have already challenged readers of this thread to cough up one whole dollar and read The Benghazi Hoax for themselves. Those who refuse to do so, and dismiss the book's FACTS out of hand without even reading them -- along with those who blithely ignore rebuttals and refutations of their false claims -- have no right to be accusing others of devotion to "ideology."

Will you take the challenge? Even more important -- can you refute the FACTS it contains? Can you even refute the FACTS you have already seen RIGHT HERE?

So far all you've done is repeat your false claims without backing them up in the slightest. Got anything better?

If not, it's time to quit.

(While you're at it -- please explain to me why there was no Republican outrage over the 13 attacks on US embassies during the Bush II administration, over the course of which more than 40 people were killed. Was Bush "responsible or irresponsible"?)

[JohnPaul]

[Replying to post 197 by cnorman18]

(sigh) You are making the common liberal spin of equating "right wing" with "lies." A well-intentioned difference of ideology is one thing, but make no mistake about it. We are not debating some abstract point of theology here. We are debating a coverup of murder and treason, and that is quite another thing. As I said before, Obama was either responsible or he was irresponsible.

(SIGH)

I DON'T equate "right wing" with "lies." I point out lies where they inarguably exist. That's not some abstract point of theology, either. You made statements; I have proven them false. That's not theology. That's a matter of objective TRUTH.

YOU are "making the common conservative spin" of IGNORING FACTS when they are presented to you, and continuing to promote your claims in the face of DIRECT and FACTUAL CONTRADICTIONS of them.

I have here TWICE proven several of your previous claims absolutely false, with links. You have not commented on these conclusive disproofs at all. Not a word.

You are now directly alleging a "coverup of murder and treason." Prove your claims or retract them -- and give your sources.

If all you have are unnamed "sources," rumors and innuendo -- "Where are these officers now?" is an example of the latter, if you're not familiar with the term -- then you have N-O-T-H-I-N-G.

I have already challenged readers of this thread to cough up one whole dollar and read The Benghazi Hoax for themselves. Those who refuse to do so, and dismiss the book's FACTS out of hand without even reading them -- along with those who blithely ignore rebuttals and refutations of their false claims -- have no right to be accusing others of devotion to "ideology."

Will you take the challenge? Even more important -- can you refute the FACTS it contains? Can you even refute the FACTS you have already seen RIGHT HERE?

So far all you've done is repeat your false claims without backing them up in the slightest. Got anything better?

If not, it's time to quit.

(While you're at it -- please explain to me why there was no Republican outrage over the 13 attacks on US embassies during the Bush II administration, over the course of which more than 40 people were killed. Was Bush "responsible or irresponsible"?)

You haven't proved any of my claims false. You have simply proven that you don't believe them. Actually, I would like to read your book. I don't have a smartphone or e-reader and don't plan to buy one, but I will order the book as a paperback. Perhaps you could tell me why you think it is any more "factual" than any other source?

Incidentally, I don't blame Hillary Clinton for this fiasco. Actually, I sort of like Hillary, although I wouldn't want to be married to her. I had some unkind words to say about her 20 years ago, but she has learned a lot since then. I hope she runs for president. I would love to see her kick some butts that badly need kicking.