How did Obama mess up in Benghazi?

Travis

Misanthrope of the Mountains
Travis
Joined
Mar 31, 2007
Messages
24,133
So today's testimony reveals that the CIA told the White House that the death of Americans in Benghazi was caused by a spontaneous demonstration gone out of control. They then went and operated on that information for several days before they were informed it was actually an Al Qaeda attack planned before the demonstrations happened.

So exactly how did Obama and his cabinet screw up here? Are they not supposed to go by what intelligence the CIA gives them?
 
I had a FB conversation where I asked this question. I suggested that they might be upset that he's not omniscient and wasn't able to say for certain the exact nature of the attack before he had solid intelligence. One guy actually told me that his complaint was that since we saw the violence unfolding in "real time" on CNN, Obama should have been able to send in forces to prevent the killing of the ambassadors and the others.

So apparently he screwed up by not being omniscient and/or by not having developed teleportation technology.
 
Last edited:
You forgot the first step: Assume anything Obama does is wrong.

Then, you simply need to twist any facts that come in later to fit that conclusion.
 
Presumably, if Romney were in office, he wouldn't have believed his own intelligence.
 
Explain why the embassy was left to fend for itself for seven hours, when help from a base in Italy was two hours away. Or why warnings about the embassy's security leading up to the attack were ignored. Not to mention that the attack is a clear sign of the catastrophic failure of this administration's foreign policy.

It doesn't require omniscient powers to conclude that when a US embassy is assaulted with heavy firepower on the anniversary of September 11, perhaps something is going on other than spontaneous outrage over an obscure YouTube video. Petraeus apparently said as much behind closed doors today, indicating he believed from the beginning it was a planned and coordinated attack.
 
ravdin said:
Explain why the embassy was left to fend for itself for seven hours, when help from a base in Italy was two hours away. Or why warnings about the embassy's security leading up to the attack were ignored. Not to mention that the attack is a clear sign of the catastrophic failure of this administration's foreign policy.

It doesn't require omniscient powers to conclude that when a US embassy is assaulted with heavy firepower on the anniversary of September 11, perhaps something is going on other than spontaneous outrage over an obscure YouTube video. Petraeus apparently said as much behind closed doors today, indicating he believed from the beginning it was a planned and coordinated attack.
Click to expand...

Nice of you to prove Godmark's point for him..
 
ravdin said:
Explain why the embassy was left to fend for itself for seven hours, when help from a base in Italy was two hours away.
Click to expand...
Was help even requested?

How long did the request take to reach the ears of those authorised to send the help?

You say help was "two hours away" in Italy, but what does this mean? Italy is hundreds of miles from Libya, so I assume that you mean a fast jet could cover the distance in that time?

If it is a fast jet, does the two hour figure include the time to arm, fuel, and prepare the aircraft?

If it is a fast jet, what would it actually do to help when it got there, given that many fast jets have a quite limited ability to interfere with what is happening on the ground? And indeed some have none at all.

How long would it take to gain permission from the Libyan government for such a mission?

Was that permission sought?

If so, was it granted?

If so, how long did that take?

Or why warnings about the embassy's security leading up to the attack were ignored.
Click to expand...
What were these warnings? From whom? How credible were they? How many such warnings are received on any given month, and prove to be false?

Not to mention that the attack is a clear sign of the catastrophic failure of this administration's foreign policy.
Click to expand...
It is absurd to suggest that the US should have as a foreign policy objective that terrorist attacks against the US should be completely impossible.

It doesn't require omniscient powers to conclude that when a US embassy is assaulted with heavy firepower on the anniversary of September 11, perhaps something is going on other than spontaneous outrage over an obscure YouTube video.
Click to expand...
Indeed, but it does require political idiocy for the President to go out and state that something is true simply because it seems like it might be.

Petraeus apparently said as much behind closed doors today,
Click to expand...
He "apparently" said this? How do you know, if it was behind closed doors?

indicating he believed from the beginning it was a planned and coordinated attack.
Click to expand...
Did he actually DO anything about this belief? If so, what?
 
Last edited:
ravdin said:
Explain why the embassy was left to fend for itself for seven hours, when help from a base in Italy was two hours away. Or why warnings about the embassy's security leading up to the attack were ignored. Not to mention that the attack is a clear sign of the catastrophic failure of this administration's foreign policy.

It doesn't require omniscient powers to conclude that when a US embassy is assaulted with heavy firepower on the anniversary of September 11, perhaps something is going on other than spontaneous outrage over an obscure YouTube video. Petraeus apparently said as much behind closed doors today, indicating he believed from the beginning it was a planned and coordinated attack.
Click to expand...

Sending in gungho soldiers is not always prudent. You had a city where we had little on the ground knowledge filled with a largely dispossessed war refugee population. Escalating an attack on a consulate into a full fledged battle in such a location could quickly turn into a bloodbath.

So, if it turns out Obama decided not to do this (I suspect it was actually a regional Cinc decision) I would fully support it.

As for ignoring warnings; well why should this warning have been taken more seriously than the dozens they get every single day for every other diplomatic facility?
 
It's fun to watch you guys jump to attack Obama before all of the facts are in. It's almost religious too. :boxedin:
 
DGM said:
It's fun to watch you guys jump to Obamas' defense before all of the facts are in. It's almost religious. :boxedin:
Click to expand...

As long as you define jumping to Obama's defense as asking what exactly are his critics alleging he did wrong.

We know Romney claimed in the debate that what Obama did wrong was fail to refer to this as a terrorist attack for two weeks (even though he actually did).

Now it seems the criticism is that Obama should have ignored what the CIA was telling him and make a clear public statement that we knew this to be a planned attack before we knew that for sure.

A week or so ago, it was that he ought to have believed the e-mail from a terrorist organization claiming credit for it. And that he ought to have shared that information publicly (even if he did believe it).

And also now he should have prevented the killing of the ambassador and the others . . . somehow.

It looks as if those attacking Obama over this have a dogmatic attachment to the conclusion that Obama did something wrong, and they're casting about for a story of just what it was he did wrong.
 
I've heard it suggested that Obama should have sent a drone to attack the attackers. But the attackers were at the consulate. So what, they wanted the drone to attack the very people who were under attack?

It reminds of the ending of Iron Giant where the nutty CIA guy launches the nuke at the giant and the general says "Kent, where is the giant right now???"

And yes, I'm comparing Republicans to cartoons. They deserve it.
 
sir drinks-a-lot said:
How dare you criticize the supporters of the Holy One.

He won a Nobel Peace Prize, after all, and the media loves him too!
Click to expand...

Did you have anything substantive to add to the argument? Perhaps an answer to the question?
 
He didn't. It's an excuse to disloyally attack the commander in chief.
 
sir drinks-a-lot said:
How dare you criticize the supporters of the Holy One.

He won a Nobel Peace Prize, after all, and the media loves him too!
Click to expand...


Same old straw man argument. I voted for Obama twice, and think will be a far better president this term than Romney would be. However, I also criticize him when I think he's made wrong decisions, and I let the evidence guide that criticism.

So, that "Holy One" nonsense aside, what exactly are you alleging that Obama did wrong in handling Benghazi?
 
sir drinks-a-lot said:
The argument? What is the argument?

I was just noting the religious reverence for Obama.
Click to expand...

So your defense of your post is to claim that your post was completely off topic? Or was it an attempt to dismiss the argument via poisoning the well? An ad hom perhaps?

The reverence is in your head.

EDIT: As for what the argument is, read the OP. What did Obama do wrong?
 
sir drinks-a-lot said:
I was just noting the religious reverence for Obama.
Click to expand...

Which is a nonsense strawman argument. If there's anything dogmatic, it seems to be the dogmatic commitment to the idea that Romney first spouted during the debate that Obama did something wrong. The only thing he was able to articulate turned out to be false.

So again, what are you alleging Obama did wrong in the handling of Benghazi?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom