Yep, the President was all over the video with his statement on the matter. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press...marks-president-deaths-us-embassy-staff-libya
I think we agree on this point. You even repped a comment of mine that said pretty much the exact thing in regards to the failure being what preceded the attack rather than the administrations response to the attack. https://www.bigsoccer.com/community/...ed-4-total-dead.1974797/page-66#post-29288931
The NYT article really didn't offer more than I feel we already knew, simply is was a consolidated rehash of it. I did feel it did a decent job of trying to propose questions....to me that is good. With regards to the other points you make based on your understanding of the article, those make some sense as well. I wholeheartedly agree with a cautious approach but this level of security was so overcautious that it was reckless. Take our presence in Iraq post overthrow, that right there should have been as good as a learning opportunity in how to run ops in a jacked up scenario like Libya. Factional militia groups, no legitimate and trustworthy government in place, no trustworthy security forces.... I don't think "might" plays into it, it would be a questionable move to put a lot of uniformed troops on the ground, no argument about that. Our special forces troops have shown an excellent ability to change appearances so as to not stand out, in Libya we had a two to four man SF/D team there. Good foundation but some augmentation was definitely required. Another good step would have been to shut down one of the two facilities and not spread what little assets they had apart from one another. Something that really bothered me the most was the lack of a response with our military. One reason given is that we had nobody close enough to get there? Since the cold war we have had at least two carrier groups operating in the Med and with the volatility in the whole region I was stunned to find we had nobody moderately close by? From experience that is odd to not have a qrf to monitor our diplomatic facilities. Just by virtue of the USMC contingents on both a carrier and an amphib would be more than enough to secure and evacuate the area. Somebody somewhere actually saw none of that? With regards to the British, I'm pretty sure they ended up getting virtually all of their people out prior to the attack in Benghazi. I'd have to verify that but I'm pretty sure I saw that on politifact. The fight isn't over having control, it's about wanting place blame without any genuine desire to fix the system that left a diplomatic team between a rock and a hard place. If I had a dollar for every uninformed stupid thing one of y'all political super heroes has publicly stated and I'd be a 1%er. I'm of the school in which you don't say a frigging thing that can't stand up to scrutiny, that is all Obama is guilty of. Hell, of all the fubar with Benghazi, the Rice sound bites are the least important.
I did. What I did take for lack of a better word exception to was how your post came across to me. It read that by virtue of the NYT article things were pretty cleared up in some way. My bad on that front but I still don't think we are any closer to figuring out why this was cocked up.
But it is what opened that damn door so wide. Why the lies? Why not admit a mistake? Not with an election in less than two months. It was not uninformed. The video tape story was intentional, to mislead the public. That is what pisses me off and should do the same for you. If you want to be dumb enough to swallow that lie, that is your problem. But the Administration has done nothing to speak to the truth of the matter, to correct mistakes so that it may not happen again and worse of all, not apologize for trying to deceive the American public.
Tell you what. I'll apologize for "lying" and "deceiving" about Benghazi when you apologize for lying, over and over again, about voter fraud being a problem. Or when you apologize for lying about Obamacare tanking the economy. We can throw facts in your face for you to ignore - and people have - and in the end no amount of information about the administration's activity, beefing up embassy security, or launching a formal inquiry will dissuade you that not enough was done. I think a simple compromise should actually stimulate interest. Will you, for the sake of future Americans, apologize for being a lying sack of shit about Obamacare and voting rights?
Do yourself a favor, take it easy tonight as you may or may not be insured after the stroke of midnight.
It's you who owes the apology. There's a lying pile of dogshit out there somewhere, steaming because of your comparison.
He's gonna have a stroke at midnight? Just like the gypsy woman said....can't wait for the new season of Archer.
Well, Stevens was the expert in the area, so I think somebody with listening sense would have consulted with the expert or followed his reports, which seem to indicate that he felt it acceptable to stay.
Let's be honest, we all know why Stevens was there and what he was doing. The CIA doesn't like to publicize things.
? We know the CIA mission was there and why their response was delayed, but that isn't necessarily why Stevens was there. Tripoli might be Libya's official capital, but Benghazi was/is the capital of the rebellion..
Almost got off the front page. But this was pretty funny... http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2...ke_princeton_newspaper_to_attack_the_nyt.html The Daily Caller: Now THAT'S investigative reporting. In your face, Newspaper of Record. The daily caller reporter ("Truth Crusader" might be what he calls himself) got busted three months ago for bad reporting regarding Corey Booker's residency and things like that. Now, however, he's found a source that casts aspersions on one of the NYT Benghazi reporters... Would that mean "fewer Charles Johnson articles in the Daily Caller"? No, of course not. Three days into the new year, Johnson appeared again in the Daily Caller with an apparent scoop about David D. Kirkpatrick, the New York Times Cairo bureau chief who'd just filed a lengthy corrective history of the 9/11/12 Benghazi attacks. Never mind Kirkpatrick's reporting; Johnson proved that Kirkpatrick had "show his naked body to all" while a student at Princeton 25 years ago. The story made two claims: - Kirkpatrick was arrested for "lewd conduct" in 1989, after posing nude on a bridge for a student's art project. - Kirkpatrick was photographed streaking through campus. - Kirkpatrick "even posed for Playgirl." Here I'll just quote from the article: Damn shame the source was a campus parody paper.
Ah, Fox is trying to squeeze more blood from the Benghazi stone, I see. Man, the GOP is so screwed if they have to keep flogging this thing.
This is about getting to the truth of the matter, after all 4 Americans died. If we had a competent fourth estate we'd already know what happened when the 3:00 am phone call came in, but I understand why you wish to obfuscate. And if you think the GOP is screwed come November then you are deluded.
As for the GOP chances come November: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/29/poll-2014-looks-worse-for-dems-than-2010/