Raz and Strix Benghazi monkey shitfight thread

[garbon]

As far as I can tell the worst that can be pinned on the Administration is confusion over a rapidly evolving situation that they (supposedly) might have reacted poorly to.

That's putting it nicely. I like how you grabbed in the terminology of "rapidly evolving situation."

[frunk]

As far as I can tell the worst that can be pinned on the Administration is confusion over a rapidly evolving situation that they (supposedly) might have reacted poorly to.

That's putting it nicely. I like how you grabbed in the terminology of "rapidly evolving situation."

There's no way an group of people a few thousand miles away will be able to react particularly well to things happening on a minute by minute timescale.  It just doesn't happen.

[garbon]

That's only one of the complaints being made. Perhaps you should brush up with a few articles?

[Strix]

As far as I can tell the worst that can be pinned on the Administration is confusion over a rapidly evolving situation that they (supposedly) might have reacted poorly to.

That's putting it nicely. I like how you grabbed in the terminology of "rapidly evolving situation."

There's no way an group of people a few thousand miles away will be able to react particularly well to things happening on a minute by minute timescale.  It just doesn't happen.

That's why micro-management doesn't work out so well. However, who is to blame? The people being micro-managed or the micro-managers?

[Sheilbh]

That's only one of the complaints being made. Perhaps you should brush up with a few articles?

Can you link to one that gives a brief description of the complaints?  The only ones I've found searching for Benghazi scandal seem a bit over the top.

[Strix]

Yeah, just saw that this morning, too.  Veddy interestink. 
Sorta takes the wind out of Strix's "ZOMG OBAMA WAS WAITING TO PLAY THIS CARD" conspiracy.  But you're not House Majority Leader without your share of little birdies.

It seems to do so. I guess another example of the Obama Administration being clueless as always. Russian Reset, Copenhagen, Fast & Furious, Benghazi Security, and now Petraeus, I was always hopeful they were just being Machavillian.

[garbon]

That's only one of the complaints being made. Perhaps you should brush up with a few articles?

Can you link to one that gives a brief description of the complaints?  The only ones I've found searching for Benghazi scandal seem a bit over the top.

I thought this one was good. I'd given up thinking about the Benghazi event until I read this op-ed.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204712904578090612465153472.html

[Razgovory]

As far as I can tell the worst that can be pinned on the Administration is confusion over a rapidly evolving situation that they (supposedly) might have reacted poorly to.

That's putting it nicely. I like how you grabbed in the terminology of "rapidly evolving situation."

There's no way an group of people a few thousand miles away will be able to react particularly well to things happening on a minute by minute timescale.  It just doesn't happen.

That's why micro-management doesn't work out so well. However, who is to blame? The people being micro-managed or the micro-managers?

So more conjecture?  You have no proof that it was being micromanaged.  It would seem Obama can do no right.  If he took an active interest he was a micromanaging incompetent, if he did not he was clueless.

[Razgovory]

That's only one of the complaints being made. Perhaps you should brush up with a few articles?

Can you link to one that gives a brief description of the complaints?  The only ones I've found searching for Benghazi scandal seem a bit over the top.

I thought this one was good. I'd given up thinking about the Benghazi event until I read this op-ed.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204712904578090612465153472.html

I'm still not seeing it.  Their main beef seems to be that Obama didn't know what happened, which true for everyone in the United States.  Your op Ed is also rather selective with facts.

[Sheilbh]

I thought this one was good. I'd given up thinking about the Benghazi event until I read this op-ed.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204712904578090612465153472.html

I think the first question is something that the State Department should look into.  But the idea that Obama or Clinton should've known about that sort of request is nonsense, if they do they're micro-managing more than Carter ever did.  Also Obama and Clinton's 'reponsibility' is just standard ministerial responsibility isn't it?  If you're head of the government or of a department you take responsibility for the actions of your government or department, even if you didn't know about or approve them.  So the Secretary of State is responsible for the decision made by a far more junior bureaucrat.

'• What exactly happened on the day of 9/11? During the over six hours that the compounds in Benghazi were under siege, could the U.S. have done more to save lives? What was President Obama doing and ordering his subordinates to do in those fateful hours?'
Again that's a legitimate question but I don't think there's any hint of scandal here, I think the article's description is of reasonable behaviour with some open questions at the end:
'Within half an hour, the consulate was on fire. At about 10:45 p.m., help arrived from the CIA annex about a mile away. The CIA offered its first account of that evening this Thursday night, nearly two months after the fact. Agency personnel were dispatched within 25 minutes of the initial attack on the consulate. By 11:20, they evacuated the consulate. Stevens and Sean Smith, a State employee, were dead.

The fortified annex then came under steady small-arms fire for 90 minutes starting around midnight, according to the CIA timeline, but it was never breached. The fighting lulled for four hours. Before dawn, a sudden mortar attack killed two CIA security officers on a rooftop, according to CIA officials. By then, a Quick Reaction Force had arrived from Tripoli to evacuate the annex. The CIA briefers said the agency did not deny aid to the consulate. But the Journal reported on Friday that the CIA and State "weren't on the same page about their respective roles on security" in Benghazi.

The latest account also leaves unanswered what other options Mr. Obama and his security team considered. The U.S. failed to bring armed drones, gunships or other close air support to defend the annex from the militias who were outside its gates for over four hours. The fighting at the consulate may have taken place too quickly to bring in outside military support. According to officials who spoke this week, fighter jets in Italy would have created too much collateral damage in a civilian neighborhood.

An unarmed U.S. drone was diverted to Benghazi but had trouble distinguishing between the terrorists and U.S. allies who came to the compounds' aid. An armed drone wasn't in the area. A large special operations force from Fort Bragg arrived in Sicily too late to help, according to a National Public Radio report Thursday.

Mr. Obama was informed of the attacks at around 5 p.m.—11 p.m. in Libya—during a previously scheduled meeting with his military advisers, and he ordered military assets moved to the area, according to ABC News. During the attacks, however, the Administration didn't convene the Counterterrorism Security Group, which was created to coordinate a response to a terrorist attack, according to a CBS News report.'

I don't understand what the relevance of the last question is at all.

[Strix]

So more conjecture?  You have no proof that it was being micromanaged.  It would seem Obama can do no right.  If he took an active interest he was a micromanaging incompetent, if he did not he was clueless.

No, not conjecture. You lack the real world experience to understand what is being discussed. Micro-managing is something that looks great in theory but doesn't work out when applied to real life.

It is clear from what has been reported so far that there was a major disconnect between the Ambassador and his security staff and the State Department, it is also clear there was a major disconnect from those in Benghazi and those outside of the situation when the attack happened. It will be an interesting investigation and the hearings that follow will be as well.


Personally, I think it was a lack of leadership followed by a lack of those at fault taking responsibility. It's just a Fast & Furious 2: Benghazi up In Smoke. 

[Razgovory]

So more conjecture?  You have no proof that it was being micromanaged.  It would seem Obama can do no right.  If he took an active interest he was a micromanaging incompetent, if he did not he was clueless.

No, not conjecture. You lack the real world experience to understand what is being discussed. Micro-managing is something that looks great in theory but doesn't work out when applied to real life.

It is clear from what has been reported so far that there was a major disconnect between the Ambassador and his security staff and the State Department, it is also clear there was a major disconnect from those in Benghazi and those outside of the situation when the attack happened. It will be an interesting investigation and the hearings that follow will be as well.


Personally, I think it was a lack of leadership followed by a lack of those at fault taking responsibility. It's just a Fast & Furious 2: Benghazi up In Smoke.

Do you not understand the word "conjecture"?  Tell me, how is this "clear" to you?  You don't have any evidence of this, nor do you know the inner workings of the State Department (unless you have been moonlighting as a high ranking State Department official).  You keep bring up Fast and Furious, a favorite conservative talking point.  As far as I know, no criminal wrong doing discovered involving Obama in that either.

[Strix]

Do you not understand the word "conjecture"?  Tell me, how is this "clear" to you?  You don't have any evidence of this, nor do you know the inner workings of the State Department (unless you have been moonlighting as a high ranking State Department official).  You keep bring up Fast and Furious, a favorite conservative talking point.  As far as I know, no criminal wrong doing discovered involving Obama in that either.

It is clear to me that you don't understand the whole discussion but I will humor you.

I don't need to work for the State Department because unlike you I read news articles. As garbon has repeatedly pointed out to you there are numerous stories and articles out there concerning Benghazi, as well as OFFICIAL White House press releases. The reason I don't need to work for the State Department is because the State Department has released information concerning timelines and actions taken during the attack.

I bring up Fast and Furious because it shares some similar characteristics to Benghazi. A killing takes place and the "official" story keeps changing as new information emerges with those at the highest levels basically stating that it's not their fault even though they were in charge.

[CountDeMoney]

I bring up Fast and Furious because it shares some similar characteristics to Benghazi. A killing takes place and the "official" story keeps changing as new information emerges with those at the highest levels basically stating that it's not their fault even though they were in charge.

And like Fast and Furious, as well as other Washington fuck ups, the left hand didn't know what the right hand was doing.  As usual.  CIA and State Department not talking to one another?  Color me fucking shocked. 

But let's not get too crazy with the conspiratorial wet dreams like Hillary-Obama-Petraeus cover ups, or losing perspective that somehow this is the single greatest US defeat in the Middle East since Eagle Claw.  Ronald Reagan received a hell of a lot more flag draped coffins of US embassy personnel to give up that title.

[Strix]

And like Fast and Furious, as well as other Washington fuck ups, the left hand didn't know what the right hand was doing.  As usual.  CIA and State Department not talking to one another?  Color me fucking shocked. 

But let's not get too crazy with the conspiratorial wet dreams like Hillary-Obama-Petraeus cover ups, or losing perspective that somehow this is the single greatest US defeat in the Middle East since Eagle Claw.  Ronald Reagan received a hell of a lot more flag draped coffins of US embassy personnel to give up that title.

This would be a non-issue if the Obama administration hadn't fucked up by coming out with the video being the cause statement. It was a rushed lame response that stood up as well as the Jets defense to scrutiny. The follow up stories and accounts of what happened make Obama and his cronies look worse. I do think a cover up is taking place to save Hillary's future dreams of running for President. The buck stops at her and she is refusing to take the bullet. Beyond that I don't think there is any cover up concerning wrong doing or any malicious intent by Obama and his cronies. I think Obama and his Administration had a chance to show real leadership/strength and whiffed.