Have you changed your mind about Benghazi?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by tshrimp, May 6, 2013.

  1. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2012
    #1
    I know when the attacks in Benghazi occurred most people on this forum seemed to think it was a non issue. With all the information that has been discussed and reported over the months following have you changed your mind about Benghazi?
     
  2. macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #2
    Yes, I have. When it happened, I thought the republicans were merely trying to gain a little political ammunition for the election, and apparently I was wrong. They are so hell bent on harming the president, that they are willing to blow this situation into something it isn't.

    The evidence clearly shows that the administration, the CIA, the state department, the people on the ground, everyone, did everything they could. This was at most a situation where the administration prematurely ejacureported information without having confirmation. As a result, there were some incorrect statements, but NEVER, NEVER, NEVER did anyone in the administration hang anyone out to dry.

    To suggest otherwise for political gain is despicable.
     
  3. macrumors 68020

    P-Worm

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, UT
    #3
    Haven't changed my mind, it's still a non issue that keeps getting put in the news.

    P-Worm
     
  4. macrumors 65816

    citizenzen

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #4
    No.

    But then again, I don't watch FAUX News.

    So I probably missed all the juicy stuff.

    Feel free to source anything you think is pertinent.
     
  5. macrumors 6502a

    glocke12

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2008
    #5
    curious...how is it a non-issue? A sitting US ambassador was assassinated.
     
  6. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    #6
    I think the French and the English and to some degree us have brought this upon themselves.
     
  7. macrumors 6502a

    JohnLT13

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2012
    Location:
    Boston (aka Red Sox Nation)
    #7
    That he was, but if 5 Marines died defending him would that be an issue?
    I think not. People seem to care less about a grunt dying then a US official.
    Pathetic GOP would use this to gain momentum for the election. Not a huge fan of Hillary but she handled herself well on the hot seat. To answer OPs question, its never been an issue with me, people tend to get killed in areas of war/civil unrest.
     
  8. macrumors 65816

    citizenzen

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #8
    I've noticed that myself.

    It's really odd isn't it?

    ;)
     
  9. macrumors 6502a

    glocke12

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2008
    #9
    difference is the Ambassador is there as a representative of the US. He represents our interests and is our voice in the region..

    Marines volunteer to go into combat and get their ass blown off.
     
  10. macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #10
    I would wager no marine volunteers to get their ass blown off. They volunteer to serve in dangerous conditions, aware of the risks that entails.

    Ambassadors to dangerous places also volunteer to represent their country, aware of the risks that entails.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambassadors_of_the_United_States#Ambassadors_killed_in_office
     
  11. macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #11
    Diplomacy is a hell of a lot more dangerous job than anything the Military has to offer.

    The military voluntarily goes in knowing that people could get killed, or that they themselves could get killed. They are trained to kill. Diplomats are trained to keep people from getting killed, including those in the military that are trained to kill.

    I would rather trust one voice to save millions of lives than to send in a hundred thousand troops to kill and save lives in the process. That way, everyone goes home to their families.

    It takes more than a GI and a gun to keep this country free, you know. That is why Ben Franklin, arguably our country's best diplomat ever, didn't fire a single bullet during our revolution and in the years following as a fledgling country.

    BL.
     
  12. Contributor

    Scepticalscribe

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2008
    Location:
    Kite flying
    #12
    Bravo. Well said.

    Well, for what it is worth, to my mind, Benjamin Franklin is one of the most attractive characters ever produced by any society - especially a 'new world', struggling to build a new society, based on revolutionary and rather radical principles; he comes across as an engaging, erudite, witty, urbane, civilised, intellectually curious human being with a delightful prose style, and a lovely line in self-deprecation. What is there not to like?
     
  13. macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2008
    Location:
    Manhattan
    #13
    I think its fair to say that the Ambassador had inadequate security for such a volatile region. However, its been very much blown out of proportion--and I think that's becoming obvious to more and more people which is further discrediting the Republican party.

    The only people who consider it a major scandal at this point are Conservative talking heads and the usual right wingers who already think that President Obama is Satan on Earth.
     
  14. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2010
    Location:
    This is the place
    #14
    As did the Ambassador...as long as you are going to make the crass comparison.
     
  15. macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #15
    Is that what the Republicans are raising hell about, or is it something else? If it is something else, ask yourself why.

    Inadequate security? He wasn't at the embassy, but at a "semi-secret" location that later turned out to be a CIA location. I'm guessing you know something about how the CIA provides security without tipping their hand.

    This was not a typical situation, in any sense of the word typical...
     
  16. macrumors 6502

    DUCKofD3ATH

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    #16
    Please provide links backing up your claim that the "the administration, the CIA, the state department, the people on the ground, everyone, did everything they could."
     
  17. macrumors 6502a

    glocke12

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2008
    #17
    On the contrary, the testimony coming from the whistleblowers contradicts your statements..

    Why does the left insist on ignoring this ? Had this been the previous administration Bush/Cheney would have been crucified by you guys.
     
  18. macrumors 6502

    haxrnick

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Location:
    Seattle
    #18
    Because their messiah has no faults. The people saying this is a non-issue are the same people who blamed 9/11 on Bush. The irony.
     
  19. P-Worm, May 9, 2013
    Last edited: May 9, 2013

    macrumors 68020

    P-Worm

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, UT
    #19
    I never blamed 9/11 on Bush, but I do find it ironic that the people saying 9/11 WASN'T Bush's fault are the people saying Benghazzi is either Obama's fault or Hillary Clinton's fault. I think most people can recognize that mistakes happen and sometimes those mistakes lead to tragic outcomes. When these mistakes are exposed it's the duty of the government to determine what went wrong and how it can be prevented in the future (usually 100% prevention is not possible) and as far as I can tell, that is what is happening now.

    All of the conservatives trying to paint this as "Watergate, but you know, like Super Watergate" have shown that this process is more political than practical.

    P-Worm
     
  20. macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #20
    And the right would be defending it/ignoring it.

    So same ****, different day pretty much. Only difference is today the right is calling for blood and the left trying to defend it.
     
  21. macrumors G3

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #21
    What do you think??
     
  22. thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2012
    #22
    I haven't changed my mind, but it has been further solidified.
     
  23. macrumors 68000

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #23
    Maybe because the consulate had a "super big secret" CIA base inside, and the RWA noise machine spews that out every damn time they talk about it. Think about what that does: a great big terrorist target is being painted on every US embassy and consulate around the world, which seems like an extremely foolish, even seditious, strategy for expressing your hatred for the president. Or maybe the right wing just wants to foment more anti-American violence to feed the war machine?
     
  24. macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #24
    The testimony, and even the admissions of the people on the right, are that the security and efforts undertaken by the administration, military, state department, etc. were all that could be done.

    There has been NO testimony that any efforts that could have been taken weren't taken.

    Actually, the whistleblower has been testifying about ambassador Rice's comments on the sunday news shows. She was on a news program, not under oath, conveying information (which may have been intentionally vague or off in light of the hysteria the region was undergoing over a video tape made by a right-wing religious extremist nutbag). The whistleblower is testifying that the CIA was aware that the tape was unrelated to the organized attacks in Benghazi. Ambassador Rice has testified already that she provided only information that was provided to her.

    So, what's the big cover-up? As new information came in, it was released by the administration, so where's the cover-up?

    If you read this: Link you will see that the whistleblower is only focused on the fact that the ambassador didn't mention a demonstration to the whistleblower, and the whistleblower never talked to Rice before the Sunday shows.

    Ohhhh, big cover up!
     
  25. Huntn, May 9, 2013
    Last edited: May 9, 2013

    macrumors G3

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #25
    So is this an event where mistakes might of been made, operating procedures need to be updated, and can be learned from or is it an event to try to take political advantage of? This is not an acknowledgement of any mistakes in particular and it appears to me that those making the biggest deal out of this event are shooting for political advantage as in fire them, and hire my party, you know the responsible WAR party. If you are referencing the group who says they were ready to go defend the Consulate, the State Dept has said based on coverage of the region, they were needed where they were. I'm sure Rush has something contrary to say about that. :p
     

Share This Page