May I Have a Summary of the Benghazi Situation?

[Warhammer]

I read the recent headlines about John Kerry agreeing to testify about it. I wish to be more informed. However, it isn't necessarily easy to read the Wikipedia article about it and get immersed with information overload. I figured someone here can give me a good summary of it instead. Thank you, political Hypesters.

 

[Thundercrack85]

On September 11, 2012, the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya was attacked by Islamic Militants. Several people were killed, including the US ambassador (he died in a hospital shortly after the attack).

Originally, it was believed that the attacks were an escalation of ongoing protests against an anti-Muslim movie trailer posted on youtube (Innocence of Muslims). But once the details came out, it was obvious that the attack was preplanned, and the date is no coincidence.

 

[Warhammer]

Preplanned attack by the Islamic militants? If so, then are people insinuating that the top brass politicians in Washington knew this but tried to cover it up by blaming that video?

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

A US ambassador got killed during a mob attack in Libya and Republicans are trying to use it against Hilary Clinton (who was Secretary of Defense at the time) in hopes of destroying her chances of becoming the next president.

So Republicans bring it up over and over and over.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Well, there are a lot of vague insinuations going on.

But the White House initially claimed that the attacks were as a result of the movie trailer on youtube. Large crowds had been protesting earlier that day around several American embassies in the Middle East (Cairo, for example) because of the clip.

Now it's turned into something of a debate over what constitutes premeditation. But there were apparently no protests in Benghazi before the attack. Premeditation could be months, weeks, or hours, depending on how you define it. It doesn't take long to get a couple of guys with AK-47's and RPG's together in post-Gaddafi Libya.

Whether or not the White House deliberately misled the public, or was just clueless, is also being disputed.

 

[Kelly]

No, that is not what they are insinuating. The basic questions are....

1. Where was President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton, it has been reported that they were not in the situation room where, "I guess", they should have been.
2. Why was the military in Italy, Mediterranean, etc told to "Stand Down"...as in military could have been there within a few hours but they were told to stand down. The attack was over
3. When did the President, Secretary of State, State Department, etc no that it was not a trailer that caused this, but was an actual preplanned attack? It has been reported and as far as I can tell proven that they knew very early, but sent out Rice instead of Clinton to push the story of the attack being because of an anti-muslim trailer on youtube.
4. Also, why was our embassy still open when all other embassies had been closed, British, German, French, etc and all of their personnel out of the country.

These questions have not been answered well enough for some...

Kerry is going to go before Issa's committee, not this new committee that is beginning.

The timing of the attacks being so close to the 2012 presidential election has some questioning why a phony story was put out, and the actual story of radical Islamists with ties to Al Qaeda was not the leading story, but a story of an anti Muslim movie trailer was the lead.

I think many are questioning the motives of the Republicans on these committees, I am definitely one of those questioning the motives, because to me they have turned something that was very important into a circus, and because of that we will probably never get the answers to the questions above. The families of those killed will never get the answers to the questions because of a circus atmosphere perpetuated by the Republicans and a "closed door" policy of this administration.

This a great summary and timeline of what happened. http://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/

 

[Thundercrack85]

I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with, but alright.

At this point, I doubt anyone on the right really gives a damn about what actually happened, they just want to make the Obama administration, and by extension Hillary look bad.

Then again, the White House couldn't care less about this either.

 

[Kelly]

I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with, but alright.

At this point, I doubt anyone on the right really gives a damn about what actually happened, they just want to make the Obama administration, and by extension Hillary look bad.

Then again, the White House couldn't care less about this either.

I did not agree that "the top brass knew before the attack that it was going to happen"...this is from Warhammer's reply to you.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I did not agree that "the top brass knew before the attack that it was going to happen"...this is from Warhammer's reply to you.

Oh. I thought you were referring to my post.

 

[Kelly]

A US ambassador got killed during a mob attack in Libya and Republicans are trying to use it against Hilary Clinton (who was Secretary of Defense at the time) in hopes of destroying her chances of becoming the next president.

So Republicans bring it up over and over and over.

I'm very doubtful that the families of those killed have this motive, and it is talking points like these and those of the Republicans that have made this a circus, and those families will probably never get those answers.

 

[Kelly]

Oh. I thought you were referring to my post.

I actually agree that the Republicans have totally turned this into a political issue for the 2016 election.

BUT, had the Obama Administration been "transparent" as they promised they would be, it would not be a "talking point" now, those families would have answers to their questions.

 

[The Overlord]

I'm very doubtful that the families of those killed have this motive, and it is talking points like these and those of the Republicans that have made this a circus, and those families will probably never get those answers.

It would help if the GOP and Fox News didn't seem blatantly partisan on this issue, trying to turn Benghazi into a big deal, but ignoring all the times during the Iraq war where the Bush's administration's bad intel on Iraq and poor planning put American troops lives at risk and treated it like no big deal.

Remember this chestnut from Rummsfeld:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military-july-dec04-armor_12-9/

So yeah this seems like a hyper partisan "do as I say, not as I do and its only bad if the other guy does it." No one takes that type of critic seriously.

I know its sad for the families of people who lost loved ones Benghazi, but the GOP are just trying to score cheap political points and are being hypocrites in the process, so that is way this issue has not become a huge deal.

 

[Kelly]

It would have helped if the Obama Administration would hold to their basic tenet of their 2008 campaign and be transparent....you give the Republicans chances to "question" when you don't "answer" basic questions. You reap what you sow, you sew a administration that many in the LIBERAL media even characterize as the least transparent administration ever, and you reap this kind of crap. It's pretty simple...

 

[The Overlord]

It would have helped if the Obama Administration would hold to their basic tenet of their 2008 campaign and be transparent....you give the Republicans chances to "question" when you don't "answer" basic questions. You reap what you sow, you sew a administration that many in the LIBERAL media even characterize as the least transparent administration ever, and you reap this kind of crap. It's pretty simple...

I won't disagree with you on on the lack of transparency in regards the Obama administration, again I think Obama is a disappointment, so I am not going to defend him that much. I'm simply saying critics on this issue would seem legitimate if they didn't seem both hypocritical and opportunist on this front. There are no real heroes on either side here.

Anyone who thinks Benghazi will be a Watergate level event is fooling themselves though, the GOP and Fox seem both hypocritical and desperate by constantly bringing it up.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Basically what happened was that there was an intelligence failure over the terrorist attack and the Obama Administration tried to spin it during election season to try and make themselves not look bad over it. They knew well before that it was a terrorist attack by Islamic militants while saying that it was due to protests over the anti-Muslim video on YouTube to the public. They got caught lying in that regard. However, the Republicans are trying to make it look like the Obama Administrations' cover-up on the situation is far more sinister than it actually is (an intelligence failure and a bad spin-job). Much of it having to do with it being the midterms and them hoping to use it to rally the base. Much of it has to do with trying to discredit Hillary Clinton (which they're doing a bad job at).

Basically both sides deserve a lot of criticism here. The Democrats deserve criticism for their arrogant attitude on how there should be no investigations over the issue and just simply move on. And the Republicans deserve A LOT of criticism over their faux-outrage and trying to paint it as something that it is not for political gain.

 

[Kelly]

I guess I see the committees as irrelevant in all of this...
I see Rumsfield as irrelevant in all of this...
I see Fox News as irrelevant in all of this...

I see an administration that "could" answer every single question above and has not, as very relevant.

That to me is the "only" relevant thing here...the families are the only relevant people that should have answers, and if it is to simply bring them together, no press, etc....and answer the questions they have? Fine, do it that way...that would be fine with me.

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

Both parties are at fault. The Obama administration is so damn cagey and secretive. It's really disappointing for a President who promised transparency in office. God knows what they had to gain by saying it was protests and not a terrorist attack. It really reinforces the criticism that they live in a bubble, and just don't get it. The public isn't going to judge you on WHY some awful tragedy occurred. They'll judge you for covering it up, and in such a stupid way.

Not to let the GOP off the hook. It's funny that they riff on Rahm Emanuel's "never let a crisis go to waste" when that's exactly what they're doing with the sick exploitation of the Benghazi issue. Actually, that's not accurate. It's not a "crisis." It's a tragedy that happened and ended a year and a half ago, so at this point it's a non-issue that has no bearing on anything or anyone, except for those who lost friends and loved ones. But they'll beat that dead horse until another one comes through town.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I think they actually thought it was just a protest that got out of hand at first. That has happened before. Like after those Quran burnings.

I think they were just reluctant to accept the news that it wasn't spontaneous, because that made them look, well, incompetent.

 

[hippie_hunter]

I think they actually thought it was just a protest that got out of hand at first. That has happened before. Like after those Quran burnings.

I think they were just reluctant to accept the news that it wasn't spontaneous, because that made them look, well, incompetent.

No they did not. It's been confirmed that right from the get-go officials in the Obama Administration described the incident at Benghazi as a terrorist attack and even thought that kidnappings were involved initially. They intentionally misled the public over the situation. They knew it was a terrorist attack but engaged in a public relations campaign to reinforce Obama's talking point that it was an incident rooted in outrage over a YouTube video and not a failure of intelligence. They sent Susan Rice out fully knowing and understanding the situation. Judicial Watch got the e-mails confirming this through a FOIA lawsuit. This is something the Obama Administration deserves legitimate criticism over. They deserve the criticism over the intelligence failure, their botched attempts at covering it up, and deliberately misleading the public.

That said, the Republicans are more deserving of my outrage over the faux-outrage and trying to paint the issue as something more sinister than it actually is. We've had intelligence failures before and the government has tried to use spin to not make themselves look bad over far worse incidents (September 11, 2001 and Iraq War ring a bell). They're using the deaths of 4 people just to score political points for the midterms and unfairly discredit Hillary Clinton which is just morally egregious.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I'm very doubtful that the families of those killed have this motive, and it is talking points like these and those of the Republicans that have made this a circus, and those families will probably never get those answers.

So you're saying the family could ever know who's responsible or that they'll find justice like 9-11 widows?

They have no clue if the truth is out there waiting for them. Whatever children's story they're told will have no bearing on who's responsible.

If it were me I'd do a press conference and ask Obama why'd we attack Libya to begin with.

Ghadaffi wasn't Bin Laden. What a joke.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

No they did not. It's been confirmed that right from the get-go officials in the Obama Administration described the incident at Benghazi as a terrorist attack and even thought that kidnappings were involved initially. They intentionally misled the public over the situation. They knew it was a terrorist attack but engaged in a public relations campaign to reinforce Obama's talking point that it was an incident rooted in outrage over a YouTube video and not a failure of intelligence. They sent Susan Rice out fully knowing and understanding the situation. Judicial Watch got the e-mails confirming this through a FOIA lawsuit. This is something the Obama Administration deserves legitimate criticism over. They deserve the criticism over the intelligence failure, their botched attempts at covering it up, and deliberately misleading the public.

That said, the Republicans are more deserving of my outrage over the faux-outrage and trying to paint the issue as something more sinister than it actually is. We've had intelligence failures before and the government has tried to use spin to not make themselves look bad over far worse incidents (September 11, 2001 and Iraq War ring a bell). They're using the deaths of 4 people just to score political points for the midterms and unfairly discredit Hillary Clinton which is just morally egregious.

Why did we attack Libya?

Too bad we can't blame Clinton because even I could admire crucifying a lefty for playing dirty.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I still think going into Libya was the right thing to do.

 

[The Overlord]

I guess I see the committees as irrelevant in all of this...
I see Rumsfield as irrelevant in all of this...
I see Fox News as irrelevant in all of this...

I see an administration that "could" answer every single question above and has not, as very relevant.

That to me is the "only" relevant thing here...the families are the only relevant people that should have answers, and if it is to simply bring them together, no press, etc....and answer the questions they have? Fine, do it that way...that would be fine with me.

In terms of legitimacy of criticism, Fox News and Rumsfled are totally relevant, people who criticize Obama for the intelligent failure in Libya and who thought the intelligence failures in Iraq were non issues, come off as total hypocrites. This would be like someone who is morbidly obese to telling someone else to lose weight, your actions have left your message with no credibility.

I can feel sorry for the people who died in Benghazi, but the GOP is not looking out for their interests and shouldn't we also feel sorry for the Americans who died because of intel failures in Iraq?

The GOP might have a valid point about lack of transparency here, if they didn't seem like total hypocrites on this issue. Heck the GOP could better criticize Obama on transparency if they presented a plan to improve transparency if they got into power, rather then just criticizing Obama for it. Let's face it, the last time the GOP was in power, they were not a model of transparency either, so present a real plan to improve transparency before you criticize Obama, the GOP has to get its own house in order, rather then trying to score cheap points against Obama with these tactics, because just complaining about the other side and not coming up with any solutions of their own is why the GOP is in decline.

Don't get me wrong, Obama and the Dems are not saints on this issue and they deserve criticism for their lack of transparency and I dislike partisan hacks who support Obama for continuing and expanding many of the policies that Bush put in place, seeming to say they were bad when Bush did it, but okay when Obama does it. That type of partisan hack, who blindly supports a party rather then having any real values, is a big problem in the political process today. But criticism of Obama on this front will be far more convincing if it offers a real end to these problems, rather being seen a opportunistic chance to score cheap political points.

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

I still think going into Libya was the right thing to do.

I do too. One bad event in Benghazi does not negate the good in getting rid of a tyrant like Gadhafi and preventing innocents from getting massacred… all while not losing a single US serviceman.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Plus the Libyans actually turned on the militants.