Catholic Online Forum

At the most fundamental level, the reason it is absurd to suspect the existence of a "cover-up" over the Benghazi attack is that such a cover-up could not have had any conceivable goal. Back to the beginning: the underlying accusation about Benghazi is that the Obama administration deliberately mischaracterised the terrorist attack there as having grown out of a spontaneous demonstration because that would be less politically damaging. Such a cover-up would have made no sense because the attack would not have been less politically damaging had it grown out of a spontaneous demonstration. The attack on the Benghazi compound would not have been any less politically difficult for the administration if it had grown out of a riot, nor would any normal voter have expected it to be less politically damaging, nor would any normal campaign strategist have expected any normal voter to have expected it to be less politically damaging.

Always easy to know what you need after the disaster happened.

Always easy to know what you need after the disaster happened.

U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens wanted a Security Support Team, made up of 16 special operations soldiers, to stay with him in Libya after their deployment was scheduled to end in August, the commander of that security team told ABC News.

The embassy staff’s “first choice was for us to stay,” Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, 55, told ABC News in an interview. “That would have been the choice of the embassy people in Tripoli

Karl,

Perhaps we can dispense with the ad hominem and address the argument?

(BTW, it was a consulate, not an embassy - hence the absence of marines.)

Always easy to know what you need after the disaster happened.

I thought they requested extra security long before the attack. I'm not posting the link because there are comments but the following is from American ABC news:

You can't just go by "they needed more security and they didn't have it so someone must have screwed up." Frankly, it's unjust.

As with most things, this is much more complicated than most people want to take the time to unravel.

Clearly Obama made the call that he did not want a large security presence in Benghazi with the Ambassador and the CIA. That was his call.

The truth will eventually come out...

Many journalists have fallen for the conspiracy theory of government. I do assure you that they would produce more accurate work if they adhered to the cock-up theory. —Sir Bernard Ingham

I know the claim has been made that the changes to the talking points were not changed for political reasons but for security reasons but if it's security reasons, why lie? Why not just say that we don't know yet what happened and are investigating.

Jeff,

I realize this is the impeach Obama thread but I really wasn't thinking in those terms, I can't see any reason he should be impeached. Perhaps it's incorrect or unjust, I'm just going by what I repeatedly hear in the media, that the ambassador requested more security more than once. Someone denied that request. I don't think it was Obama, but it's ultimately his responsibility because he is the president and that's just how it goes..he sets the tone. Given the timeline as reported in the media (if it's correct) it does seem that Susan Rice was intentionally lying when she went on TV. General Petraeus said that it was known it was a terrorist attack when his talking points were changed. We don't know who changed it but ultimately, the administration is responsible. I don't think it's unjust to think that someone screwed up when the person who knew the situation best, Ambassador Stevens is denied security that he requested. Maybe everything I hear in the media is a lie, I'm just going by what I hear. Hopefully the investigation will clear things up.

I know the claim has been made that the changes to the talking points were not changed for political reasons but for security reasons but if it's security reasons, why lie? Why not just say that we don't know yet what happened and are investigating.

Indeed. I've heard it as Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence.

...he is simply an opportunist that attempts to take advantage of everything and anything he can to push and enshrine his flawed ideology.

As if it matters...

Daniel,



Both an opportunist and an ideologue? At the same time?

Doesn't justice matter? Due process? Rules of evidence?

Val,

Quote:
I know the claim has been made that the changes to the talking points were not changed for political reasons but for security reasons but if it's security reasons, why lie? Why not just say that we don't know yet what happened and are investigating.




Wouldn't that also be a lie?

The question is, what does that mean practically? Does it mean that Obama is responsible for every mistake, every death in the line of duty of every government employee, that happens between 2008 and 2016? And how responsible is he? Fully? Partially? Does that mean that he has to answer for every one?

Our diplomats have nothing to fear when we're strong? Under Bush, there were violent attacks on American embassies in Yemen, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, India and Turkey. A U.S. diplomat was assassinated in Sudan. Another was murdered in Pakistan.

Those are not proof that Bush was weak or even wrong in his foreign policy. They are proof that the president of the United States is not the Lord of the Universe.

Daniel,

How is it possible for one and the same person to be at the same time both an ideologue and an opportunist?

Read more: http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/com ... z2Ch2WtY6B

How is it possible for one and the same person to be at the same time both a Christian and a promoter of homosexual sex and the wholesale slaughter of innocents?

Regardless, you wish to change the subject of the argument -not the substance

I'd like an explanation of the security excuse if anyone cares to offer one.

Bob A,



As I understand it, the identity of the terrorists was unknown and to have released information that it was known to be a terrorist attack would hinder the process of identification.

...but sometimes in national security matters, you have to lie.

I would suggest that the prospect of President Biden is sufficient to insure President Obama against impeachment.

Lou,

There were demonstrations and riots in a number of cities (including my own).

It isn't. Neither is it possible to be an ideologue and an opportunist at the same time. It's just drivelling nonsense.

An idologue is a person whose political principles are held dogmatically; an opportunist has no political principles and acts simply as will serve his immediate self-interest. To accuse someone of being both at the same time is to have ceased to speak English.



The subject of an argument is its substance.

We will have to agree to disagree.

...he zealously advocates a flawed socialist collective ideology and may even full a collective of useful idiots

his actions -told me truth -Obama is neither YET he is both...

True enough, mate. There may have been reasons not to tell the truth (national security, etc), but to condemn an innocent man as the cause was just way over the top, IMHO.

Daniel,



It's very difficult for me to know what it is that we are disagreeing about since you repeatedly refuse to make sense and insist on a meaningless string of bogey-man words to refer to your own country's President.

As an example:



Do you seriously believe those words actually mean something? Anything?

What innocent man was condemned?

We did? Knowingly? I hadn't heard. Please enlighten me.

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration secretly gave its blessing to arms shipments to Libyan rebels from Qatar last year, but American officials later grew alarmed as evidence grew that Qatar was turning some of the weapons over to Islamic militants, according to United States officials and foreign diplomats.

No evidence has emerged linking the weapons provided by the Qataris during the uprising against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi to the attack that killed four Americans at the United States diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, in September.

But in the months before, the Obama administration clearly was worried about the consequences of its hidden hand in helping arm Libyan militants, concerns that have not previously been reported. The weapons and money from Qatar strengthened militant groups in Libya, allowing them to become a destabilizing force since the fall of the Qaddafi government.

The experience in Libya has taken on new urgency as the administration considers whether to play a direct role in arming rebels in Syria, where weapons are flowing in from other countries.

Obama's Abuse of Power
An appeals court says his recess appointments are unconstitutional.

President Obama has shown increasing contempt for the constitutional limits on his power, and the courts are finally awakening to the news. A unanimous panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Friday that the President's non-recess recess appointments are illegal and an abuse of executive power.

On January 4, 2012, Mr. Obama bypassed the Senate's advice and consent power by naming three new members of the National Labor Relations Board and appointing Richard Cordray to run the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Other Presidents have made recess appointments and we've supported that executive authority.

But here's the Obama kicker: He consciously made those "recess" appointments when the Senate wasn't in recess but was conducting pro-forma sessions precisely so Mr. Obama couldn't make a recess appointment. No President to our knowledge had ever tried that one, no doubt because it means the executive can decide on his own when a co-equal branch of government is in session.

In Noel Canning v. NLRB, a Washington state Pepsi bottler challenged a board decision on grounds that the recess appointments were invalid and that the NLRB thus lacked the three-member quorum required to conduct business. The D.C. Circuit agreed, while whistling a 98 mile-per-hour, chin-high fastball past the White House about the separation of powers.