Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 djones520 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

We went down this road some months ago. I pointed to thousands of instances of shows of force by our aircraft deterring and ending attacks, some airmchair general said that all of the data supporting this was wrong, for no reason at all, turned into a big long argument... don't really want to rehash it.

First, I'm not sure you know what the phrase "armchair general" means. Because, unless one of us happened to be directly involved in the military action being discussed, we're all armchair generals.

First of all, djones520 is in the military, so he knows a little bit about this stuff...

I'll be the first to argue that being in the military doesn't automatically qualify you to talk about this stuff. I just happen to have a job in the military that is intricately tied into nearly every aspect of our aircrafts missions, and I'm also stationed at the largest Air Operations Center in the US Military (possibly the world, not 100% on that one).

Which is why I qualified that with "a little bit".

Certainly more than me.

 djones520 wrote:

Well had a mobilization occured, I would have been involved that night, since I was on shift and the KC-135's launched from the UK or Azorres would have been involved, and their flight control would have been from my unit.

Fair enough, and that was sloppy on my part. However, I would still call you an armchair general because you weren't making the higher decisions; minding that I am no better.

 djones520 wrote:

But, military mobilization would have shown that the Obama administration was attempting to do something about the situation.

Yes, it would have. But it isn't like anyone really doubts the ability of the US to use force, so who would the demonstration be for?

 djones520 wrote:

Had the administration simply utilized the tools that they had, it is highly likely that Americans who died that day may not have. And then we wouldn't be doing this dance today. That is what mobilization could have done.

And if they utilized those tools, and Americans still died?

That is the difference between could, and would.

The demonstration would have been for the Americans. As Whembly pointed out, this reeks of pre-election coverrup. Had the administration done something, there would have been no need for all the smoke and mirrors.

They could just have said, "Look, when this went down, we launched our fighters, we provided as much support as we could for our ground teams in Triploi to get to Benghazi and provide support, but unfortunately in the end they were unable to prevent the loss of life."

That, while unfortunate, would have been acceptable. No response period, and then months and months of fighting to reveal all of the facts. Not acceptable.

And this is just my thoughts, but the fact that all of this happened just before the election, thats what really upsets me. I know they pulled this act, because it happened just before the election.

I don't buy into the conspiracies that they let those people die purposefully. I feel it was just a general sense of antipathy. There was no real effort to find out how dire the situation was, and that lack of urgency got upchanneled all the way to the top, and that is why nothing was done. But as I said, what really upsets me about it all was the appearance that they tried to cover it up to save their asses pre-election.

I guess my question is why would the Obama administration purposely cover this up on 9/11? What did they have to gain by making this not a terrorist action? Clearly Obama lied horrendously about pulling out the troops and being transparent, but how did "covering" this up help their election? I'm honestly asking as I've never seen any answers to that. Only that Obama was trying to cover it up before the elections to increase his re-electability. Completely forgetting the massive upsurge in popularity after 9/11 Bush received mind.

So why would they have any reason to cover up the fact that the people we're still at war with hate us?

 whembly wrote:
No... the story is that on 9/11 during an attack on Americans in Benghazi (including a person he knew personally) the President of the United States was uninterested.

The empty chair is in the White House, we as a nation put it there…

Clint Eastwood was a genius...

Surely, with this bombshell, Romney will win the election now!

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
No... the story is that on 9/11 during an attack on Americans in Benghazi (including a person he knew personally) the President of the United States was uninterested.

The empty chair is in the White House, we as a nation put it there…

Clint Eastwood was a genius...

Surely, with this bombshell, Romney will win the election now!

Hey... if Obama allows me to discharge my school loans through bankruptcy, I'll vote for him for his 3rd therm.

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:
I guess my question is why would the Obama administration purposely cover this up on 9/11? What did they have to gain by making this not a terrorist action? Clearly Obama lied horrendously about pulling out the troops and being transparent, but how did "covering" this up help their election? I'm honestly asking as I've never seen any answers to that. Only that Obama was trying to cover it up before the elections to increase his re-electability. Completely forgetting the massive upsurge in popularity after 9/11 Bush received mind.

So why would they have any reason to cover up the fact that the people we're still at war with hate us?

That's the question. What did they have to gain by it? I think it's because they were trying to show that they didn't drop the ball. Of all days that we should have been most aware of an attack on us, 9/11 should have been it. And we completely missed it.

Who changed Susan Rice's notes? The CIA said it was a terrorist attack, so why did she go on several differant shows and say it wasn't? Why was she, someone who really had no reason to be doing that, on those shows pushing that story? It took two weeks for the administration to admit what the CIA was saying the next day. Why were they doing that?

I think it basically just comes down to an Administration that can't admit it made a mistake. Obama still hasn't come forth and said he was wrong on the Iraqi surge, even after signing off on a similar plan for Afghanistan (just an example of the point I'm making, not in itself related to the issue).

Clearly Obama is a horrible incompetent monster and the enemy of everything American and pure.

And the GOP still lost the presidential elections as well as seats in both houses.

Maybe instead if banging the drum to raise the rallying cries of their shrinking base to march against the enemy, they should take a look at themselves.

If you give the people a choice between a guy who craps on the lives of Americans and wipes his butt with the constitution or a freedom and liberty loving God fearing patriot, and they choose the a-hole, then maybe it's you. Could be time to stop painting the other turd a darker shade of brown and to start polishing your turd.

But I grew up in socialist Europe, so what do I know.

The Benghazi "scandal" is the biggest real-life game of trying to make fetch happen that I've ever seen.

20 Americans were killed during the Bush administration during 7 different attacks. Not a peep out of John McCain then.

Let me know when the hearings start over the extrajudicial use of drones, the status of the detainees still held at Guantanamo Bay or the failure to jail a single wall street executive nearly 6 years later are, or something like that, happen.

 d-usa wrote:
Clearly Obama is a horrible incompetent monster and the enemy of everything American and pure.

And the GOP still lost the presidential elections as well as seats in both houses.

Maybe instead if banging the drum to raise the rallying cries of their shrinking base to march against the enemy, they should take a look at themselves.

If you give the people a choice between a guy who craps on the lives of Americans and wipes his butt with the constitution or a freedom and liberty loving God fearing patriot, and they choose the a-hole, then maybe it's you. Could be time to stop painting the other turd a darker shade of brown and to start polishing your turd.

But I grew up in socialist Europe, so what do I know.

Who are you talking to?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
The Benghazi "scandal" is the biggest real-life game of trying to make fetch happen that I've ever seen.

20 Americans were killed during the Bush administration during 7 different attacks. Not a peep out of John McCain then.

Let me know when the hearings start over the extrajudicial use of drones, the status of the detainees still held at Guantanamo Bay or the failure to jail a single wall street executive nearly 6 years later are, or something like that, happen.

Reference my previous post where this straw man was already used.

 Ouze wrote:
The Benghazi "scandal" is the biggest real-life game of trying to make fetch happen that I've ever seen.

So, you think everything was in place and the reaction was just... peachy?

20 Americans were killed during the Bush administration during 7 different attacks. Not a peep out of John McCain then.

How old are you? Or, were you even paying attention during the Bush years?

He's practically a pariah now.

Let me know when the hearings start over the extrajudicial use of drones,

Yeah... I'm waiting right with ya!

the status of the detainees still held at Guantanamo Bay

erm... okay.

or the failure to jail a single wall street executive nearly 6 years later are, or something like that, happen.

Wait... wut?

He's just referring to other failures of the Obama admin Whembly.

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:
I guess my question is why would the Obama administration purposely cover this up on 9/11? What did they have to gain by making this not a terrorist action? Clearly Obama lied horrendously about pulling out the troops and being transparent, but how did "covering" this up help their election? I'm honestly asking as I've never seen any answers to that. Only that Obama was trying to cover it up before the elections to increase his re-electability. Completely forgetting the massive upsurge in popularity after 9/11 Bush received mind.

So why would they have any reason to cover up the fact that the people we're still at war with hate us?

Dutch... djones520 is responding to this much better than I...

But, Obama administration made a decision early on to stop referring to the Benghazi debacle as a successful terrorist attack. Acknowledging what really happened would have utterly destroyed one of Obama’s main campaign themes (which admittedly at the time, was Obama's most effective tact), that through his own personal heroism he had al Qaeda on the run with numerous chest thumping of "getting" Bin Ladin (which, I really don't fault him). Instead, Obama chose to pretend that Benghazi was an unfortunate but essentially meaningless mob uprising, prompted by a YouTube video.

Do you see where I'm coming from?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:
He's just referring to other failures of the Obama admin Whembly.

Oh... now I see. Sorry Ouze.

 djones520 wrote:

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:
I guess my question is why would the Obama administration purposely cover this up on 9/11? What did they have to gain by making this not a terrorist action? Clearly Obama lied horrendously about pulling out the troops and being transparent, but how did "covering" this up help their election? I'm honestly asking as I've never seen any answers to that. Only that Obama was trying to cover it up before the elections to increase his re-electability. Completely forgetting the massive upsurge in popularity after 9/11 Bush received mind.

So why would they have any reason to cover up the fact that the people we're still at war with hate us?

That's the question. What did they have to gain by it? I think it's because they were trying to show that they didn't drop the ball. Of all days that we should have been most aware of an attack on us, 9/11 should have been it. And we completely missed it.

Who changed Susan Rice's notes? The CIA said it was a terrorist attack, so why did she go on several differant shows and say it wasn't? Why was she, someone who really had no reason to be doing that, on those shows pushing that story? It took two weeks for the administration to admit what the CIA was saying the next day. Why were they doing that?

I think it basically just comes down to an Administration that can't admit it made a mistake. Obama still hasn't come forth and said he was wrong on the Iraqi surge, even after signing off on a similar plan for Afghanistan (just an example of the point I'm making, not in itself related to the issue).

Well I guess the difference between me and you as you see that as something different for a president. I see it as par for the course. There's a reason I will only vote 3rd party and its antics like this. Clearly you're not one of the ones foaming at the mouth to take down Obama because he's Obama. And you're clearly not one of the bat-gak crazy retards that think Obama is any real "change" from the Bush administration when it comes to foreign policy.

You're military, and active duty with a huge view of the situation I don't have so I respect your view. I just don't know why this matters. Obama is the same as any other President. All talk, all bs. If he didn't go down for gaking on the Right to Assemble he's not going down for this. This really is just politics. How many Americans have died overseas since Benghazi? How many died from handguns and were outlawing rifles? Tis all bs grandstanding. Obama did nothing special any other president would have done.

Still haven't heard a real reason besides "it would hurt his re-election chances" as a reason to involve a massive government coverup over something that people really wouldn't have cared about otherwise too.

I don't want to build a quote tree, but in response to Whembly:

1.) Re: response - No, I don't think reaction was peachy. But that's the cost of doing business, frankly, when you have embassies all over the world, including some in politically unstable areas where we are unpopular. It has been for generations. 17 Americans killed under Reagan, 8 under Clinton, etc. Sure, it's a tragedy that 4 Americans are dead, but that's an average weekend in Chicago - have some proportion.

2.) Re: "was I paying attention during Bush administration" Let me repeat what I said. Under the Bush administration, 7 attacks, 20 dead Americans, not a peep out of John McCain. There, I bolded the relevant part. Now he's been on TV for months screaming this is a bigger scandal then Watergate, FFS.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
But, Obama administration made a decision early on to stop referring to the Benghazi debacle as a successful terrorist attack. Acknowledging what really happened would have utterly destroyed one of Obama’s main campaign themes

Please stop making things up. Unless we're seriously going to get into an argument about how referring it as an "act of terror" isn't the same as calling it a "terrorist attack"; which would of course be a most Clintoneque "meaning of is is" argument and not worthy of anyone here's time.

 Ouze wrote:
I don't want to build a quote tree, but in response to Whembly:

1.) Re: response - No, I don't think reaction was peachy. But that's the cost of doing business, frankly, when you have embassies all over the world, including some in politically unstable areas where we are unpopular. It has been for generations. 17 Americans killed under Reagan, 8 under Clinton, etc. Sure, it's a tragedy that 4 Americans are dead, but that's an average weekend in Chicago - have some proportion.

2.) Re: "was I paying attention during Bush administration" Let me repeat what I said. Under the Bush administration, 7 attacks, 20 dead Americans, not a peep out of John McCain. There, I bolded the relevant part. Now he's been on TV for months screaming this is a bigger scandal then Watergate, FFS.

Don't you know? Because they didn't say terrorism right off the bat it means there was a cover up. Nevermind the fact that terrorism is the word du jour.

 Ouze wrote:
I don't want to build a quote tree, but in response to Whembly:

1.) Re: response - No, I don't think reaction was peachy. But that's the cost of doing business, frankly, when you have embassies all over the world, including some in politically unstable areas where we are unpopular. It has been for generations. 17 Americans killed under Reagan, 8 under Clinton, etc. Sure, it's a tragedy that 4 Americans are dead, but that's an average weekend in Chicago - have some proportion.

2.) Re: "was I paying attention during Bush administration" Let me repeat what I said. Under the Bush administration, 7 attacks, 20 dead Americans, not a peep out of John McCain. There, I bolded the relevant part. Now he's been on TV for months screaming this is a bigger scandal then Watergate, FFS.

1) I understand where you're coming from... I really do. But, there's 2 major distinction that makes this different:
A) This was on 9/11
B) This was right before the election

A+B=really, REALLY distasteful.

2) McCain REGULARLY ding'ed Bush... he was the first one to advocate for the 1st SURGE in Iraq/Afganistan! You know... Maverick and all...

We need to begin somewhere....

 whembly wrote:
2) McCain REGULARLY ding'ed Bush... .

I will be happy to wait while you find a video, transcript, or quote from John McCain denouncing Bush's failures in allowing an attack on a US embassy in which Americans died. I freely admit I have not researched this and this is a golden opportunity for you to make me look stupid, and I will admit I was wrong and you were right.

Remember - specifically about any one of the 7 embassy attacks under Bush's watch.

 Ouze wrote:

Please stop making things up. Unless we're seriously going to get into an argument about how referring it as an "act of terror" isn't the same as calling it a "terrorist attack"; which would of course be a most Clintoneque "meaning of is is" argument and not worthy of anyone here's time.

Seriously... He said that, "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for" but did not say that the Benghazi attack qualified or was being pursued as one.

Context matters dude.

And he fething went to Las Vega for a campaign shindig with Jay-Z & Beoncyee right fething after that rose garden speech!



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
2) McCain REGULARLY ding'ed Bush... .

I will be happy to wait while you find a video, transcript, or quote from John McCain denouncing Bush's failures in allowing an attack on a US embassy in which Americans died. I freely admit I have not researched this and this is a golden opportunity for you to make me look stupid, and I will admit I was wrong and you were right.

Remember - specifically about any one of the 7 embassy attacks under Bush's watch.

So, because he did specifically denounce Bush, then Obama is hereforth immune to any criticism.

Gotcha.

 whembly wrote:
Seriously... He said that, "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for" but did not say that the Benghazi attack qualified or was being pursued as one.

Context matters dude.

Really? Here is the context in which he said it.

"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America" By the very next sentence, he mentioned the 4 dead embassy staff. Are we now going to pretend that this was some generic speech unrelated to the attack, and I'm trying to take a single line out of context? I mean, seriously, this is what it's devolved to?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
2) McCain REGULARLY ding'ed Bush... .

I will be happy to wait while you find a video, transcript, or quote from John McCain denouncing Bush's failures in allowing an attack on a US embassy in which Americans died. I freely admit I have not researched this and this is a golden opportunity for you to make me look stupid, and I will admit I was wrong and you were right.

Remember - specifically about any one of the 7 embassy attacks under Bush's watch.

So, because he did specifically denounce Bush, then Obama is hereforth immune to any criticism.

Gotcha.

You're moving the goalposts. Let me recap. I said embassy attacks under Bush, 20 dead Americans, not a peep out of Johnny Mac, you said it happened all the time, was I not paying attention? I said Ok, show me. That's where we are. Feel free to scroll up if that's an inaccurate recap.

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Seriously... He said that, "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for" but did not say that the Benghazi attack qualified or was being pursued as one.

Context matters dude.

Really? Here is the context in which he said it.

"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America" By the very next sentence, he mentioned the 4 dead embassy staff. Are we now going to pretend that this was some generic speech unrelated to the attack, and I'm trying to take a single line out of context? I mean, seriously, this is what it's devolved to?

We'll just disagree. Cool?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
2) McCain REGULARLY ding'ed Bush... .

I will be happy to wait while you find a video, transcript, or quote from John McCain denouncing Bush's failures in allowing an attack on a US embassy in which Americans died. I freely admit I have not researched this and this is a golden opportunity for you to make me look stupid, and I will admit I was wrong and you were right.

Remember - specifically about any one of the 7 embassy attacks under Bush's watch.

So, because he did specifically denounce Bush, then Obama is hereforth immune to any criticism.

Gotcha.

You're moving the goalposts. Let me recap. I said embassy attacks under Bush, 20 dead Americans, not a peep out of Johnny Mac, you said it happened all the time, was I not paying attention? I said Ok, show me. That's where we are. Feel free to scroll up if that's an inaccurate recap.

Sorry I wasn't clear... John McCain regularly butt heads with Bush... that's all I was trying to say.

We're talking pass each other.

 whembly wrote:
We'll just disagree. Cool?

Ahtman already covered this. But sure, we're cool.

I guess my bottom line is that I'm sorry those people died, but I don't think it's a scandal. I'm sure the WH made mistakes, just like every one before or since had, but that doesn't make it Watergate. There are plenty of things I really would like to see Congress investigate; and I hate seeing them just focus on this because it smells like a partisan witch-hunt to me.

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
We'll just disagree. Cool?

Ahtman already covered this.

Grrrrrrrr.... must.... resist. Sorry... CAN'T:

"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for." But the context of that statement suggests strongly that President Obama was referring to terror in general, not specifically to the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi or the violent demonstrations at the U.S. embassy in Cairo.

This is most certainly NOT the Clintonian definition of "is".

Again, lemme rephrase that because I keep getting the same instance response that I'm wrong:
At no point was it clear that he was using that term to describe the attack in Benghazi. He’d also spent the previous two paragraphs discussing the 9/11 attacks and the aftermath. “Acts of terror” could have just as easily been a reference to that. Or maybe it wasn’t a direct reference to anything, just a generic, reassuring line he’d added into a speech which did take place, after all, the day after the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. I do have to give Obama (or his speech writers) promps as this was effective wordsmithing.

Remember... this is during his re-election campaign...

Calling it a terrorist attack would have given Obama powers under the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF) to use military action, including drone warfare, against the bad guys. If he were serious about “bringingto justice the killers,” which he vowed to do in the speech, then labeling this incident a terrorist attack (if he believed that’s what it was) would have been critical. So... where are the bad guys?

Ahtman ain't winning this one dude.

But sure, we're cool.

Awesome brah! Where do you game?

I guess my bottom line is that I'm sorry those people died, but I don't think it's a scandal. I'm sure the WH made mistakes, just like every one before or since had, but that doesn't make it Watergate. There are plenty of things I really would like to see Congress investigate; and I hate seeing them just focus on this because it smells like a partisan witch-hunt to me.

I know dude... me too. Bottom line, I want any mistakes identified and the policy/procedures updated so that something like this doesn't happen again.

 whembly wrote:
" But the context of that statement suggests strongly that President Obama was referring to terror in general, not specifically to the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi or the violent demonstrations at the U.S. embassy in Cairo.

You appear to have made your 2+ invulnerable save to reason. You are arguing that he wasn't talking specifically the attack in Benghazi in a speech he delivered the day after the attack, which mentioned Libya 11 times, Benghazi 4 times, in a speech which was titled "Remarks by the President on the Deaths of U.S. Embassy Staff in Libya".



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Again, lemme rephrase that because I keep getting the same instance response that I'm wrong:
At no point was it clear that he was using that term to describe the attack in Benghazi. He’d also spent the previous two paragraphs discussing the 9/11 attacks and the aftermath. “Acts of terror” could have just as easily been a reference to that. Or maybe it wasn’t a direct reference to anything, just a generic, reassuring line he’d added into a speech which did take place, after all, the day after the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. I do have to give Obama (or his speech writers) promps as this was effective wordsmithing.

The transcript of the remarks was already linked, but I'll link it again. Your contention that he spent the previous two praragraphs talking about 9/11 is simply a fabrication made out of whole cloth. He did not. This is not a matter of opinion. The end.

 whembly wrote:
Calling it a terrorist attack would have given Obama powers under the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF) to use military action, including drone warfare, against the bad guys. If he were serious about “bringingto justice the killers,” which he vowed to do in the speech, then labeling this incident a terrorist attack (if he believed that’s what it was) would have been critical.

No, it wouldn't have. The executive already has a good habit of making power grabs, lets not allow them to pretend the AUMF requires him to use a secret code word like a magic ring to transform him into a superhero with unlimited powers ("form of... MQ-9 Reaper!"). The AUMF was very clearly and unambiguously worded to allow force against the planners of the 9/11 attacks. It's like 3 paragraphs.

He wouldn't need the AUMF anyway. He's free to bomb the living gak out of them and simply ask Congress for authorization later, depending if you think the War Powers act is lawful or not (opinions vary).

 Ouze wrote:
[spoiler]

 whembly wrote:
" But the context of that statement suggests strongly that President Obama was referring to terror in general, not specifically to the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi or the violent demonstrations at the U.S. embassy in Cairo.

You appear to have made your 2+ invulnerable save to reason. You are arguing that he wasn't talking specifically the attack in Benghazi in a speech he delivered the day after the attack, which mentioned Libya 11 times, Benghazi 4 times, in a speech which was titled "Remarks by the President on the Deaths of U.S. Embassy Staff in Libya".

"Acts of Terror"... that's what we're talking about. Used ambiguously...

ANd yes, I'm a Shadow Field toting mutha F'n Archon!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Again, lemme rephrase that because I keep getting the same instance response that I'm wrong:
At no point was it clear that he was using that term to describe the attack in Benghazi. He’d also spent the previous two paragraphs discussing the 9/11 attacks and the aftermath. “Acts of terror” could have just as easily been a reference to that. Or maybe it wasn’t a direct reference to anything, just a generic, reassuring line he’d added into a speech which did take place, after all, the day after the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. I do have to give Obama (or his speech writers) promps as this was effective wordsmithing.

The transcript of the remarks was already linked, but I'll link it again. Your contention that he spent the previous two praragraphs talking about 9/11 is simply a fabrication made out of whole cloth. He did not. This is not a matter of opinion. The end.

Wanna try that again? Here's the quote for your reading pleasure:

Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. We mourned with the families who were lost on that day. I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed. And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.

As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.

 whembly wrote:
Calling it a terrorist attack would have given Obama powers under the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF) to use military action, including drone warfare, against the bad guys. If he were serious about “bringingto justice the killers,” which he vowed to do in the speech, then labeling this incident a terrorist attack (if he believed that’s what it was) would have been critical.

No, it wouldn't have. The executive already has a good habit of making power grabs, lets not allow them to pretend the AUMF requires him to use a secret code word like a magic ring to transform him into a superhero ("form of... MQ-9 Reaper!"). The AUMF was very clearly and unambiguously worded to allow force against the planners of the 9/11 attacks. It's like 3 paragraphs.

You are really splitting hairs....the AUMF provides ANOTHER justifications for miliary use to address terrorist activites.

 whembly wrote:
Wanna try that again? Here's the quote for your reading pleasure:

You're right; I was looking at the wrong place.

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Wanna try that again? Here's the quote for your reading pleasure:

You're right; I was looking at the wrong place.

No problem... I mess up all the time too.

We all get snookered into these sorts of political discourse, that we need to sometime take a step back.

All I want is for someone to honestly assess what went wrong and make the necessary adjustments so that these sorts of things are mitigated in the future.

Well, on that I can agree. I don't think there was a huge scandal here, or any sort of you know, Machiavellian plot to cover it up - but that doesn't mean it was OK, either. There are lessons to be learned here regardless of your political leanings.

 djones520 wrote:
The demonstration would have been for the Americans. As Whembly pointed out, this reeks of pre-election coverrup. Had the administration done something, there would have been no need for all the smoke and mirrors.

They could just have said, "Look, when this went down, we launched our fighters, we provided as much support as we could for our ground teams in Triploi to get to Benghazi and provide support, but unfortunately in the end they were unable to prevent the loss of life."

So you're saying the Obama Administration should have used the military in order to placate voters?

I mean, I get that you don't like what you perceive as cover-up, but what you're saying now merely indicates a desire for a different cover-up.

 dogma wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
The demonstration would have been for the Americans. As Whembly pointed out, this reeks of pre-election coverrup. Had the administration done something, there would have been no need for all the smoke and mirrors.

They could just have said, "Look, when this went down, we launched our fighters, we provided as much support as we could for our ground teams in Triploi to get to Benghazi and provide support, but unfortunately in the end they were unable to prevent the loss of life."

So you're saying the Obama Administration should have used the military in order to placate voters?

I mean, I get that you don't like what you perceive as cover-up, but what you're saying now merely indicates a desire for a different cover-up.

I was trying to answer both of your points at once. Where you were asking the "what if" scenario as well. I wasn't advocating that he lied about sending us in.