U.S. Diplomats Killed in Libya

If I remember correctly, this is counter to one of your (or coins?) prior claims that you were doing no such thing, that you encouraged discussion. The question is, which of those claims is the lie.

But please, continue. I've never known you to give up when you are beat, or admit defeat, and at this point I may become disappointed if you did.

 

Coin and I have both put up evidence that you did no such thing. Just where is your evidence?

 

IQlessthan1 will sit there and spin all day long. Facts are not his friend.

 

Back to the thread topic, can anyone excuse Obama's comment? Really? The death of our ambassador was just a "bump in the road"?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-calls-recent-middle-east-violence-bumps-road_652971.html

 

Point 1. An apologist, in my opinion, would be somone who'd ideaology makes them not want us militarily intervening in and occupying countries but, somehow finds that the current President planning to spend 6 years fighting in Afghanistan after he was elected as being A-Ok. And that is 6 years minimum if he doesn't try to stay even longer. Or, speaking of which, somehow giving a President credit for pulling out of Iraq when he was begging the Iraqis up until almost the final minute to stay and finding that A-Ok too.

Point 2. I am not an isolationist. I am a non-interventionist...you know...that thing that many of the Democracies in the world practice as a foreign policy. The ones that don't lead decades long occupation of multiple countries or have military bases armed to the teeth all over the world. The ones that don;t spend $711 Billion a year on their military. You know...non-interventionism - that thing that I used to have in common with a lot of liberals prior to Jan 2009 and may again have in common with them in a few months from now (only if Romney is elected, though) - See Point 1.

 

Libya president: Anti-Islam film trailer had nothing to do with attack on US Consulate​

​

The anti-Islam film trailer that the White House has repeatedly blamed for sparking unrest in the Middle East had nothing to do with the attack that led to the death of U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens, that nation's president said in a television interview.​

​

Libyan President Mohamed Magarief said the deadly Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi, which also resulted in the deaths of three other Americans, was more likely pegged to the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.​

​

"Reaction should have been, if it was genuine, should have been six months earlier. So it was postponed until the 11th of September," Magarief told NBC’s Ann Curry in the exclusive interview. "They chose this date, 11th of September to carry a certain message."​

​

President Obama and White House staffers have sent mixed signals about what triggered the siege on the unprotected U.S. consulate in the troubled Libyan city, with Obama continuing to blame the film trailer even as evidence mounts to the contrary.​

​

Magarief noted that there were no protesters at the consulate prior to the attack, and that the incident was more of a clearly coordinated assault than a demonstration run amok. He noted the attackers used rocket-propelled grenades on the consulate and then fired mortars at a safe house where Stevens had fled.​

​

In addition to Stevens, information management officer Sean Smith and former Navy SEALs and security personnel Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were killed.​

​

"It's a pre-planned act of terrorism," Magarief said, concluding that the trailer for a purported film called “Innocence of Muslims” had "nothing to do with this attack." The trailer had been on the Internet since July, but no full-length film has emerged.​

​

Magarief conceded that Libyans took part in the attack, but said "these Libyans do not represent the Libyan people or Libyan population in any sense of the word."​

​

Magarief, who called Stevens a “humble and very unique individual,” said the nation is in debt to the U.S. for helping to oust ruthless dictator Muammar Qaddafi.​

​

"We consider the United States as a friend, not only a friend, a strong friend, who stood with us in our moment of need," he said.​

​

​

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/09/26/libya-president-anti-islam-film-trailer-had-nothing-to-do-with-attack-on-us/#ixzz27aKcMyBU​

 

Republicans crank up pressure on administration to clear up facts on Libya attack​

September 26, 2012
After two weeks of changing stories from the Obama administration regarding the Libya terror attack, Republican lawmakers are putting increasing pressure on the president and his advisers to explain why they made such "implausible" statements in the days following the strike.

Members of Congress, frustrated over an apparently light-on-details intelligence briefing last week and the initial insistence by officials that the attack was linked to anger over an anti-Islam film, fired off a round of letters this week seeking clear answers. Mitt Romney, after initially laying low over the changing Libya narrative, also has started to hammer the president over the issue.

Republicans now are openly suggesting that the administration may have covered up details of the attack for political purposes.

"We are getting close to an election, and all I can think of is they're just trying to keep the facts unknown until after the election," Rep. Buck McKeon, R-Calif., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, told Fox News on Wednesday. "The way they're handling this is so incompetent."

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Wednesday that President Obama considers the strike a "terrorist attack." Though Obama did not refer to it as such in his address Tuesday to the U.N. General Assembly, several administration officials, including Carney and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, have used the term since last week.
The administration, though, still has not publicly rejected comments made two Sundays ago in several TV interviews by U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice. Rice claimed on "Fox News Sunday" and other programs that the attack was a spontaneous assault tied to the anti-U.S. protests in Cairo. Rice, like other administration officials, said the attack was not pre-planned.

Four senators wrote a letter to Rice on Tuesday asking about her "troubling statements that are inconsistent with the facts" and demanding an explanation.

"By the date of your comments, it was already clear that the attack in Libya was a terrorist attack, and that heavily armed and well trained attackers appeared to have prepared for an opportunity to attack U.S. interests," they wrote. "Yet, you repeatedly asserted the implausible explanation that the attack in Benghazi was a spontaneous reaction to the video despite growing evidence to the contrary. ... We look forward to a timely response that explains how the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations could characterize an attack on a U.S. consulate so inaccurately five days after a terrorist attack that killed four Americans."

The letter was signed by Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz.; Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H.; Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.; and Ron Johnson, R-Wis.

​

​

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/26/republicans-crank-up-pressure-on-administration-to-come-clear-on-libya/#ixzz27cAHqaLf​

​

 

Reread your "evidence", if you really want to quadruple-down on that stupidity. In it you will see you provided the very evidence you seek from me. Though I know you can't see reason here, and can't admit when you are wrong, I will still refer you to the words "most likely". Most likely is a hypothetical exercise, or supposition.

You may continue this if you wish, but you are now straying into President Clinton's insanity, when he questioned what the word "is" is.

 

Then I suggest you "like" rlm's statement (the one immediately above your comment above), you appear to have forgotten to. You may as well, since your comment is in support of his, and both are beyond reason.

 

Running from anything? Just admit you are wrong when you are wrong and you wouldn't have so many issues to deal with. At least admit it to yourself, otherwise you'll continue making a fool out of yourself with these baseless accusations.

 

On point one, you'd probably want to include me in that, but I disagree, of course. Once it was clear we would invade Afghanistan (and later, Iraq), I understood the consequences that were not being talked about. I understood the likelihood that we would need to be there at least ten years, regardless of which party was in charge. That people couldn't understand the consequences is on them. To be fair though, invasions and occupations are very complicated and it's easy to misunderstand the consequences when all you hear is how easy it'll be.

On point two: I too believe we shouldn't have so many military bases around the World. Al Qaeda formed to fight against the ones in the "holy" land. The Japanese have hated our presence on Okinawa for ever lol

I'm not a peace activist or a war monger. I did support the invasion of Afghanistan, in order to find Bin Laden. Once it was clear Jr. had no great desire to continue hunting for him, our withdrawal from there became the goal I preferred...but I understood it would still take a decade, even if everyone else thought different. We invaded a country and the people there can be expected to fight a never-ending guerilla-styled counter, but that's not what we were told. That counter meant that eventually the rest of you would catch on to the fact that it wasn't going to be as simple as our leaders had told us, and the pressure to leave the country would increase. I understood this before our troops were ever on the ground there. My girl friend didn't believe me back then either when I told her these things...she had no clue lol...but, so far, it's gone as I expected it would.

I don't care if anyone here believes that or not, I'm just pissed that Bin Laden wasn't captured or killed in those first few weeks. If he had been, the invasion of Iraq may not have had as much appeal to people...our lust for "justice" (or vengeance) would have been satiated, and support may have dwindled enough in time to stop it from happening. That it did happen meant an additional combat theater, another country to rebuild, with all the associated costs.

Could we have left either theater wayyyy earlier? Yes. The consequences could be far far worse though, IMO. Iraq had a shot at it early on (as did Afghanistan, but very briefly), but by then our goal shifted to "nation-building", and that is the majority of the complications. "Nation-building" is an abuse of power, IMO. If our country can ever learn to quit the activity, occupations would be wayyy shorter.

 

Huh???

 

...and don't forget the "Support our troops!" (or translated: "support our President's War!") mantra Republicans had until 2009. Their mantra shifted immediately to "Bring our troops home, Obama!!!" as soon as he was elected. By then, to do so was far more difficult to achieve, and he understands that. Accusations would be (and likely will be, and soon *by 2014 or so) that Obama pulled our troops out too soon, that he failed to eliminate the threat of al-Qaeda and terrorism, that his leadership is a failure because they still exist in those countries.

 

You sure enjoy manufacturing your own history, don't you?

 

...You three do it all the time, and I just wanted to try it out once. But, to be fair, I'll retract the part about you "running away" from your baseless argument...'cause I know you ain't gonna lol

 

Yeah, Jackie said the same thing to me in Dallas. I had a splitting headache right after she said it. I'm good now though.

That was me @#$%^&* with you. You deserve it.

 

One thing you missed though: I made a prediction.

 

Honestly, I don't see a lot of Republicans on the Bring Our Troops Home Now Band Wagon. I would say that number approaches zero actually. Before or after January 2009.

In fact, I bet when he is eventually pressed on Afghanistan, Romney will mostly agree with the 2014 time frame...knowing he won't really follow it any more than the current President plans to. And, I bet a lot of Republicans also are going to tell him to say he will keep troops there past that point. Some already have.

 

I was wrong, I admit it.* Republicans still suck though lol

*But not on the "Support our President's War!" thing. Once Obama became President, the thought of supporting him that way (or in any way, really) makes them itchy and squirmy and flushed and...

 

Are you referring to the troops that will remain after the "pullout"? On that, Romney would probably increase the presence.

I don't like the idea of having troops in either country, except for those that may be protecting an embassy or other US non-military compound, and only if the host country is agreeable to that.