Benghazi Confidential: Questions That Should Be Answered But Won't Be.

As the congressional hearings on the murderous attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya unfold, here are questions that are still relevant but will almost certainly go unanswered:

1. Why was Hillary Clinton still invoking "The Innocence of Muslims" video as a proximate cause for the attack at the memorial service for dead Americans?

“This has been a difficult week for the State Department and for our country. We’ve seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies ove#mce_temp_url#r an awful internet video that we had nothing do to with. It’s hard for the American people to make sense of that, because it is senseless, and it is totally unacceptable. The people of Egypt, Libya, Yemen and Tunisia, did not trade the tyranny of a dictator for the tyranny of a mob. Reasonable people and responsible leaders in these countries in these countries need to do everything they can to restore security and hold accountable those behind these violent acts. And we will, under the president’s leadership, keep taking steps to protect our personnel around the world.” 

More here.

2. Why didn't the State Department and the White House allow the military to respond to the attack?

On the night of the Benghazi terror attack, special operations put out multiple calls for all available military and other assets to be moved into position to help -- but the State Department and White House never gave the military permission to cross into Libya, sources told Fox News.

More here.

3. When will we get around to discussing larger questions about the legality of our presence in Libya and, especially, the general focus of U.S. foreign policy?

We can all agree, I assume, that the murder of an ambassador in a country we supposedly helped liberate just months earlier is a disaster. How does that horrible outcome reflect on the way in which the U.S. first got involved in the bombing raids that helped depose Qaddafi?... And not just about Libya but the bigger question of U.S. foreign policy.

More here.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Tman||

    The big one I want to know about is #2. I get that Hillary is a soulless party hack so none of that really surprises me, but the idea that our $600 Billion a year Defense Department couldn't muster a response (or wasn't allowed to?) in ten hours is absolutely indefensible.

  • Nazdrakke||

    but the idea that our $600 Billion a year Defense Department couldn't muster a response (or wasn't allowed to?) in ten hours is absolutely indefensible.

    Eh, not that simple, given the scenario that was unfolding. That's the one area in this whole debacle I'm actually the most charitable.

  • Tman||

    Eh, not that simple, given the scenario that was unfolding

    Then how come the CIA was able to fly in from Tripoli from 400 miles away after hiring a plane, but the DOD could only send a drone over the embassy to watch our citizens get murdered?

  • Nazdrakke||

    Not the same thing as launching a rescue mission into an urban combat zone on zero notice. I'm not saying that it would have been impossible, and I probably would have pulled the trigger if I had been the command authority, but it was hardly a cut-and-dried issue.

  • Tman||

    The SEALS were killed from the mortar strikes that came in the TENTH hour of the attack.

    I find it incredibly hard to believe that our sophisticated military capabilities were incapable of doing ANYTHING other than sending a drone in ten hours.

  • Lord Humungus||

    a drone with a few missiles was apparently not available? Heck, a squad of Marines would have done the trick, especially with a bit of air support.

  • Nazdrakke||

    I think y'all are over simplifying what a relief effort would have required. From what I know an effort that wouldn't have resulted in a gigantic cluster-fuck was just on the edge of fesability. I would have gone ahead with it myself, but I understand why someone else would not. Urban combat can devour soldiers like no other environment, while sharply limiting the value of close air support, and charging into that environment without any intel is particularly hazardous. Wet panties just about run the Obama military so I'm not shocked that they didn't send a relief, but it also wasn't a cut-and-dried situation.

  • Tman||

    Naz,

    I'm not necessarily saying there should've been a full blown SPEC OPS team dropped from above in to a hostile situation Blackhawk down style, but there have been several analysts who agree that a low fly by from a F-18 as a show of force usually scares enough of the fence sitters to put the mortars down and go home.

    The point is we did absolutely NOTHING for TEN HOURS after learning our embassy was under attack from al-qaeda linked terrorists.

    Not only is this indefensible but it send a terrible message to our enemies, and someone needs to explain who made these calls to stand down.

  • Nazdrakke||

    Tman, I pretty much am in agreement with your larger points, and I think that the whole situation speaks to a much larger strategic problem for the US that has be getting worse for years and receives too little attention IMO, which is the abject lack of cooperation of our NATO "allies" in many areas. That this was a nearly impossible situation to address, given it's location right on the Med, is the bigger story, strategically speaking, that no one is speaking about.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    "I think y'all are over simplifying what a relief effort would have required. From what I know an effort that wouldn't have resulted in a gigantic cluster-fuck was just on the edge of fesability."

    You think if Michelle had been under siege during her trip to Africa they might be able to attempt something "feasable"? Izmir to Benghazi is 500 nautical miles.

  • Nazdrakke||

    You think if Michelle had been under siege during her trip to Africa they might be able to attempt something "feasable"? Izmir to Benghazi is 500 nautical miles

    I'm sure of it. I also said above that I would have launched the effort if it had been up to me to decide. My point is that it was the least objectionable part of the whole affair, as there were, unfortunately, a lot of logistical and operational barriers to overcome.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    As a longtime logistics guy and sometime ops guy, I think you are overestimating what it would have taken get something there to help.

    We're not talking about dropping all of SETAF there, just some air and perhaps some armed drones could have been there fairly quickly, then drop by the secured airport not all that far away and move on the ground if needed. This was to be a rescue, not conquering the city. We have a whole lot of experience and capable people after the past 11 years+.

  • Nazdrakke||

    LTC, that's probably how whoever S-3'd the potential relief laid it out, and then it got stood down over concerns about collateral damage and "political ramifications." What I don't know is what the intel at the time looked like to them. As far as I can tell today the op you lay out would have done the trick, but I bet dollars to donuts that they were haunted by the spectre of some Mog-like scenario where every jackass with an AK in his closet shows up to the party when the boots hit the ground.

    I'd have done it, but how hard would it be for the Obama team to call it off when there (I am morally sure) were commanders giving them reasons not to.

  • Nazdrakke||

    were commanders giving them reasons not to. do it, dammit.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    "As a longtime logistics guy and sometime ops guy, I think you are overestimating what it would have taken get something there to help."

    I've never been in the military, but I was under the impression this type of rapid deployment scenario is precisely what we pay the big bucks for. If it really takes several hours to get some special ops troops into a city on the Mediterranean coast then the US military are inept clowns. I don't think that's the case.

  • tarran||

    It's not inept. It's reality.

    Let's take but one munition, the brown bess of the U.S. military, the MK-82 500lb bomb. You don't keep them on the flight deck of a carrier, it would be really dangerous. They are stored, defused, in a magazine in the bowels of the ship.

    To ready one for combat can take hours, they have to be moved to the prep area (they weigh a lot!), and the fuses safely installed, along with the safeties to prevent accidental arming until ready to launch. Then the bomb has to be moved to the aircraft. IT has to be mated to the launching rail, and have the electrics hooked up. In the meantime, someone has to be fueling the aircraft and getting it ready to launch.

    All of these steps are done slowly and very procedurally to avoid the slightest chance of accidental detonation.

    It can easily take an hour or more to arm an aircraft just with dumb iron bombs. The launch can take another 15 minutes. Then comes the transit to the area. Establishing comms with the guys on the ground etc.

    If you don't have aerial tankers in the area, you may want to hold your aircraft on deck so that they don't burn all their fuel loitering while you're tryin to figure out what to hit.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    "It's not inept. It's reality.

    Let's take but one munition, the brown bess of the U.S. military, the MK-82 500lb bomb. You don't keep them on the flight deck of a carrier, it would be really dangerous. They are stored, defused, in a magazine in the bowels of the ship."

    Yeah, but we aren't talking about arming a bomb. It's about men, and I guess women now...that have been trained for years to deal with an attack by a few hundred militant radicals, getting out of bed, boarding a plane and doing their job.

  • GILMORE||

    Nazdrakke| 5.8.13 @ 1:47PM |#

    I think y'all are over simplifying what a relief effort would have required.

    what?? To respond to a mere spontaneous *demonstration*?

    and one wonders why this 'emergency' was treated with such surprise when the now dead ambassador had been asking for additional security support for weeks while working out of a CIA 'safe house' in a city filled with armed jihadist militia.

    I mean, color me shocked! on 9/11 no less... who could have foreseen such a thing?

  • Drake||

    How about a squad of Paratroopers? There is a whole fucking Regiment in Italy.

  • Tman||

    And there you go-

    BOOM!
    "Greg Hicks: I briefed Hillary on Benghazi that night; Clinton continued to blame video"

    "Defense told Mr. Hicks air strikes could be done within 2-3 hours."

    Night night Hills. You can put the campaign stuff back in the attic now.

  • Ted S.||

    What difference, at this point, does it make?

  • Too_Big_to_Fail||

    The four BCTs of the 82nd ABN DIV rotate responsibilities for the US GRF. Anywhere in the world in 18 hours is the standard. For an entire brigade stationed CONUS. An operation for forces already stationed in the region, while surely challenging, is absolutely feasible. The actual nature of whatever operation was being ran in Benghazi is most likely classified and this is why these questions won't be answered.

  • Nazdrakke||

    Sadly, I seriously would not want to be the guy that had to put that time-table to the test.

  • AlexInCT||

    ^^^^ THIS

    Something rotten and seriously damaging politically was going on, and that's why they let these people get killed rather than respond. Other sources with far more credibility than the Obamanauts or Hillary's cohorts at State have already pointed out that there were assets that could have been deployed but were told to stand down instead.

    My guess is that they had either a secret prison or were negotiating with known Syrian terrorists about arms shipments to them, and either story coming out, before the election, would have caused serious harm to team Blue. It’s a cover up effort from the start, and this shit makes what Nixon did look like child’s play.

  • MoreFreedom||

    Our consulate (or CIA facility) was attacked and taken over. Isn't the right response to send the military ASAP to secure it and ensure our people there are safe? And isn't this true regardless if the attack was over or not?

    I see you later write "launching a rescue mission into an urban combat zone" since the attack lasted hours. So if our diplomats are attacked, you believe we should abandon them since we'd be sending in the military into an "urban combat zone"?

    There is no excuse. There is a reason however. The reason no military was sent was because Obama didn't want the news to indicate we were attacked by Libyans (those who supported Ghadaffi and/or Al Quaeda - perhaps a joint attack) and that we responded with the military. Especially since they manufactured the video lie.

  • Drake||

    More to #2: Why was Africom Commander General Ham relieved of command that day for activating his Special Forces Group and assembling a rescue?

    The really really big question - What the Fuck kind of Op was the CIA running there - and why was the CIA and State willing to see everyone there killed to keep it secret?

  • ||

    My money is on president peace prize running a torture prison there where terror suspects were being renditioned to.

  • Drake||

    That was Petraeus' chick's story. I would love to see Petraeus asked about it under oath.

  • Jerryskids||

    If you find someone willing to take your bet, let me know so I can get a piece of that action.

    Everybody is focused on why the reaction to the attack was so SF'ed - I want to know why the terrorists were targeting Benghazi to start with.

    The switch from 'this was a random, spontaneous act of violence caused by a YouTube video' to 'this was a random, spontaneous act of violence we were too stupid to be on guard against' only goes halfway to answering the question.

  • Flatulent Monkey||

    That is a good question, I can tell you with that every embassy (not as certain about consulates) has an evac plan that includes a specific SOF element down to the LTC/Commander level tasked with execution. Why no one pulled the trigger on this plan given the prior warning that the State Department had.

  • Flatulent Monkey||

    Premature submitting (edit button!!)

    Why no one pulled the trigger on that plan will always be a mystery to me.

  • Gray Ghost||

    Not sure if already linked, but this is supposedly a timeline of: e-mails Stevens sent prior to the attack, the Benghazi attack itself, the SEALs showing up, and the aftermath.

    FWIW, the Cairo embassy riots started at 5PM their time (the same time as Libya, or GMT+2) on the same day, roughly 4.5 hours before the shooting started at the Consulate.

    I don't see how Stevens could have been saved. And I don't think TPTB anticipated the SEALs showing enough personal initiative to charter a flight from Tripoli to Bengahzi. IOW, the fighting was supposed to be over rather quickly, and it was, roughly 1 hr 20 minutes after it started. Then the Annex was pointed out (by Libyan security forces, according to reports at the time) and the SEALs showed up.

    If a military response was infeasible, why were the General and Admiral sacked?

  • Restoras||

    Here's another question: Why is Nakoula still in prison?

  • ||

    Because having the computer violated the terms of his parole, so on a technicality he is guilty of parole violation.

    It does beg the question of what would have happened to him if he didn't have that against him.

  • ||

    That isnt the proper usage of the phrase 'begging the question', but you are correct.

    My guess is they chose him to blame it on because they knew he had violated his parole and they could railroad him.

  • ||

    Also, as to why he is still behind bars, imagine the noise he will make in the press when he gets out. Cant have that.

  • Raven Nation||

    He took a plea back in November on the parole violation:

    http://www.theatlanticwire.com.....ama/58815/

  • Lyle||

    The U.S. has as much right to be in Libya as a Mexican citizen has a right to be in the United States illegally.

    Ambassador Stevens had as much right to be in Libya as any other American with reason to want to be in Libya.

  • SugarFree||

    So you agree that our presence in Libya was illegal? Finally, something that proves you have some small spark of intelligence.

  • Lyle||

    It's not illegal if they don't kick us out.

  • SugarFree||

    So then Mexicans in the US without a valid visa aren't doing anything wrong until we deport them?

  • Lyle||

    Obviously they aren't doing anything wrong. Shoot... we're about to give them amnesty for their wrongdoing.

    If they aren't in detention or they aren't deported, what does it matter if they're illegal?

  • SugarFree||

    So crimes only occur if you are caught? Or they only matter when you're caught?

    How about I rape your mom to death with a sledgehammer? If I get away with, has a crime been committed?

  • Lyle||

    Yeah, there isn't a crime if you get away with it. Duh!

  • SugarFree||

    Yeah, there isn't a crime if you get away with it. Duh!

    Cool. What's your mom's address?

  • Lyle||

    You're going to have to find out her information yourself. Go ahead and try to kill her if you must.

    She might kill you though. Watch out.

  • SugarFree||

    Your concern for your poor mother's life is duly noted. I guess you'd enough paddling around in her blood just like all the American men and women killed in Iraq and the nation-building horseshit phase of Afghanistan.

  • Lyle||

    You're more concerned about my mother than me? You're the one threatening to kill her. Haha.

  • SugarFree||

    You're the one that doesn't think it's a crime unless you get caught.

    No morals, for Lyle. He doesn't have any. Only laws that only matter if you get caught. Did your parents ever ask you what happened to the neighborhood dogs and cats, or were they too frightened of the soulless monster that lived with them to ask questions? Did you like to set fires, Lyle? Wet your bed a lot after age 5?

  • Lyle||

    What? You're projecting yourself on to me perhaps.

    Overthrowing Qaddafi was arguably morally right.

  • SugarFree||

    You can't argue a moral position is you don't have any.

    Handwave more about projection, though. That always works. Oh, and practice smiling and frowning in a mirror. Eventually you'll get so good at mimicking human facial expressions people won't be able to spot what you are right away.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Overthrowing Qaddafi was arguably morally right.

    Same with Putin, but you don't see the US shaking their dicks at Russia.

  • Lyle||

    ... and you know it was Libyans who raped and "sledgehammered" Qaddafi to death.

  • Super Hans||

    They aren't doing anything wrong, period.

    It's not a crime unless someone gets hurt.

  • Lyle||

    Qaddafi should have stopped us from "illegally" overthrowing him. He didn't do that. Oops... sucks for him.

    Then the current Libya government let Ambassador Stevens and our government into Libya.

  • SugarFree||

    Ambassador Stevens had as much right to be in Libya as any other American with reason to want to be in Libya.

    So if, say, some Iranians with government or military ties wanted to come to the US, they would have a right to do so? We have open borders and are unable to close them?

  • Lyle||

    Yeah, Iran can try and invade the U.S. when ever it wants to. How are you not aware of this?

    And yes, an Iranian can cross the Rio Grande just like a Mexican can. It's up to us to stop them.

  • SugarFree||

    Invade? You said Stevens had a right to be in Libya? Don't Iranians have a right to be in America? A right implies that it would be a crime or a moral infraction to prevent someone from exercising that right.

    Or do only Americans have the right to go anywhere they please?

  • Lyle||

    What are you talking about? You said Iranian military. If we don't invite them in, they would be invading us no?

    Of course Iranian citizens can enter the U.S. There are even Iranians who are U.S. citizens.

  • SugarFree||

    Iranians with government or military ties

    You are the one that said Stevens had a right to be in Libya. So which is it?

  • Lyle||

    Yeah, he did because Libya welcomed him there. If we don't welcome Iranian government officials into the U.S., we don't welcome Iranian officials into the U.S. If they want in, they would have to invade us no?

    What are you not understanding?

  • SugarFree||

    So Stevens didn't have a right to be in Libya, but was invited?

    So were you lying in the original statement or just an idiot?

  • Lyle||

    Haha... Stevens didn't have to be invited to have the right to be in Libya. He could just be there and it would be up to Libya to make him leave. In his case he was invited though. Do you get it now?

  • Lyle||

    Anyone can go wherever they please. It's up to each country to prevent such or allow it.

  • SugarFree||

    Anyone can go wherever they please. It's up to each country to prevent such or allow it.

    Statement 2 invalidates Statement 1. If you cannot go anywhere you please, the you are not able to go wherever you please.

  • Lyle||

    Nope, not if you overcome the country trying to stop you. See the U.S. invasion of whatever country. See the Mexican illegal living and working in the U.S.

    Fuck, you're ignorant.

  • SugarFree||

    Yes, I'm sure if China invaded us, won, and occupied us, you'd think that was fine and dandy.

  • Lyle||

    Haha... being fine and dandy with China taking over the U.S. follows from nothing I've said.

  • SugarFree||

    Nope, not if you overcome the country trying to stop you.

    Your words.

  • Lyle||

    Yeah, those are my words.

  • SugarFree||

    Lyle| 5.8.13 @ 1:53PM |#|–|filternamelinkcustom

    Nope, not if you overcome the country trying to stop you. See the U.S. invasion of whatever country. See the Mexican illegal living and working in the U.S.

    Fuck, you're ignorant.

    Did someone hack your comment handle?

  • Lyle||

    Haha... nope.

    You got some more threats and ad hominem for me?

  • SugarFree||

    And now begins the whining phase.

  • Zeb||

    Bored this afternoon, SF?

  • SugarFree||

    You have no idea, Zebulon.

  • ||

    Why was Hillary Clinton still invoking "The Innocence of Muslims" video as a proximate cause for the attack at the memorial service for dead Americans?

    Because she's an utterly incompetent hack who has nothing else but to fall back on the administration's incredibly inept talking points?

  • Pro Libertate||

    What's truly pathetic is that a substantial portion of the population will buy any lie "their" party tells them. Like I said yesterday, we'd be a lot better off if we'd just hold politicians to at least the standards we do other people. Should be higher standards, to be sure, but anything's better than no standards.

  • Mr. Soul||

    i think the lie they bought long ago is that Ds are better than Rs. They chalk up all R-led investigations as witch-hunts. Its not that they believe the Ds, its that they hate the Rs.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Trust no one in power. Ever.

  • Zeb||

    I think that's it. It's not that people think that their party is particularly good. It's that they think that the other party is so evil that there is no alternative. Because every election is the MOST IMPORTANT OF OUR LIFETIME!

  • Pro Libertate||

    The most important election will likely be the one that doesn't happen.

  • Drake||

    Because their was an election in a few weeks.

  • Idle Hands||

    "Death is a part of life"
    Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD)
    In response to Benghazi testimony, wow lol you cannot make this shit up.

  • Mike M.||

    What difference at this point does it make?

  • ||

    Elijah Cummings is one of the most detestable member of a very detestable lot.

  • fish||

    Elijah Cummings is one of the most detestable member of a very detestable lot.

    Detestable implies having a little something in between the ears. Cummings does serve nicely as "useful idiot".

  • Zeb||

    Detestable implies having a little something in between the ears.

    I would have thought something between the legs.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Ah, yes, that something you did there...I saw it.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Gandalf said basically the same thing.

  • Zeb||

    And it is very much true. But an idiotic thing to say at a hearing about the violent deaths of several people.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Someone should have said that during the gun control debate when every Team Blue-tard was crawling on the corpses of the Sandy Hook victims.

  • Doctor Whom||

    1. Why was Hillary Clinton still invoking "The Innocence of Muslims" video as a proximate cause for the attack at the memorial service for dead Americans?

    CYA?

  • ||

    FY,TW

  • Stormy Dragon||

    2. Why didn't the State Department and the White House allow the military to respond to the attack?
    3. When will we get around to discussing larger questions about the legality of our presence in Libya and, especially, the general focus of U.S. foreign policy?

    It's Schroedinger's Libertarian, who is outraged that we aren't simultaneously more and less militarily involved in Libya.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Whether we should generally meddle in other countries' affairs is one question, but whether we should defend our embassies and diplomatic staff is another.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Yeah, but out diplomatic staff is the primary means by which we meddle in other countries' affairs, so to act like the two situations are completely unrelated is disengenuous.

  • John||

    That is fucking idiotic. So because you don't like our foreign policy, the the President is not responsible for the security of our diplomats abroad? One of them getting blown up is just like a soldier in Afghanistan getting blown up?

    Come on Stormy. You are always a border line lefty troll. But you are normally better than that.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    No, I just thinks it's ridiculous to flying around a country blowing stuff up for months and then go "but no attacking our diplomats, they called safe!" The attack is a foreseeable result of our involvement in Libya, and the libertarian response should be for us to pull out, rather than calling for military retaliation.

  • John||

    Yeah, no kidding. Of course an attack was not a surprise. And that just makes this all the worse for the Obama administration. We had taken sides in a recently ended civil war, the place was crawling with jihadist paramilitaries, and Obama and or Clinton put our ambassador out in a compound that by current accounts had virtually no security.

    Yes, that is a major fuck up and does not reflect well on the Obama administration.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    My point is not that this reflects well on the Obama administration. Saying "X is a lousy argument for Y" isn't an argument in favor of Y.

    My problem is the "why didn't they just send in the Seals like life is a Call of Duty video game" line of argument. The problem is that we had diplomats running around in an unsecure part of Libya without protection, not that we didn't maximize the casualties by sending soldiers into a massive ambush with only 15 minutes planning and preparation.

  • Gladstone||

    Wow so libertarians oppose diplomacy now?

    "but no attacking our diplomats, they called safe!"

    Um yeah? Diplomats are supposed to be off limits. I guess libertarians oppose all rules of war now?

  • tarran||

    Not quite.

    The decisionmaking that led to those guys being abandoned to die is nonsensical in light of the info that is widely available. Clearly there is something hidden, and odds are good that the hidden information is not to the credit of the govt.

  • Nazdrakke||

    I don't think that those two have to be hostile to each other. You can be outraged that a burning building was a poorly constructed death-trap and still argue that a privately owned fire brigade be allowed to rescue the child laborers trapped inside.

  • SugarFree||

    Apples and oranges. Protecting our diplomats in an unstable area is a different question than whether we should have been militarily involved in Libya in the first place.

    If our diplomats were attacked in Mali, an unstable region we haven't had a huge hand in unstablizing, I'd excoriate a lack of rescue and military response and doubly so when a cover-up/CYA operation is in evidence.

  • Tim||

    I think Obama could solve a lot of this by simply saying he was afraid that by authorizing military force he would be accused of a Kent State like attack on "protestors".
    I don't think it was right that he left those people to die, but I could see at least some sort of logic to it. As it stands it seems like everybody involved was just too indecisive to react.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I figure it's either incompetence followed by a cover-up, or it's something worse. . .followed by a cover-up.

    Remember kids, no matter what you do in office, dispense with the cover-up. Just confess and repent.

  • tarran||

    ... and possibly lose and election?!? Are you serious?

  • Pro Libertate||

    Cover-ups can do that, too, along with other bad things.

    We love people who repent. It's in our DNA. Besides, there are apologies and there are politician apologies: "I'm sorry I let the Republicans force me into this poor decision. It's hard facing down their evil every day, you know."

  • Raven Nation||

    Probably too late for him now b/c one follow up would be: "Why, after being told what was going on did you tell Panetta to handle it and fly to a fund-raiser in CA?"

  • Pro Libertate||

    "I'm a master delegator. A mastergator, if you will."

  • ||

    Tim, he knew there were no protestors.

    If he said that it would show for the 134,056,856th time what a blatant liar he is. I wish he would, except that it really would make no difference to his supporters.Shreik, Tony, and all their ilk will stuck suck his dick and sing his praises.

  • Ptah-Hotep||

    I thought when an Ambassador was killed, you responded thus-wise:

    In 1218, a Mongolian trade caravan of around 450 men arrived in Otrar, including an ambassador of Genghis Khan. Inalchuq accused them of being Mongolian spies and arrested them... With the assent of Sultan Muhammed, he executed the entire caravan, and its goods were sold in Bukhara. A camel driver escaped this massacre to report back to Genghis Khan, who responded by sending a delegation to Sultan Muhammad demanding Inalchuq be punished. Muhammad responded by beheading the ambassador and shaving off the beards of his two companions, provoking Genghis Khan's invasion.

    Genghis Khan besieged Otrar for five months in 1219, eventually breaching its walls. Inalchuq barricaded himself in its inner citadel, and as the Mongols wished to capture him alive in order to publicly execute him, he managed to hold out another month. Eventually he was trapped with his last remaining bodyguards on the upper floors of the citadel, resorting to throwing bricks down on the Mongols, and was captured. He was then executed, according to one source by having molten silver poured into his eyes and ears, although modern historians consider that story apocryphal.
  • BlueBook||

    Maybe Inalchuq was right; maybe the Mongolian ambassador was running black ops for the CIA.

  • Gray Ghost||

    Usually, Ptah, but see Cleo Noel.

  • Kurbster||

    4) why do we spend money housing and securing diplomats in hostile countries?

  • kinnath||

    You mean like the Soviet Union for 50+ years?

  • Gladstone||

    So the US should cut off relations with Iran, North Korea, Russia, China, Venezuela, etc. and should attack the embassies of those countries in DC? And you won't call the former aggression and the latter a war crime?

  • Marc F Cheney||

    I'll tell you why these questions won't be answered: Bush and Fox News. Also, these aren't questions.

  • Tony||

    1. The video was a proximate cause of some of the protests going on simultaneous with the Benghazi one. There were other attacks, remember?

    2. No rescue operation could have reached the outpost in time if you figure that planes have to be fueled and flown from Europe.

    3. When the American people start caring enough to vote on the issue.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Tony, you shouldn't talk with your mouth full.

  • SugarFree||

    He lies best with a mouthful of his own cock.

  • fish||

    Speaking of sucking cock and totally OT. Robert Redford is so gay for Rahm.

    Will show 'tough, visionary, heroic' Rahm Emanuel...

    Stay tuned for more hot "Chicago Pol on Hollywood Royal" action!

  • ||

    1. Hicks just testified that he spoke with Clinton and it was never regarded as anything other than a terrorist attack.

    2. That's bullshit. They could have scrambled some jets to at least make a show of force to deter the attackers. The Libyan government was aware of the situation and would not have objected if asked.

    3. Of course that's all that matters to you: that these people did not inconvenience Obama's reelection by dying.

    For someone who wants us to put all our faith in the goodness of government you sure are opposed to faulting any Team Blue administration for incompetence or aberrant behavior.

  • Tony||

    I fault in proportion. I believe my outrage over the events discussed here is proportional to my outrage over the actual incompetence, actual lies, and thousand-fold higher body count of 9/11. I wonder if those most hysterical over Benghazi similarly proportion their outrage, or if this is just a political gotcha moment for them and nothing more. (This from people whining about Obama politicizing dead people!)

  • fish||

    I fault in proportion.

    hahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahah!

    /little girl snicker

  • PapayaSF||

    9/11 was a hell of a lot less predictable than the idea that there might be an attack on an ambassador in a barely-guarded location in a Muslim country that had just had a revolution that we intervened in and was swarming with jihadis.

    Also, the Bush administration did not avoid chances to rescue people on 9/11, nor did they invent CYA stories about it afterwards.

  • Sevo||

    Tony| 5.8.13 @ 1:30PM |#
    "1. The video was a proximate cause of some of the protests going on simultaneous with the Benghazi one. There were other attacks, remember?"
    Lie.

    "2. No rescue operation could have reached the outpost in time if you figure that planes have to be fueled and flown from Europe."
    Lie.

    "3. When the American people start caring enough to vote on the issue."
    Not bad.
    One out of three beats shithead's normal score.

  • SugarFree||

    Not really. People voted pretty conclusively in 2008 to stop foreign adventurism and close Gitmo and stop torturing people and end warrentless spying on American telecoms, and Obama smiled one of his big shit-eating grins and then pissed right in their mouths.

    Tony just likes the flavor of that particular piss.

  • John||

    You think they did? Or did they vote because they were tired of Bush and there was a financial collapse? If they voted for all of that stuff, why didn't they care when Obama broke all of those promises?

  • SugarFree||

    I think the swing voters voted against Bush on that basis and are angry against Obama for that reason, it's just that no one gives a shit about swing voters unless it's the last few months of an election.

    Or you're right, and Tony is still wrong, just for a different reason. Which is really my only point.

  • John||

    I really don't think most people cared about that stuff. We don't have a draft. Only 1% of the country or whatever even served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Sure it cost a ton of money. But since when does the public care about government spending?

    I think people voted for Obama because he was black, the media totally gave him a pass on any flaws he had, and the financial collapse. To me the most amazing thing about the 08 election is that McCain, despite being the worst nominee from either party in my life time, had a statistically significant lead in the polls when the financial collapse hit. That just amazes me. I think the financial collapse and TARP was the last straw. People either checked out and refused to vote or said to hell with it and voted for the nonincumbent. Remember, Obama was smart and unlike McCain kept his head down and didn't say shit during all of that.

  • Zeb||

    Most people aren't swing voters.

  • Sevo||

    John| 5.8.13 @ 2:49PM |#
    ..."If they voted for all of that stuff, why didn't they care when Obama broke all of those promises?"

    Because, by that time, they showed they cared?
    Intent/results.

  • Paul.||

    1. The video was a proximate cause of some of the protests going on simultaneous with the Benghazi one. There were other attacks, remember?

    A coordinated terrorist attack is occurring at the embassy in libya. Meanwhile, 3500 miles away, some kids are burning six inch American flags. So let's focus all of our energy on the kids burning six inch American flags.

    I believe, Tony, that you are defending what we call a non sequitur.

    2. No rescue operation could have reached the outpost in time if you figure that planes have to be fueled and flown from Europe.

    Ahem:

    On the night of the Benghazi terror attack, special operations put out multiple calls for all available military and other assets to be moved into position to help

    Apparently, special operations should have called you, because by virtue of the fact they even put the call out, suggests that they may have been aware of, or under the impression that there were assets in the area that could have been used. Remember, we just spent a whole bunch of time and money putting weapons in the area, Tony.

    3. When the American people start caring enough to vote on the issue.

    They did in 2008, luckily, progressives are such mendacious, short-sighted and opportunistic, that it didn't matter that the entire issue was swept under the rug by early 2009.

  • Marc F Cheney||

    The video was a proximate cause of some of the protests going on simultaneous with the Benghazi one. There were other attacks, remember?

    No matter how I parse that, I can't make sense of it. The Benghazi what? Which other attacks should I be remembering, and why?

  • Drake||

    2. Have you ever looked at a map of the Mediterranean? We aren't talking long distances. There were plenty of forces nearby - including a Marine Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team (FAST)in Rota, Spain.

    Fighting off terrorist attacks is exactly what they are trained to do.

    Try again.

  • ||

    Jesus Tiny, you are as delusional as Shreik with his 'obama is an ardent defender of the second amendment' shit.

    There are tons of anti-muslim videos on youtube. This one was nothing special. There was no fucking protest in Benghazi. It was a terror attack straight up, the white house knew it was all along, and the video/protest bit is a complete fabrication.

  • Paul.||

    . Why was Hillary Clinton still invoking "The Innocence of Muslims" video as a proximate cause for the attack at the memorial service for dead Americans?

    Because like all good progressives, her hatred of the first amendment is so complete, that she was consumed by it and her speech had nothing to do with the dead Americans, but was just a general jeremiad against the youtubes, the internets in general, and Ugly Americanism being projected into more civilized societies which don't recognize or have freedom of speechifyin'.

  • Paul.||

    2. Why didn't the State Department and the White House allow the military to respond to the attack?

    The sequester did it!

  • Marc F Cheney||

    Now that's just ridiculous.

    The truth is that the Rethuglicans have been slashing the defense budget for years. Because they hate America.

  • Aresen||

    I really did not need to see that pic.

    A little courtesy to Amb. Stevens and his family, please.

  • Paul.||

    An apology from Hillary Clinton would be a start.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    Maybe you weren't around when this photo was supposedly invoked as evidence of Libyans "helping" him.

  • Zeb||

    It was still my understanding that it still is evidence of Libyans helping him. It is possible to some Libyans to want to kill him and for others to simultaneously want to help him, you know.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    "It was still my understanding that it still is evidence of Libyans helping him."

    LMFAO...if you're going to help someone out of a burning building, take as many photos as you can and don't forget to carry your fucking cell phone in your mouth or you might lose it. That would be a tragedy.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    Also, the man is obviously dead. Explain this intended help again?

  • Paul.||

    I believe that it's been confirmed that those Libyans carrying his body were trying to help him. Which, by the way, fucks up Obamas narrative even more.

    A coordinated attack by Al Qaeda or whatever flavor-of-the-month Islamist group was operating in the area took place, and Libyans on the street were sympathetic to the American presence-- the 180 degree opposite of an angry populace angry about a YouTube clip which (I would bet) probably wasn't even responsible for any real protests in the world. Anywhere.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    "I believe that it's been confirmed..."

    Citation

  • Tony||

    How dare liberals trot out the corpses of the dead to score an emotional political point!

    --Reason mag, 2 weeks ago

  • fish||

    Really? Who was the poster?

    Inquiring minds doncha know.

  • Aresen||

    a) I am not a liberal, at least not in the sense it is used today.
    b) I WAS objecting to the use of the picture in this post, so stuff it up your ass, Tony.

  • ||

    Answer to questions 1, 2, and 3:

    What difference at this point does it make?

  • ||

    Who's tweeting about Benghazi? Rich, middle-aged men and Chick-fil-A lovers http://wapo.st/18YFgKP -- @washingtonpost


    "You can't care about this issue, because conceding any point whatsoever to the Rethuglikkkans is totally unacceptable. Intellectual honesty is hard, let's go shopping!"

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    God, I'd love to find out who actually put that in the Twitter feed. Nice to see that reception so far is universally negative.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement