Libya

The Interventionists' Road to Benghazi

In the case of Benghazi, the cover-up may be the crime and the distraction

|

For all the mystery surrounding what exactly happened in Libya on September 11, the basic facts are not in question: The U.S. consulate in Benghazi and the nearby CIA annex was assaulted and the American ambassador to Libya and three other Americans were killed. The Obama administration has been less than forthcoming about events, and critics have rightly pressed for answers.

The net effect of all this, though, has been to create first and foremost a political battle over whether someone lied to the press or to the American people.  The search for the liar (did Obama always know the attack wasn't triggered by the YouTube video The Innocence of Muslims) or an incompetent (did Secretary of State Hillary Clinton really wave off requests for heightened security?) obscures far more troubling issues about the U.S. presence in Libya.

Let's take a step back. In 2009, President Obama embarked on what Mitt Romney and Republicans have characterized as an "apology tour." The president visited many nations and acknowledged some mistakes in past U.S. policy. He also promised that the country would do better in the future. Of course, any sort of self-criticism of foreign policy is unacceptable to interventionist-minded Republicans (especially if made while traveling overseas), and so was born the idea of the apology tour, even if the self-evidently interventionist Obama was only making a rhetorical case.

Consider, for instance, Obama's intervention in the Libyan civil war. Compared to the invasion and occupation of Iraq, it's small fry, but its consequences could be just as disastrous. It set a precedent for the president to authorize the use of military force himself, on behalf of the "writ of the international community," and enter a war on the side of a largely unknown group of rebels. As it turns out, the rebels in Libya range from government officials to Islamist militants in Mali and Nigeria to potential perpetrators of the 9/11 Benghazi attack.

At one of his last hearings as a sitting member of Congress, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) brought to light information that helps explain what happened in Benghazi. As the civil war had gotten underway, Col. Moammar Qaddafi had originally blamed the unrest on Al Qaeda and acid. A month later, as the U.S-backed intervention began, CNN asked whether Al Qaeda might take advantage of the situation, noting that a diplomatic cable released by Wikileaks from 2008 pointed to one rebel stronghold as a source of

no means no

the foreign fighters in Libya. One of the larger rebel groups that came under the anti-Qaddafi coalition, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, was itself founded by mujahedeen returning from Afghanistan, and its leader admitted Al Qaeda links just days after the U.N. resolution that set American military action in motion.

Kucinich got Lt. Colonel Andrew Wood to offer that Al Qaeda's presence was certainly more established in Libya than America's. Worse still, in the wake of the rebel victory, somewhere between 10,000 to 20,000 surface-to-air missiles have gone missing. White House emails reveal that the Islamist militant group that almost immediately took responsibility for the Benghazi attack also bragged to Al Qaeda about it. The new Libyan government, meanwhile, insisted from the beginning the Benghazi attack was perpetrated by Islamist militants. And yet, as Jamie Dettmer reported at The Daily Beast, the investigation has stalled, and Libyan officials are worried about what the eventual American response might be. "They had surveillance drones monitoring that night. They will have identified some people and traced where they are now," Dettmer quotes an advisor to Libya's Congress. "They worry," Dettmer reports, "about a drone strike on targets in eastern Libya—that would be a gift to jihadists, they say."  

Obama has of course made drone strikes one of the centerpieces of his foreign policy. And Mitt Romney provides essentially no alternative to more of the same. "We can't kill our way out of this mess," Mitt Romney told Obama at the foreign policy debate last week, before prescribing more killing as the solution to every problem American faces abroad. "I…feel the president was right to up the usage of that [drone] technology, and believe that we should continue to use it, to continue to go after the people that represent a threat to this nation and to our friends," the Republican nominee said just minutes later.

And so despite whoever wins Tuesday's election, the response to the murder of an American ambassador and three others may well be the sort of action that will "be a gift to jihadists." What won't be questioned is the sort of intervention—unilaterally decided by the president and then passively accepted by a pliant Congress—that dropped American diplomats into an unstable situation that no one had a handle on.

Finding out whether (or when) Obama and his spokespeople started dissembling about the Benghazi attack is important, but it's ultimately less important than confronting the mind-set that will lead to more half-baked interventions that then lead to more death and destruction of American lives.

"It is harder to recognize Congress' role in the failure to stop the drone attacks that are still killing innocent civilians and strengthening radical elements abroad," Kucinich told fellow congressmen at the Benghazi hearing. "We want to stop the attacks on embassies? Let's stop trying to overthrow governments."

Advertisement

NEXT: The Anti-Science Left: Author Alex Berezow on Why Both Parties Fail at Science

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.

  1. Yes Ed. The worst thing we could ever do is to kill our enemies. If we apologize enough and tell them we understand why he killed our ambassador and he really got what was coming to him, things will be much better.

    Is it really your position we should do nothing to try and find and kill the people who did this?

    1. Don’t you know all interventions are morally and practically the same regardless of context? Also, warbonerz/bombing brown babies.

      1. What a shock John and Cyto forming up the one-two punch of Neo-Con stupidity.

          1. Take a swing or a shot at me and you will find out just how peaceful I am.

            Be the biggest fucking asshole in the universe but don’t threaten me and what – I should kill you just for being the biggest fucking asshole?

            1. “America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She well knows that by one enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standards of freedom.”

    2. I don’t think Ed is arguing that we should do nothing, but rather that any military response go through the proper Constitutional process and that any military response should be well-planned and not “half-baked”.

      Our strategists for the War on Terror have approached the problem with a great deal of hubris. I see no evidence from them that they understand this is more a war of ideas than of bullets.

      Frankly, our PSYOPS are crap. How many Afghans have never heard of 9/11? That is unacceptable. The first thing I would have done is to have produced a “Why We Are Fighting You” film. The film would have explained the 9/11 attacks, who OBL was and the fact that he took refuge in their country and why we need to bring him to justice. As each village was brought under Allied control, the psyops team would set up a movie screen and show the film to the village. The kids would get popcorn and sweets. The Afghani cultures are honor-based cultures. They would have understood why America would have to respond to an attack within its borders, they would have understood that the quicker we got OBL and dismanteled the Taliban, the quicker we would have been out of their country.

      [cont]

      1. [cont]

        Would that have solved everything? Of course not, but its a million time more than what we have done so far, and unfortunately it’s too late for that now. The Taliban has effectively won this war of ideas by establishing the idea that our forces are just another in the long line of attempted conquerors of Afghanistan. This plays on Afghanistans’ long history of fighting for independence. The Holy War against the ‘Crusaders’ angle has also been well played by the Taliban. With no understanding of why we are there, the Afghani people are very susceptible to Taliban propaganda.

        The hubris in thinking that our mere presences as ‘liberators’ would get the Afghan populous on our side is staggering.

        1. Good post, HM.

        2. I’m OK with bombing them (done, now leave) but I agree HM, excellent posts.

      2. The Taliban would just say we are liars…like the Soviets were, etc.

        1. That’s where the ‘kill them’ part comes in to play.

          1. Kind of a one trick pony, aren’t you?

            First time we shoot up a wedding by mistake, HM’s psyops strategy becomes pretty much moot.

            1. Because PSYOPS have never had value in a war with civilian deaths. Do you think Tulpa or do you just write whatever comes to mind and looks good on the preview?

              1. Yep, Kandahar poppy farmer Mo Blow has his son and daughter in law shot to bits at their wedding celebration by one of our helicopters, but he saw some pictures on the side of his tent so I’m sure he’s totally going to understand.

                The honor-based shit works both ways, slick.

      3. Of course, the best way to convince the Afghanis that we’re not intending to occupy their country forever and destroy Islam would be to swoop in, kill as many T-bans as possible, destroy their training camps, drive the rest into hiding, while letting their NA enemies take over the country…and then get the hell out. Which, aside from the getting out part, we had accomplished by the spring of 2002.

        Even the stupidest poppy farmer would be a tad skeptical of claims we were trying to occupy AFG after that.

        1. Problem is we did NOT kill the T-bans nearly as much as possible. The invasion was a botchjob! America sent in SpecOps ninjas when it should have sent in Rangers. It relied on local ‘allies’ which helped the Taliban escape. And we should have nuked Tora Bora. These Taliban would have probably taken over Afghanistan again after the US left.

          All of which isn’t much of an argument for staying. It would probably be cheaper to leave and re-invade if necessary.

          1. Who knew? Interventionism is such an exact science. Too bad you’re stuck here on H+R coming up with counterfactuals after our interventions fail to come up roses, instead of advising the joint chiefs how to do it right the first time.

            These Taliban would have probably taken over Afghanistan again after the US left.

            Who gives a shit? They’d be in no position to attack us. And it would have been quite a bit of work for them to overcome the local warlords, just like it was for us.

            1. Did we go to Afghanistan because they “attacked us” in the first place though? Were the twin towers taken out by Aghan ICBMs? Seems to me any subsequent militant government would have had (er, does have) the same opportunity to harbor another batch of terrorist training camps and schemers to cook up the “next big thing”. The idea of neutralizing a country consisting of rocks, dirt, goat herders, and nut case cave dwellers plotting jihad as an existential threat to the United States is sort of an exercise in futility – Afghanistan wouldn’t have been considered an existential threat to the United States until 9/11/2001, and wouldn’t be considered one again until the next terrorist incident could be traced back there.

            2. 1) Yeah I should be in charge of stuff and yes if something was executed badly it does not mean you should never do that thing.

              2) No position to attack us. Just like last time. Again, do you think about this stuff before writing it?

              1. How many Afghanis were part of Sept 11? You want to attack those who attacked us – we should’ve nuked the Saudi dogs. But you neo-cons wouldn’t ever consider that.

        2. Yeah, unfortunately the Northern Alliance fell apart with the assassination of Massoud in 9/10/01. You can say a lot of things about OBL, but before he became a porn addict, he was no dummy.

          After Massoud was killed, we were left with trying to build a state around that glorified drug lord, Karzai.

          1. Karzai has to go. He’s worse than a glorified drug lord, he’s an incompetent.

          2. I thought we didn’t mind drug lords here?

              1. So you’re tarring all drug lords everywhere because of one guy.

    3. Heroic Mulatto has exactly the right approach. Propaganda efforts like Radio Free Europe was at least as important in winning the Cold War as our various military interventions. We absolutely have the right to defend ourselves and should do so, but it is insane to engage in wars against compliant nations while ignoring and marginalizing actual threats to our freedoms and way of life without any cogency. I like our military and have no regrets about our service, but it is being over utilized and tasked with things that it is not equipped for.

      1. I nominate HM as our PSYOPS command as well as the Buddhist Warrior King of HandR.

        1. He can’t be any worse at it than you neocons, that’s been demonstrated for all the world to see.

          1. You’ve been calling people NEOCON for what 10 years now? And you still don’t understand what it means.

            1. Cytotoxic, after reviewing your posts, he may be wrong labling you a neo-con–they do have a modicum of sophistication. You on the other hand are a simple minded thug. You propose an amoral, dumb solution, without any analysis or offering examples of sucess. In civil society, thugs like you belong behind bars. Foreign policy does not suspend morality.

              1. No it doesn’t suspend morality Griffin. All of my foreign policy positions are far more morally rooted than my opponents.

                And I love being lectured about morals by a guy who would put me behind bars for H+R posts. Fucking twat.

                1. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that neocon thugs should be behind bars, but in a better world the Ron Pauls would be in charge of foreign policy and the neocons would be staging counterconventions whining about no one paying attention to their foreign policy ideas.

              2. Yes, people should definitely be jailed for their foreign policy viewpoints. Thoughtcrime is the scourge of libertarian society…

                1. Your reading comprehension is eanting. The point is, that his foreign policy has a single dimension– using violence to compell foreign nations, people, to obey Obama’s, the Oresident’s dictates. It is a thug philosophy which in civil society would be called criminal. But you sophmoric dipshits can”t read like most neanderthals.

                  1. Or, on the other hand, maybe your overwrought hyperbole is just a touch over the top, in the way one might expect of a clumsy high school freshman, and the histrionics make it very difficult to take you seriously.

                    1. Lol. Look up the definition of “histrionics” and may be you will learn how to use it properly. In the meantime see if your pea brain can come up with a way of interacting with other nations that does not include initiating military violence. You and your prankster buddies should get interesting for a change.

        1. Dunno if you’ve been tracking our attempts to create propaganda over radio and TV, but it’s just lousy. Everything about our PSYOPS and propaganda efforts is lousy and second-rate, and it really shouldn’t be.

          1. Are you talking about the U.S. military or the Libertarian Party? 🙂

          2. It’s time for outsourcing!

    4. Is it really your position we should do nothing to try and find and kill the people who did this?

      I suspect the answer is “no”.

      What Mr Krayewski, and I, are concerned about is that the more likely response is going to be bombing/droning/invading random people and places who may or may not have had anything to do with it, just so it looks like we’re DoingSomething?.

      And the neocons will fist pump and beat their chests and say “WE SHOWED THOSE JIHADIS WE’RE NOT WEAK!” No, we showed them we’re stupid. Which is something they’re even better at taking advantage of.

    5. Oh, and I would bet that none of the attackers would be upset about getting killed in the unlikely event that our people are patient and smart enough to find them. It’s a very different mindset from you and I. I’m sure there are things in the world you wouldn’t be upset about being killed for.

      1. Well, if I truly believed I was getting 72 able and willing girls like Marwa if I died in battle…..

        Jus’ sayin’

    6. I agree that Hussein I’s apologetics were despicable and retarded, and that lots of blame is being piled onto the United States in certain places where none is due, but let’s git shit straight — interventionism is bad, bad, bad. Fuck the rest of the world. Let them all figure out their own bullshit.

      How does that sound to you?

      1. Intervention itself is both necessary and beneficial in many circumstances. There have been many times in history where America should have intervened or intervened harder than it did. The Bay of Pigs falls into the latter category.

        1. OH!! The Bay of Pigs was so groovy and successful!! OMG!!

          1. It would have been with some air support. Castro would’ve been overthrown no problemo.

            1. Under what moral authority? What exactly, did Cuba do to deserve our retribution?

              1. Their dictatorship joined the USSR’s side. Unacceptable.

            2. And then what happens when we leave?

              1. And that’s where it tends to get tricky…

        2. Counterfactuals, the warmonger’s best friend.

          1. Counterfactuals are everyone’s bosum buddy — how many times have we heard from non-interventionists that if we hadn’t overthrown the Shah or established bases in SA, “they” (Sunni Muslims? AQ?) wouldn’t have attacked the US?

            1. I don’t know. I never recall hearing that.

              You can be stung by a wasp without ever messing with a wasp nest. Doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to mess with wasp nests.

              1. Here’s Ron Paul saying that 9/11 wouldn’t have happened if the US government had adopted his policies:

                http://www.youtube.com/watch?f….._-02dpyPaw

                We would have been better off adopting a broadly non-interventionist policy after the Cold War, but counterfactuals without proof — especially counterfactuals premised on the notion that the US has been a uniquely terrible force in the world — should have no bearing on that discussion.

                1. 9/11 probably wouldn’t have happened. Some other terrorist attack might have, but the probability would be lower.

                  On to the next strawman: which American noninterventionist says the US is a uniquely terrible force in the world?

                  1. You asked for a counterfactual, I gave you one where — quite clearly — the implication was that “they” would not attack us in the US such that “we” would have to kill OBL. Maybe that’s true, maybe not — but it’s definitely a counterfactual that can’t be proven. (I can show you some more specific ones, though.)

                    As for an American non-interventionist with the views I outlined, I’d start with William Blum and work my way down to Murray Rothbard.

                    1. Those goalposts are heavy Tulpa. Use your knees.

                  2. On to the next strawman: which American noninterventionist says the US is a uniquely terrible force in the world?

                    Noam Chomsky?

              2. Fantastic metaphor! Messing with wasp nests is a bad idea and so is letting them be. The wasps just get worse and worse. That’s why you exterminate them.

                1. And we all know exactly who they are! Cause they totally all hang out together in uniform at bases and all that shit!

        3. The invasion is the easy part, as we (well, some of us, apparently) found out wrt Iraq.

          1. The invasion is the good part. The occupation is the part you don’t do.

    7. Krayewski and Kucinich are dumb as rocks.

      If Europeans had followed such logic in the 16th and 17th centuries they would have never colonized the Americas. Oh.. look everyone… the natives are killing our people. Turn the ships around, it just ain’t safe.

      1. If Europeans had followed such logic in the 16th and 17th centuries they would have never colonized the Americas. Oh.. look everyone… the natives are killing our people. Turn the ships around, it just ain’t safe.

        Sounds good to me.

        –Sitting Bull

        1. I’d rather have modern civilization thanks.

        2. Haha… you ain’t Sitting Bull.

          1. If not for European exploration and colonization he would have been Walking Bull. Where did he think all those horses came from?

            1. I think Lyle is Shitting Bull.

      2. Are you proposing we do to Afghanistan what European colonizers did to the Native Americans?

        I mean, if you don’t shrink from killing 95% of the population of two continents and stealing their land, then this empire shit is easy. But I don’t think we’re in agreement on that.

        1. We are doing to certain despots and violent Islamists what are bad ass forefathers did to some native Americans.

          Indian removal… the U.S. wouldn’t exist with out it.

          1. Disagree. The largest and most unconscionable Indian removals happened in parts of the US that we had nominal sovereignty over, and belonged to the Civilized Tribes — tribes which had adopted technology and a pro-western outlook. In point of fact, the initial policy of the US government up to the Madison administration was to encourage non-violent acculturation, trade, and further Christianization of the Civilized Tribes.

            The US could have existed without wiping out non-aggressing Indian tribes, and probably would have continued on the same overall trajectory (our war with the Sioux was IMO 100% justified).

            1. Yeah, there was no killing and fighting among whites and natives along the frontier.

              There was absolutely no peaceable way (other than lying to them) to remove Native Americans. Even the non-aggressive, i.e. to beat down from us, disease, both, and/or other natives had to be herded on to reservations at some point.

              You’re being way to charitable to most of our ancestors. Pre-Madison America didn’t stop itself from sending Lewis and Clark out to map all that native land. What was Jefferson and Congress thinking when they decided to pay for that?

              1. You’re lumping together a bunch of peoples who shouldn’t be lumped together. The fact is, the Cherokee and other Civilized Tribes weren’t harming anyone when they were rounded up — quite the contrary, they were civilized (hence the name), trading with us, and completely surrounded on all sides by US territory. They did not “have” to be shunted from their homes anymore than Japanese-Americans had to be herded into camps during WWII. We bought plenty of land from native Americans and established ourselves on plenty of unclaimed land (which was in abundance in pre-Columbian America). The French claimed sovereignty over around a third of American territory, and by and large their interactions with the natives was non-violent. There’s nothing that states that we couldn’t have coexisted with natives — or that taking their land by force was a moral enterprise.

                And how, exactly, was the Lewis and Clark expedition aggressive?

                1. How was the Lewis and Clark expedition aggressive? Are you kidding me?

                  Why do you think they were mapping it man? So it could be gotten after by the white man. Thomas Jefferson was no fool.

                  … and about those nice Cherokee. Georgians co-existed with them so well that they got the Federal government to remove them from their land. When you’re a white supremacist nation co-existing with the Redskins just isn’t going to fly… especially when they’re living on land you think there is something nice to exploit from it.

                  The problem with this Cherokee analogy though is that violent Islamists aren’t content to just stick to their small patch of ground. They’re out to convert others and create a worldwide caliphate. If only they were as docile as the Cherokee were.

                  1. Plus they knocked up that Shoshone chick Sacajwea!

                    1. No, that was her frenchy, voyageur husband Toussaint Charbonneau. He stuck it in her and Pompey came out.

                      She was wife number 2 of his. He won her in a card game because she was the slave bitch of some Mandan man. The enslaved her after attacking her Shoshone tribe one summer.

                  2. How was the Lewis and Clark expedition aggressive? Are you kidding me? Why do you think they were mapping it man? So it could be gotten after by the white man. Thomas Jefferson was no fool.

                    You keep using that word “aggressive”. I do not think it means what you think it means.

                    You’re right though. What possible purpose could an exploratory expedition into newly acquired territory of which there previously existed little or no cartographic and geographic detail possibly serve besides the white supremacist exploitation of the red man?

                    Get a fucking grip dude.

                    1. aggressive was the immaculate trouser’s word. not mine.

                      … and thomas jefferson didn’t expect and want the United States to exist from the Atlantic to the Pacific? Lewis and Clark were just a traveling white man show to the natives?

                    2. … to which you replied by rhetorically asking “How was the Lewis and Clark expedition not aggressive?” Pretty sure you were implying that it WAS aggressive. Because it was, like, white dudes and shit.

                      Jefferson’s dedication or lack thereof to Manifest Destiny doesn’t have jack shit to do with whether the Lewis and Clark expedition was aggressive. Obtaining topographic, geographic, cartographic, scientific and economic data from the territories acquired in the Louisiana Purchase was at least as important to the expedition as oppressing the red man, as the number of native casualties sort of attests (2 Blackfoot were killed in the only violent incident of the entire expedition after reportedly trying to steal arms and horses from an expedition camp).

                    3. Yeah,President Thomas Jefferson wanted America to extend from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Great Father didn’t give a fuck about the the Redskins. Just get out of the way bitches.

                    4. Judged by that criteria, the L&C expedition was an abject failure for the reasons I already outlined above. Since it, you know, didn’t result in the relocation of any native Americans. Cool story though.

                    5. Oh yes it did. Where are the Sioux today? Where are natives of the the Willamette Valley?

                      You seem to not understand what the expedition was about.

          1. A cite would be nice since it is well known that 87.6% of facts are made up.

    8. The worst thing we could do is create new enemies by initiating violent intervention into their affairs, toppling elected governments and installing oppressive dictators, for example, Iran circa 1953. You seem to think we can commit any violent, brutal act in foreign countries and their proper response is to say thank you, may we have another? Your thinking is the reason our foreign policy is a mess today and Muslim countries around the World protest in front of oud embassy gates.

      1. You’re thinking seems to be that Muslims will gather in large numbers outside our embassies to say thank you after saving their religious brethren in places like Bosnia and Kosovo.

        Nope, that hasn’t happened.

        1. Why would I think some dumbass off point thought like that? Is that your argument for initiating violence against people in foreign countries to force them to do what Obama or Bush want? Because they aren’t thankful enough for our interventions? Stupid. No wonder you don’t comprehend blowback. You are just too stupid.

          1. Intrade has 3:2 odds on Lyle being a sockpuppet.

            1. What’s his stock price?

            2. Put my cock in your mouth and suffocate.

              1. Patently, your most cogent post, an exemplar of your ability to reason and a revelation of your predilections, not that there anything wrong with wanting another guy to suck your dick, but the suffication part is probably woefully hopeful if your dick is near the size of your intellect.

          2. Since we stepped up and defended Muslims in Bosnia, the “War on Islam” crap seems kinda stupid, huh? Yet THAT is what they believe, facts be damned.

            1. What? They think we’re invading their countries, killing their family members, using violence to prevent their businesses from engaging in international free trade, and imposing unwanted corrupt governments on them. Are you, Cytotoxice and Lyle for real or did you boneheads think coming to a libertarian site and saying stupidass things would be funny?

              1. I supported the Afgan war because they attacked us, opposed the 1st Iraq war and only “supported” the second because walking away would invite the crazies (like Bin Laden) to assume we’re weak and attack us.

                Why do you assume Arabs are too stupid to understand the difference between attacking the thugs oppressing them and waging war against their religion (and them?)

                1. Lol. Huh? You supported attacking Iraq, a country hated by al qiada and religious Muslims because it
                  had a secular gov’t, held elections and a highley educated female population, because we would weak doing the right thing? You are weak minded. Stop embarassing yourself.

                  1. held elections

                    Lol

            2. Preach it brother!

          3. I’m stupid? You think doing nothing will stop violent Islamists.

            hahahahahahaha

            1. He doesn’t think that. He doesn’t care. For him, all that matters is non-action. Remember, noninterventionism is a faith. Seen though that lens and it all makes sense.

              1. Yeah, we’re conversing with idiots. Hi-five.

            2. I’m opened minded. I think you are either exceptionally limited in your ability to reason, stupid, or you and your buddies think its a funny prank to post some of the stupidest comments on foreign policy I’ve ever read. I have not seen a one of you address an argument rationally or give a shit about facts, so I’m betting you are a joke.

              1. Facts? Where are your facts?

      2. You believe in a fairy tail version of history. So do many Arabs. There is not much I can do about either. You will believe whatever nonsense you believe. America’s FP can’t work around your vapors.

      3. You do realize that we went on our little vacation to Libya at the behest of Libyan militias and the international community, right? In that context, yeah, it does seem a little, shall we say, “ungrateful” to kill our ambassadors after benefiting from the lawyers, guns and money you asked for.

        We also didn’t initiate the violence in Afghanistan. Had they told Osama bin Laden and al qaeda to go fuck themselves in the 90’s we’d have been attacking one of their shit hole neighbors who harbored them instead.

        “Whitey did it” isn’t a foreign policy.

  2. I want a new president because Obama let Ambassador Stevens , Smith, Woods and Doherty die in Benghazi. He also let Bibles be burned in Bagram Afghanistan in 2009. I sang in my Song “Obama burnt my Bible”.
    on youtube.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQB2qQ_WowY

    I bet Iranian Slum Lord Valerie Jarrett must have wanted to sing
    When she seen you bow down to that Muslim King
    At Georgetown you had them cover up Jesus and His Cross
    You showed Netanyahu and Cardinal Dolan the kings your boss
    Abdullah’s proud you showed the infidels who’s your boss

    Why’d you let them burn my Bible did you think I wouldn’t know (chorus)
    You could have stopped Lieutenant Wright in Afghanistan
    It wasn’t that long ago
    How does a leader in a Judeo Christian Land.
    Let them burn my Bible while protecting the Koran.
    Barack Hussein Obama why’d you let them do it.
    Did Your Muslim Brotherhood friends put you up to it.
    Yout right hand Slum Lord Jarret she must have wanted to sing.
    When she seen you bow down to your Muslim king

    1. Cool story bro.

  3. David Frum: piece of shit or biggest piece of shit? Seriously after the election you guys are taking him back.

    Gist of column: GOP is doing poorly because of-wait for it- Tea Party cRAziEs.

    http://fullcomment.nationalpos…..rst-enemy/

    1. Yes, just remember the devastation the Tea Party did to GOP election hopes in 2010. [Rolls eyes]

      1. Read his POS article if you can. Read some others by him in this subject. You’ll notice something: evidence vacuum. There is not a damn shred of evidence given in favor of Frum’s notions of the TP.

    2. What does David Frum have to do with this?

      1. Nothing it’s totally OT.

    3. If the GOP was still the party of Rockefeller, Nixon and Bob Michel (who btw, is still alive), the Democrats would gladly throw them a bone and give them a morsel of power, but ever since that Goldwater, damnit, and that Reagan, doubledamnit!, the GOP has been off it rocker, and the Democrats rightfully have been cautious letting them anywhere near the reigns. Now that the Tea Party has come into being, and overthrew the Democratic House, the Republicans are in a losing position where the Democrats, as Harry Reed rightfully expressed the other day, wont give them any power sharing responsibility at all.

      Winning elections is for losers, begging your opponents for a sit at the table, now that is where it is at!

      1. ‘seat at the table’ I was doing so well that time.

  4. I have been trying to understand the Benghazi clusterfuck for a while now, and think that Richard Fernandez has had some insight into what the hell happened, and why the response to the attack was so confused, and why the coverup happened.

    The new narrative inescapably suggests that the attack was a counterintelligence operation of some sort which not only penetrated the State Department cover, but also divined the location of the safe house. It is also clear that the chain of command did not fully understand just how seriously they were compromised. Otherwise they would not have retreated to the “safe house” was that was not safe. They would not have thought the attack was “over” when in fact the deadliest phase was yet to come.

    The events as they unfolded are strong indications that the threat was underestimated or misunderstood from the first to well into the action.

    1. [cont.]

      What was the entry point of the “video” story? One possibility was that it grew from a deception fed the CIA by poisoned sources to mask the nature of the real attack. In any case nobody appeared to know the true extent or nature of the attack and falsely assumed security where there was none ? with deadly results. When it finally dawned on them how bad things were the other possibility was that the administration seized on the “video” fable to extend their cover for just a little longer in order to scatter or conceal assets which might be blown.

      But by the end of the mortar attack it must have been abundantly clear that a fiasco of unknown extent had taken place, and on the eve of the first Presidential debate to boot. It is likely that whatever program the CIA was handling was in shambles; and their total exposure was undetermined. That means that the attack on the consulate is just tip of a much, much larger story whose outlines are only now emerging.

  5. [cont.]

    The public typically assumes that while they may be in the dark the nation’s leaders ‘know the truth’. In this case there is strong evidence to suggest that the leadership is only now adding two and two together. One only hopes it makes four. The other impression I had immediately after the Cairo and Benghazi attacks was how much they resembled the attacks on the African embassies in the days leading up to 911/2001.

    If that’s the case the assault which began in Benghazi didn’t end after the mortar attacks. It’s only in a lull. Something else may be in train even now.

    1. Well that’s terrifying.

    2. Speaking of that video and terrifying shit…check out this article.

      A number of threads in this resulting discourse are worth highlighting. One is that Muslims are winning the argument about supposed freedom of speech. While a stubborn minority in the West insist that so-called artists have the right to say and do what they want, regardless of the feelings of others and the broader consequences of their actions, many more have come to realise that such freedom is not absolute, that authors and artists must recognise contraints, and exercise their supposed rights responsibly and with sensitivity to the feelings of others….

      [cont]

      1. The real aim of the Muslim response, as the late Dr. Kalim Siddiqui said, was to take a stance, to say, “?you may have gone this far, but you go no farther; and in future, you will never go this far again.” And that is precisely what has been achieved. The Rushdie book may remain in circulation, but it has never been serialised or filmed or adapted for television or the stage. And no author has tried to produce another book treating the Prophet (pbuh) in a similar way, at any level, from that of high literature claimed by Rushdie to the mass market level of popular fiction. There will never be anti-Islamic equivalents of The Last Temptation of Christ or Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Code. That is the measure of Muslim success. …

        [cont]

        1. The money quote:

          Those Muslims who are embarrassed by or apologetic about their fervour should think of what it has achieved. And those who say that we should be more mature and more measured in how we express our anger should know that polite letters and rational debate would have done nothing to prevent Islam and its Prophet (pbuh) being reduced to the status and levels of respect in the West as Christianity and ‘Isa (a) now suffer. It would be nice if we lived in a world in which such methods of communication worked to ensure that people behave as they should, but the fact is that we do not.

          Until such time that we can succeed in reversing the trend of history, as assuredly we will in the unforeseeable future if not the foreseeable one, we must be prepared to fight such battles again and again.

          1. Scary indeed, and this has to be fought against, one way of the other. If I were the CIA I’d translate this book into Arabic and Urdu and etc. and distribute copies all over the Muslim world.

            http://www.amazon.com/Did-Muha…..161017061X

          2. WHY DO YOU HATE BROWN PEOPLE?!?!?!?!

      2. Why bother checking out the article when you’re going to post half of it on 4 consecutive comments?

  6. I predict conservatives will stop trying to gin up a controversy out of Benghazi the day after the election.

    1. I predict you will remain retarded. Unless Romney wins and you do everyone the favor of killing yourself.

        1. Are you Chris Matthews?

          1. Are you Steve Wilkos?

    2. Gin up? Really? This happens 2 months prior to the election and for TWO FUCKING WEEKS the administration claimed the attacks were the result of an anti-Muslim video for which he essentially apologizes to the entire world.

      Ask yourself what kind of media shitstorm there would have been if a Republican had attempted such subterfuge.

      1. No one apologized, you delirious cockroach. And whether it was the video or a planned attack is just arcane tit-twisting.

        IT DOESN’T FUCKING MATTER!

        1. Sort of like it didn’t matter whether Saddam had WMDs, right shrike?

          1. Obama has not invaded another country based on the Benghazi attacks.

            1. No, he helped invade Libya long before the Benghazi attacks.

              “Went full retard, and went home with no oscar”

            2. Lol. What did you want him to do, declare war on the new Libyan government that doesn’t quite exist yet? FFS, he only has so much time in a day.

        2. Fuck you, you disingenuous piece of monkey spunk.

          “In every culture, those who love freedom for themselves must ask themselves how much they’re willing to tolerate freedom for others,” said the president. “And that is what we saw play out in the last two weeks as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video. And I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity. It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well.”

          link

          IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH A VIDEO, you fucking ass clown. It was a cover-up. He tried to cover up a terrorist attack because it threw cold water on the idea that that he single-handedly defeated terrorism by having the military kill OBL. HE FUCKING LIED to the American people, about the killing of a US ambassador so he wouldn’t look bad before an election.

          FUCK YOU, YOU PIECE OF SHIT TEAM BLUE FUCKING SHILL!

          1. Amen. Shove it inside of out of them.

        3. PAY NO ATTENTION TO THAT MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!

    3. Obama “ginned up” his own controversy over Benghazi by lying, covering up and forcefully apologizing to the muslim world for our freedom of speech.

      The future does not belong to Presidents who have disdain for the first amendment.

      Plus the administration went out of their way to publicly identify the guy who made the youtube clip, then arrest him and deny him bail, he sits in jail to this day.

      1. Idiocy. Obama said that blasphemy is protected by the First Amendment.

        Fuck every religion in their asspipe. They all suck.

        But the government doesn’t elevate one shitty religion over another.

        Islam (a piece of shit) is just as good as the next piece of shit.

        I stand by secularism against you theo-fascists.

        1. Obama said that blasphemy is protected by the First Amendment.

          He also said to the UN we must ensure that blasphemy does not happen. So he must think the 1st amendment must be destroyed?

          1. Quit lying.

            He said that the US does not CONDONE blasphemy.

            It shouldn’t.

            And I am a blasphemer second to none. It is a citizens duty – not the government.

            You statist.

            1. con?done/k?n?d?n/
              Verb:
              Accept and allow (behavior that is considered morally wrong or offensive) to continue.

              And he had the guy arrested, did he not?

              1. No, he didn’t.

                1. Yes, just a routine arrest of a white collar probationer who may or may not have used a computer.

                2. Oh goody, the Union Stooge of The Lollipop Guild is here. Tell me joe, why is Nakoula Bessely Nakoula still rotting in jail? And with what is he charged, exactly?

            2. The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see and the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated or churches that are destroyed. Or the Holocaust that is denied.

              Seems like Obama doesn’t approve of your speech, Shriek. He said nothing of the sort, and merely punted by “equivocating.”

              1. Oh, come now, BO doesn’t have a coercive bone in his body. I’m sure he plans to deprive blasphemers of the future purely by persuasion.

        2. “I stand by secularism against you theo-fascists.”

          The hell are you talking about now you dumb fuck?

        3. “Fuck every religion in their asspipe. They all suck.”
          +
          “Islam (a piece of shit) is just as good as the next piece of shit.”

          Moral relativism…ehhh Islam == everything else

          “I stand by secularism against you theo-fascists.”

          Moral non-relativism — My secularism =/= everything else?

          Do you get dizzy way up on your high horse sometimes?

  7. “What won’t be questioned is the sort of intervention?unilaterally decided by the president and then passively accepted by a pliant Congress?that dropped American diplomats into an unstable situation that no one had a handle on.”

    Fascinating theory, but we’d have had diplomats there regardless.

    I suspect the Libyans (in conjunction with Europeans in the air and Qatari troops on the ground leading the charge) would have won without us, too.

    I know the Libyans started the rebellion without us. Toppling Gaddafi wasn’t a decision of the Obama Administration. It was the decision of the Libyan people.

    You’re giving the Obama Administration way too much credit.

    For an excellent assessment of what’s really going on in the Arab world, try this piece written by Hussein Agha and Robert Malley in this month’s NYRB:

    http://www.nybooks.com/article…..evolution/

    If and when you read it, keep asking yourself, “How much of this is becasue of anything Barack Obama has done?”

    1. Further, there were warnings of local craziness from the Benghazi consulate from as far back as 2008.

    2. Really, Ken? You’re still trying to die on this Libya KMA hill, aren’t you.

    3. You really don’t need diplomats in a country without a government, so no, we probably shouldn’t have had diplomats in Libya after the head of state with whom we had a working relationship was killed and the country thrown into chaos. And we probably wouldn’t have, if we weren’t part of the killing party.

  8. OT – Katy Perry in concert wearing an Obama minidress.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..story.html

    I must admit, I would prefer to see her without it.

    1. Othering white men? whodathunkit.

    2. There is no practical reason to support Romney since he has campaigned against every conservative issue at some time.

      1. Why don’t you just go back in Trig’s rectum where you belong?

        1. The GOP begrudgingly accepted Romney. Libertarians loathe him.

          You bet on a losing nag.

      2. So they should support Obama, who is campaigning against every conservative issue right now?

        1. Obama will sign the Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction plan. Romney won’t.

          1. Just as soon as Dingy Harry allows it to be voted on in the Senate, right?

            1. Yeah, when the Teabag House passes it first, dumbass.

              Paul Ryan voted against deficit reduction. A much better man, Tom Coburn, voted for it.

          2. He’s going to sign a deficit reduction plan that he outrightly rejected in his budget, which, btw, didn’t pass either house?

    3. Slate went quadruple retard with that article. Apparently Obama is our smartest President ever and Reagan was a big dummy.

  9. An I the only one that thinks the guy in the pic is a total Guido? Also a good argument for NY/NJ gun control. Just sayin

  10. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v….._embedded#!

    Right-wing trash on the election – must see. The stupidity is blinding.

    1. Wow. You’re right. That was alarming. Thankfully those idiots are nicely counterbalanced by the cosmopolitan sophisticates who support Obama:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I79wUEqBdQc

  11. Dudethat jsut looks like its gonna be cool!
    http://www.u-privacy.tk

    1. Really, anonbot is on the side of the neocons. I did not see that coming.

  12. As Election Day nears, Obama supporters step up riot threats

    1. What’s the likelihood of this just being a Ruger/Federal/S&W conspiracy to gin up sales?

      1. Interesting theory. I think they’d probably screw it up by spelling properly.

      2. Doesn’t an Obama victory by itself gin up sales?

    2. We’ll be fighting in the streets
      With our birth control at our feet
      And the money that they worship will be gone
      And the man who hoped us on
      Sits in judgement of our wrongs
      He decides and the people’s megaphone sings the song

  13. Needs moar ChristFag

    1. The future must not belong to the Christfags

  14. Have you set your clocks yet?

    1. Thanks, woulda forgot.

  15. Obama leads in early voting.

    http://seattletimes.com/html/p…..oting.html

    1. No, he doesn’t. More Democrats have used early voting than Republicans in a few swing states. That’s all we know. We have no idea who they’re voting for, or who the independents who voted early are voting for.

      This is one of the stupidest non-stories I’ve ever seen the MSM latch on to.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.