Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Why do you leftists support the administrations recent actions regarding Libya?

Posted 1 year ago on Oct. 10, 2012, 9:32 p.m. EST by Clicheisking (-210)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

The lies of your messiah are coming out. They deliberately refused to allow beefed up security at that consulate. They knew the attack was a direct terrorist action 24hours after it happened. And yet for many days after they blamed it on a film/trailer less than 20 people had actually seen. And most of these recent threads are DNC talking points. Has the DNC taken over this movement?

39 Comments

39 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by Shule (1696) 1 year ago

Why do you say leftists are DNC friendly?

Most leftists I know consider the DNC as a corrupt right leaning organization lead by corporatists.

[-] 2 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 1 year ago

Wes Clark - America's Foreign Policy "Coup"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TY2DKzastu8

And the coup continues .....................................

[-] 2 points by WSmith (4187) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago
[-] 2 points by trashyharry (1145) from Waterville, NY 1 year ago

Someday,the Democrats & Republicans will have to go to Hell because of their cowardice and treachery.They will stay there,together-FOREVER

[-] 1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/08/an-incriminating-timeline-the-obama-administration-and-libya/

Yes, YES-I know I know...the horrific Heritage Foundation. But hold your bias long enough to watch the VIDEOTAPED evidence and read the FACTUAL timeline posted in the article before you respond.

If you can disprove any of the dates/sources/FACTS posted in the article or shown in the video tape (with actual FACTS that refute them-not just someone else's opinion or statement or comment) I'd love to see them.

If you can't refute/disprove what is laid out here, and you're STILL not concerned about these events on a serious level, then you're part of the problem in this country and you have no business calling yourself a voice for the 99% of anything.

[-] 1 points by mideast (506) 1 year ago

I don't like labels - generally labels degrade the truth
I'm not sure exactly what happened in Libya

I believe - the Rs drastically cut security funding
&
now they are ranting that we did not have enough security & the attacks were organized by a radical Islamist group that used the "video" to stir up a "terrorist" mob attack


I think the Rs should go back and have a 34th anti-obama care vote
or an anti-flag burning amendment

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13536) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

you are an idiot -

here's a timeline of the admins statements which makes it clear to any reasonable individual that the statements themselves have evolved relative to the receipt of new information.

  • duh

Further, it would appear that Charlene Lamb needs to be recalled to testify before Congress regarding who, what, when, where, and why, she came to the conclusion prior to the attack in Benghazi that there were sufficient support personal on the ground.

She works for the State Department . . . ? Not the White House.

You do understand there is a distinction . . .

[-] 1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Awww...you don't like other time lines?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/from-video-to-terrorist-attack-a-definitive-timeline-of-administration-statements-on-the-libya-attack/2012/09/26/86105782-0826-11e2-afff-d6c7f20a83bf_blog.html

Funny thing-every freaking intelligent human being on the planet KNEW this was a terrorist attack the DAY it happened, and WHY it happened-except for the President and his Administration (and ZenDog) apparently. It was the video...except that it wasn't. It was a protest-that never existed.

Even Romney called it perfectly the night it happened...and the President decided to go with "it's about a video". Please.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13536) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

So in your view there were no other considerations beyond the election. You examine this incident and the statements made and automatically assume the only reason for reason or prudence is in fact a deliberate attempt to avoid the facts and do so because of the election.

Such an assessment hardly makes sense. As your link states, two weeks may be an eternity in an election season - but that hardly applies to a news story that will not go away, especially where the administrations initial assessment of events can be shown to be wrong, and where those events lead to the deaths of American diplomatic personal.

QUESTION: “Simply on the basis of what Ambassador Rice has publicly disclosed, does the United States Government regard what happened in Benghazi as an act of terror?”

SPOKESWOMAN VICTORIA NULAND: “Again, I’m not going to put labels on this until we have a complete investigation, okay?”

QUESTION: “You don’t — so you don’t regard it as an act of terrorism?”

NULAND: “I don’t think we know enough. I don’t think we know enough. And we’re going to continue to assess. She gave our preliminary assessment. We’re going to have a full investigation now, and then we’ll be in a better position to put labels on things, okay?”

— exchange at State Department briefing, Sept. 17

The facts do not figure into your reasoning at all:

  1. that this event took place while the Arab world was in fact in a rage over a video produced in the U.S.

    • and how handling of this event, as with statements characterizing this event as something other than a riot which could have proven false later

    • and how such potential errors could further influence the current of Muslim rage already in evidence

  2. limited outside presence in Benghazi to provide detailed information and independent corroboration to information that did get out to a wider audience.

  3. The fledgeling nature of the government ruling the country where this event took place

  4. the U.S. relationship with that government and how it differs with the rest of the Arab world;

    • how this event and administration responses to it will shape that relationship either positively or negatively
  5. the way in which partisan politics here at home may adversely contribute to that relationship

  6. The status of any investigation

  7. How that investigation may shape the employment future of individuals at the State Department

  8. How statements regarding the event by admin officials may shape public opinion and so shape resistance to any facts discovered during investigation that run counter to established public opinion

.

as I said - you are an idiot, and a partisan hack at that. The WP article is engaged in spin, and for political reasons, even while it insists it is leaving it up to the reader to determine for themselves. The fact is they are playing to the mindset that has already determined and set responsibility even in the absence of fact.

.

[-] 1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

I never mentioned the election, nor did I even insinuate that there are no other considerations beyond the election. Ignore the article, opinion doesn't matter to me, but including the actual statements made by the President and/or his administration would be the REASONABLE, PRUDENT thing to do.

MY POINT-is literally almost the exact same one you are trying to make but you won't hold the mirror up to your own point of view. Let's talk about reason and prudence.

Did the President of the United States, (and/or his administration) demonstrate actions that are "reasonable" or "prudent" when:

*They immediately announced without any hesitation that the attack was the result of a spontaneous protest to a youtube video gone viral that just went too far and ended in violence? (Isn't that "playinbng to the mindset that has already determined and set responsibility even in the absence of fact"? The same damn thing you rail against the WP article for? You can't have it both ways)

*Continued to stand by that story that there HAD BEEN a spontaneous and ongoing protest at the compound all day and into the evening prior to the attack-until the DAY BEFORE the hearings started that would reveal that they had been lying?

*Repeatedly stated that there was no reason to think this was a coordinated, pre-planned terrorist attack even though the MEDIA was already interviewing witnesses and locals who stated that it had been a large scale, fully sophisticated LARGE group of well armed, well coordinated attackers?

Now, the administration's position has consistently been that radical Muslim factions (such as Al Qaeda) are small and dwindling and no longer pose a serious threat-especially since Bin Laden was killed-and that these struggling "democracies" in the Middle East do not need our ARMED help to clean house of these small, disorganized groups.

ANYONE with even a remote understanding of the actual history of the area AND who actually pays attention to EVERYTHING that happens there KNOWS such a stance as the one above is FLAT OUT WRONG. Even the ambassador who DIED, and those who served with him, KNEW they were in danger repeatedly ASKED for more security. They were denied it. WHY?

Now you can blame Republican "budget cuts" all you want to, but it doesn't wash and it also undercuts the argument that the Republicans are war mongers who want to dominate the world militarily. Why would "war mongers" who consistently declare that this region is volatile, dangerous want to CUT military spending/aid to Americans there? That makes no sense. They'd want MORE troops there and MORE defense spending right? (you can't have it both ways)

Americans were ENRAGED in 2011 when they suspected that Obama had arranged for WEAPONS to be sold to/given to/delivered to the "rebels" there so they could overthrow their tyrannical leader. Why? Because anyone semi intelligent person KNOWS that such weapons could end up in the wrong hands AND could then be used against us and against the actual good and innocent people of Libya.

Intelligent Americans BELIEVE that when Muslim extremists say they want to KILL ALL AMERICANS and eradicate all infidels-they actually MEAN it! They BELIEVE that Muslim extremists are GROWING in number and pose a continuing and possibly greater threat today than they ever have. And they BELIEVE that INCREASED security and vigilance in such areas IS THE REASONABLE AND PRUDENT course of action.

Now, if Obama doesn't BELIEVE that, he's an absolute idiot living in complete denial. If security was denied there because the administration didn't think they were necessary-they are IDIOTS. And their naive stupidity resulted in the UNNECESSARY deaths of the Americans THEY sent to Benghazi. If it's JUST because he was too optimistic or hopeful or whatever, then that alone proves that this President and his administration are completely inept and unprepared to deal in foreign policy.

BUT, if the weapons used to kill Stevens and the others are the direct result of HIS actions/decisions about Libya, and he and his administration are willing to LIE as outrageously and often as possible to cover that up-then he's no better than the Bush administration and your blind admiration and loyalty for your party makes you as stupid and naive as you paint Republicans to be.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13536) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

What did you say?

Americans were ENRAGED in 2011 when they suspected that Obama had arranged for WEAPONS to be sold to/given to/delivered to the "rebels" there so they could overthrow their tyrannical leader. Why? Because anyone semi intelligent person KNOWS that such weapons could end up in the wrong hands AND could then be used against us and against the actual good and innocent people of Libya.

.

bullshit.

you are engaged in deceiving yourself - and spinning the facts to suit your preconceive notions.

I say yourself, because you aren't deceiving anyone else.

.

EDIT

This link is written thus:

Why does this link go nowhere?

WHY I said.

.

[-] 1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Your link leads to this thread.

McCain wanted more guns and training for the rebels-the fact that he is an idiot doesn't detract from my point. Just because you spew 24/7 that everyone outside of the Democratic Party moves in lock step agreement with every word spoken by a Republican doesn't make it a reality.

The same people who didn't want Obama putting guns on the ground didn't want McCain putting them there either and for the same damn reason!!!!

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13536) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

This should be the link:

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-04-22/politics/mccain.libya_1_john-mccain-libyan-people-moammar-gadhafi?_s=PM:POLITICS

Apparently this forum doesn't like my link. You can copy and paste if you like.

[-] 1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

I tracked it down myself before I responded above, but the URL might be useful to others.

So my reply still is:

The same people who didn't want Obama putting guns on the ground didn't want McCain putting them there either and for the same damn reason!!!!

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13536) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

It was inevitable someone would supply the Libyan rebels - the exodus of refugees who showed up in France and Italy made it unavoidable.

[-] 1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Again, the actual "good" people of Libya who needed weapons of defense against Gaddafi forces are not the people I'm talking about. I'm talking about the NUTJOB extremist groups that Obama wants to pretend do not still exist in the middle east getting their hands on weapons and using them to PROVE to the world that they ARE still there and ARE still dangerous and ARE going to do all they can to take down America.

It was an Anniversary Gift. And JUST LIKE the original attack on Sept 11th 2001 was preceded by NUMEROUS smaller attacks on US properties around the world, this attack is likely to be one we look back on and say "Maybe we should have paid more attention to...."

[-] 0 points by ZenDog (13536) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

I'm talking about the NUTJOB extremist groups that Obama wants to pretend do not still exist in the middle east

Lame, baseless, false, unsupported by the facts -

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (34903) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Think she might be a sacrificial "Lamb" ?

[-] 0 points by ZenDog (13536) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

She did say the State Department "had the correct number of assets in Benghazi at the time,"

What I find disturbing is the fact she made that statement and no one is, or seems to be based on what I have seen and read, following up on that remark.

It was her tongue - she didn't have to make such a claim, I'm sure. Or she could have worded it much differently. In the news clip she seemed quite unapologetic - I don't know if that is the result of the impact of her environment at the time that produced a deer in the headlight affect, or if it happens to be something she really believes - but either way, her flat assertion is obviously false and the public deserves to know

wtf?

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (34903) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Could she be a modern day Ollie N (?) the assets were there by all accounts - just not deployed and arriving several hours late to help out. This is pretty smelly and it seems to be more then a state department fuck-up.

[-] 0 points by ZenDog (13536) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

I doubt it - I haven't checked but I would guess O North was not on the payroll of the U.S. government. It's more likely his pay came from a shell company, to provide a disconnect between his op and the admin of Reagan.

This statement was provided by a State Department employee - a Deputy Assistant Secretary of State - in charge of diplomatic security around the world, and she said:

The question is how did the State Department come to this conclusion and why. It doesn't seem likely she came up with it herself. My guess is that there was a desire to keep a low profile, and that adding more Americans with more guns on the ground could create a bigger target, which might in turn draw in more guns from anti-American militia groups.

As to the length of time it took to deploy a reaction team, one has to look at the physical realities as they existed on the ground leading up to this event -

  • where were they stationed

  • could they have reasonably been stationed any closer

  • could they or should they have been in a ready to deploy status, and if so, then based on what information

  • Why was the Ambassador even in Benghazi in the first place?

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (34903) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

The incident stinks to high heaven - every aspect of it.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13536) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

Yes it does.

I want to know who decided they could not put more security on the ground, and why, and then I want to know why the Ambassador was in Benghazi.

It is vaguely possible someone at the Pentagon plugged some demographic data to a computer model and the Ambassador was sent to Benghazi to see how accurate the model was.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34903) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

How ever it went down - whoever is all involved - it was set up to make us more invested in the area. To stir up the public to support more actions to be taken over there.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (13536) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

I think it is early to insist it was a set up - it could have been. It could also have been a result of incompetence.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34903) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Sorry Zen - I have to disagree - this was ( apparently ) a monumental cluster fuck - and it looks to have been no accident or incompetence - the whole thing has a Shakespearean ( staged ) feel to it. ( application of shock doctrine perhaps? )

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13536) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

Like I said, it could have been. What I am saying is that there currently is not enough evidence to reach such a conclusion.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34903) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

That is how it goes - and unless a bunch of whistle blowers jump up and say here - here is the evidence - well then - it can remain under the umbrella of plausible deniability.

Free Bradley Manning.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13536) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

The issue of B. Manning highlights a completely different issue. Here we can examine statements by the President and past behavior regarding Whistleblowers, and see how the admin as a whole is currently behaving in light of his past positions.

From Change.gov Office of the President Elect

  • Protect Whistleblowers: Often the best source of information about waste, fraud, and abuse in government is an existing government employee committed to public integrity and willing to speak out. Such acts of courage and patriotism, which can sometimes save lives and often save taxpayer dollars, should be encouraged rather than stifled. We need to empower federal employees as watchdogs of wrongdoing and partners in performance. Barack Obama will strengthen whistleblower laws to protect federal workers who expose waste, fraud, and abuse of authority in government. Obama will ensure that federal agencies expedite the process for reviewing whistleblower claims and whistleblowers have full access to courts and due process.

We can also see that as an attorney and as a politician the President has supported whistleblowers:

And yet around this time we begin to see news reports reflecting a different position by the Admininstration -

  • NYT June 2010 - Obama Takes a Hard Line Against Leaks to Press

  • Harpers 2010 - Obama’s War on Whistleblowers

  • Time WikiLeakers and Whistle-Blowers: Obama's Hard Line

    • But some liberals and free-speech advocates are bristling at more than the conditions of Manning's confinement. His case is part of a trend under the Obama Administration, which is rapidly establishing a record as the most aggressive prosecutor of alleged government leakers in U.S. history.

    • If the Obama Administration were to prosecute WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, it would be the sixth time the Administration has pressed charges against defendants suspected of leaking classified information. The government has only ever filed similar charges three times over the last 40 years. The most famous was the Nixon Administration's prosecution of Daniel Ellsberg for leaking the Pentagon papers to the New York Times.

.

It is difficult to establish without an indepth examination of the timeline and the individual events themselves, whether this indicates a change of position on the part of the President, a moderation of his position because of the nature of his current responsibilities which include national security; or if even this apparent shift might be due to very careful planning.

What we can say is that protection for whistleblowers represents a threat to those engaged in corruption throughout the establishment where public and private sector individuals meet to shape public policy,

It also represents a threat to the bureaucracy that is engaged in classifying everything as Top Secret.

We can also say that it appears to be unprecedented as the Time article indicates.

.

Now we have motive, and an unprecedented series of events.

What we can say about B. Manning in particular is that the DoD - which has a significant investment in maintaining secrets - did have almost exclusive access and so potential control over the entire environment where Manning lived and worked.

It would have been very easy to surround Manning with stimuli that induced frustration, boredom, even outrage - thus propelling him to the release of data to WikiLeaks. This in turn may be viewed as providing embarrassment to the admin, it may confound efforts to resolve international issues peacefully and with diplomacy, and it may reinforce any argument stipulating that the President's previous position on whistleblowers is inconsistent with the duties of the President.

This still does not constitute proof that the behavior of Manning was deliberately influenced in such a manner and for such purposes. It provides indication only.

.

The case of the ambassador in Benghazi is completely different in that not only do we have many many more moving parts to deal with in arriving at the outcome, some of these moving parts include the ambassador himself and his acquiescence to some purpose in Benghazi at what must be seen as great personal risk;

and we still lack motive.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34903) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

We live in interesting times ( a Chinese Curse ).

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 1 year ago

im sure it is true.. do you actually think america has the money to fortify every outpost with a battalion? they dole it out the same as anything else.. they have analyst that weigh the risk and determine the need.. just like at airports,, military bases etc etc. im sure ALL outpost believe they need more but they don't rank high enough to count. this is a system - not based on any one persons opinion of what needs to be or not be addressed.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13536) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

I think the system clearly failed in this instance, and Americans are dead as a result. We need to know how and why, and the pursuit of such questions must be done in the absence of partisan bullshit.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 1 year ago

i think americans should understand that if they enter the middle east there is a high likely hood they will die and make their decisions accordingly

[-] 0 points by Shayneh (-482) 1 year ago

I can't believe that there are those people who still think that the "facts have yet to be revealed".

Hey stupid people, it's been over a month and this Adminsitration has yet to get someone in there to investigage. We have live videos when the incident happened and we had news reporters in there days after the incident.

So you are using the excuse "well lets wait for the facts to come out" Well the facts are out - it was a terrorist attack and it was known right after it happened and warnings were given prior to it happening.

This president needs to be "impeached" for derelect of duty - he is moron just like those of you who believe what he says

We have 4 dead Americans and not one person has the balls to come forward and take responsibility - 4 dead Americans people -

Apparently reading some of these posts you don't give a shit for these people because you are too involved in listening to your ass hole leader Obama who continually lies about this.

He doesn't even have the balls to tell the Mother Ms Smith the truth and says to here in a direct conversation "I'll get back to you later".

You who believe what Obama says are just as spinless as he is. 4 Americans dead and you are still debating "wait untill the answers come out" you are all morons.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 1 year ago

Well, little MR bad ass, why don't you get off your couch and go whip some Libyan ass. You Hawks got to be the biggest wimps of us all. You sit there and bang the war drums but will never make the sacrifice that comes with war.

I won't fight for my nation because my nation don't fight for me. The true moron is anyone who still rallies around the flag and believes their government should go around the world busting heads. People die on the job all the time. Why should it be such a tragedy now? If you don't want to be killed by Middle Easterners, Don't go to the Middle East. You must be a big moron if you didn't think of that.

[-] 0 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

I guess we should go bomb Iraq some more?

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

I dont.

[-] -3 points by Clicheisking (-210) 1 year ago

You don't what?

[-] 0 points by ZenDog (13536) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

know

you don't know