Speakeasy forum

General discussion

Republican outrage over Benghazi

by Josh K / November 19, 2012 4:39 AM PST

Maybe they were just building it up over the last 12 years and it all came out a few weeks ago:

2002: US consulate in Karachi, Pakistan attacked. 10 killed.

2004: US embassy in Uzbekistan bombed. 2 killed, 9 injured.

2004: US consulate in Saudi Arabia attacked. 8 killed.

2006: US embassy in Syria attacked. 1 killed.

2007: Grenade launched into US embassy in Athens.

2008: US embassy in Serbia set on fire by rioters.

2008: US embassy in Yemen bombed. 10 killed.

I welcome links to any calls for Bush's impeachment over those 7 attacks, either within SE or from Congress. Kucinich doesn't count. Wink

Post a reply
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Republican outrage over Benghazi
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Republican outrage over Benghazi
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
Since you didn't provide
by TONI H / November 19, 2012 5:02 AM PST

any links to those stats, do you have any information about what the results were? I wonder because every single one of them were during a time when we were officially at 'war against terrorism'......and none were ever covered up or blamed on anything other than what they were.

Benghazi is a whole new ballpark.........This administration refuses to use the term 'war on terror', and in fact has banned it from its vocabulary, convinced that 'talking with our enemies' will make them understand and like us if we apologize for our previous behavior often enough. BO was so entrenched that he, to this day, refuses to use 'terrorist attack' against the Ft. Hood killer, even though there has been proof of connections to AW in Yemen prior to the killings, thereby denying our troops the benefits they and their beneficiaries would have received and should be getting. BO is also so entrenched in his belief that Libya was being 'normalized' that to have to admit to an AQ attack that killed four Americans that he did nothing to protect ahead of time nor did he command that Stevens and Smith be pulled out of there to safety, and he was so busy bragging during his campaign that OBL is dead and AQ is diminished or on its heels, that there was no way he wanted that attack to be publicized so close to his election and on his watch.

He allowed four people to die.....and they watched it happen....by doing nothing and not only going silent about it, but called it a bump in the road the same day and then went to Vegas to campaign as if they were nothing to him.

Collapse -
So even though the country was "AT WAR"
by JP Bill / November 19, 2012 5:17 AM PST

there were 7 SUCCESSFUL attacks on US Embassies.

Collapse -
We were at war in two countries
by TONI H / November 19, 2012 6:19 AM PST

all of the attacks listed were in countries other than the two we were at war with and each of those countries had a responsibility to keep our embassies safe, and they didn't do that job very well. However, we don't know unless we search for each instance on the net what the end results were........were all of the killers killed? Were they captured and sent to prisons or Gitmo? US embassies weren't the only ones that were targeted during those years either, just as the British embassy and its Ambassador was targeted in Libya. The assumption also for each of the listed attacks at this time though is that none asked ahead of time for added protection.........the consulate and annex in Libya DID and were denied.

Collapse -
RE: we don't know
by JP Bill / November 19, 2012 11:15 AM PST
we don't know unless we search for each instance on the net what the end results were.

And you know the "end results" of Benghazi? It's only been 2 months.
Collapse -
(NT) I didn't know we are at war with Libya.
by Diana Forum moderator / November 26, 2012 5:05 AM PST
Collapse -
We weren't
by TONI H / November 26, 2012 8:14 AM PST

The two wars I mentioned were during the years of those attacks Josh listed.

Collapse -
(NT) Nice tap dance, Toni
by Josh K / November 19, 2012 7:33 AM PST
Collapse -
It sounds like you don't fault Bush because
by Diana Forum moderator / November 26, 2012 8:36 AM PST
In reply to: Nice tap dance, Toni

we weren't at war with these countries but Obama is a fault even though we weren't at war with Libya.

Are you saying that you meant something else?

Diana

Collapse -
I'm saying
by TONI H / November 26, 2012 7:33 PM PST

that those attacks that Josh listed aren't the only attacks on US interests and he should have included those all the way back to Carter days. They had BEEN happening but Presidents past were doing nothing about them and thought they were 'isolated incidents' when they were actually 'tests' to see if and how we would respond. When the Beirut attack happened during Reagan's term, he had the leader of Hezbollah in gun sights from ships he deployed off the coast and instead of firing, he listened to an old friend and advisory and held off....a big mistake. There were quite a few attacks during Clinton's terms and although he had OBL in his gun sights three times, he held off.......another big mistake. When Bush the younger was President, we had no attacks overseas until after 9-11, went to war in two places, and depended on other pretty stable countries who were considered to be our allies to protect our interests because that is part of our agreements with them, and many failed to do it effectively; however, they did manage to protect them effectively enough that we didn't lose any of our Ambassadors. Plus during that period of time, ALL of our representatives knew they would be in danger and had beefed up their own security. NONE had to beg and plead for that extra security and be ignored or denied. There is also the real possibility since I can't find the actual info about them to know for sure that some may have actually LEFT those facilities and were in safe areas by the time the attacks took place and 'only' security (ours or the host country's) or local civilians were the casualties.

The 'war on terror' was a whole new type of war.......they didn't wear uniforms, they didn't fight according to all conventional war methods. There was a lot about this type of terrorist that we didn't know and all conventional thinking had to be thrown out and started over. Because we have had other instances of attacks on 'special' anniversary dates (Josh's post only lists the years and not the actual dates of those attacks), there was plenty of intel that BO SHOULD have known about after all these years (he WAS a Senator prior to Prez, remember), he had plenty of warnings from his own appointed Ambassador in Libya, he had plenty of emails from that compound begging for more security that his State Dept ignored or denied, PLUS there were emails telling State that the local Libyan security was suspected of spying on the consulate and could be part of AQ and not to be trusted to protect anything.

Yes......I blame him and his Administration for ALLOWING four people to die, including the first Ambassador in 40 years, because NONE of it had to happen. AQ may have burned down the consulate, and they may have gone after the Annex.......but all that intel AND the people could have been cleared out ahead of time or beefed up security of our own could have been moved in closer and on stand-by in order to protect them.

Collapse -
RE: The 'war on terror' was a whole new type of war.......
by JP Bill / November 26, 2012 7:58 PM PST
In reply to: I'm saying
The 'war on terror' was a whole new type of war.......they didn't wear uniforms, they didn't fight according to all conventional war methods. There was a lot about this type of terrorist that we didn't know and all conventional thinking had to be thrown out and started over.

WAS? DIDN'T?

It still is and they still don't. Unless you are willing to suffer the consequences of "collateral civilian damage"/innocent bystanders, more thinking on strategy is required, such as Obama 'drone-warfare rulebook'
Collapse -
And you're still an idiot
by TONI H / November 26, 2012 9:41 PM PST

Of course it all still is........the point was that our military had to do an about face in their strategy for dealing with this new type of war where there are no rules anymore. The fact that BO knew about this, and knew that anniversaries are important to the terrorists in order to make their point, and still ignored the 9-11 date and ignored all the warnings and pleadings from the Ambassador, makes him an incompetent who was only looking out for his re-election rather than the safety of his own people.

Collapse -
RE: And you're still an idiot
by JP Bill / November 26, 2012 10:31 PM PST

Toni, Toni, Toni.....What am I gonna' do with ya'


Name Calling....I'll meet you in the school yard after school today, I'll get one of my female grandkids to "speak to you".

The fact that BO knew about this, and knew that anniversaries are important to the terrorists in order to make their point, and still ignored the 9-11 date was only looking out for his re-election rather than the safety of his own people.

It's a good thing Bush wasn't concentrating on getting Re-elected in 2004 while these attacks were going on. There WAS an election in 2004 wasn't there?

2004: US embassy in Uzbekistan bombed. 2 killed, 9 injured.

2004: US consulate in Saudi Arabia attacked. 8 killed.


Saudi Arabia? Wasn't Bush seen walking hand in hand in the Rose garden with that Prince/King? How romantic.


4 MORE YEARS!!!!!!!

Collapse -
Apparently when they "beefed up their own security"....
by Josh K / November 26, 2012 10:03 PM PST
In reply to: I'm saying

....they didn't so such a hot job, did they. But please, do continue trying to downplay the seven attacks during Bush's presidency while playing up the single attack during Obama's.

Collapse -
I'm not downplaying anything
by TONI H / November 27, 2012 12:06 AM PST

I'm pointing out that no Ambassadors were begging for security during a dangerous time.......Stevens WAS, and not only was he ignored and denied, but his security was TAKEN AWAY from him, with no sense from State and the WH that he should have been pulled out of that situation ahead of time. BO was so determined to prove to the world that Libya was 'normalized' that he turned his back on the dangers and allowed four people to be killed........while the WH literally watched it happen....and then tried to blame everything that did happen on a stupid video that BO personally condemned knowing all along that it wasn't the video that prompted the attack at all. This didn't happen during the Bush administration.

Collapse -
The 'war on terror' was a whole new type of war......
by Diana Forum moderator / November 28, 2012 7:23 PM PST
In reply to: I'm saying

they didn't wear uniforms, they didn't fight according to all conventional war methods. I have one word for that - Viet Nam.

Diana

Collapse -
That was entirely different
by Steven Haninger / November 28, 2012 7:58 PM PST

That war had uniformed soldiers. There was the NVR and Viet Cong. Both wore uniforms. The difference in this war from others was fighting methods and not identification of soldiers.

Collapse -
The VC didn't always wear uniforms
by Josh K / November 28, 2012 10:29 PM PST

That was one thing that made that war so difficult to fight, and one reason the US did things like burning villages. They could never be sure if anyone there was VC. The VC also used guerrilla methods, including that network of tunnels.

Collapse -
But they had uniforms but the term you used...
by Steven Haninger / November 28, 2012 10:46 PM PST

"guerrilla warfare" is what we learned. Tony Holmes would probably know best about those tactics but it wasn't quiet the same as we're hearing with today's terrorist type of warfare. Granted, it wasn't the old march to the battlefield and stand up until you fall process but rather a sneak attack and scatter method. It wasn't the type of warfare US soldiers had been prepared for and training methods had to be developed over time. That war didn't help us prepare for suicide bombings and IEDs.

Collapse -
I agree that the comprison with terrorism doesn't quite work
by Josh K / November 28, 2012 10:49 PM PST

The VC didn't intentionally target innocent civilians. The only valid point of comparison IMO is that because the VC didn't always wear uniforms, it was often hard to know who the enemy was.

Collapse -
I may have something wrong
by Steven Haninger / November 29, 2012 12:41 AM PST

In checking, I'm seeing the term NVA as the regular North Vietnamese army. What I remember is the NVR or North Vietnamese regulararmy which differed from the Viet Cong. This comes from people I knew back then who had been there. My own time was in the USAF and spent at a NATO base in Europe so I lucked out combat duty. We had a couple people in the squadron who had done duty in "Nam" and tried to explain the differences. I never caught on. When some guy is pointing a rifle at you I suspect checking out his uniform isn't a priority.

Collapse -
They did target civilians
by Diana Forum moderator / December 2, 2012 10:22 AM PST

They were always going into a village and killing the village elders and their families.

Sound familiar?

Diana

Collapse -
Many were people our men trusted
by Diana Forum moderator / December 2, 2012 10:20 AM PST

just like today. I remember my cousin telling me about glass in the bottom of beer bottles, Viet Cong telling little kids to go to a group of soldiers and pulling this ring and a woman that cleaned a house where four soldiers stayed. She was gone for a couple of days to visit her family and came back. When they came out to welcome her back, she blew them all up.

So how is this war different?

Diana

Collapse -
I'd not trivialize it that way
by Steven Haninger / November 19, 2012 5:08 AM PST

Do only Americans from one political spectrum want proper answers? I'd hope not. I'm not a person to look for someone to hang but to look for a way to learn. You've put effort into your post. Do you think, given the number of attacks you mentioned, we could have learned how to prevent this one?

Collapse -
RE:Do you think, given the number of attacks you mentioned,
by JP Bill / November 19, 2012 5:30 AM PST
Do you think, given the number of attacks you mentioned, we could have learned how to prevent this one?

Prevent?

ONLY if your intelligence is 100%.

Very little is 100%.

Will everyone wake up tomorrow morning?
Collapse -
(NT) Who do you feel a need to defend?
by Steven Haninger / November 19, 2012 5:46 AM PST
Collapse -
RE: Who?
by JP Bill / November 19, 2012 5:51 AM PST

Which party/President?

Collapse -
Prevent.........
by TONI H / November 19, 2012 6:21 AM PST

Yes, very little is 100%.......BUT when you have warnings ahead of time and when you have multiple requests for added security and all of that INTEL is ignored or denied, who would YOU blame?

Collapse -
When that exact thing happened in 2001....
by Josh K / November 28, 2012 10:31 PM PST
In reply to: Prevent.........

.....you blamed Bill Clinton.

Collapse -
Clinton
by TONI H / November 28, 2012 10:50 PM PST

didn't get warnings from Ambassadors for more security.......he had hits that were well planned out and were 'tests' to see what reaction would come from the US and none came. He had intel that he ignored, even to the point of turning down the advice three times to kill OBL when he had the chance. In fact, he has said publicly a number of times and in his book that if he had to do over again, he would have given the order and that he personally felt guilty over the 9-11 attacks because maybe they wouldn't have happened if he had acted. There has been NO remorse from this prez over inaction in Benghazi, only a multitude of lies and excuses.

Collapse -
Correction (partial)
by TONI H / November 28, 2012 11:33 PM PST
In reply to: Clinton

Clinton DID get requests/pleadings from Ambassadors for more security in 1998 at two embassies in Africa.......and both requests were denied.......and they were bombed to hell and back. Denial of protection seems to be a pattern with liberal leaders......

And this shows even more incompetence of Rice's ability to take over the Sec of State spot because she was 'involved' in the Clinton attacks as well.

http://gretawire.foxnewsinsider.com/2012/11/28/ambassador-rice-needs-to-refresh-her-memory-as-to-whether-when-she-was-head-of-the-african-region-for-state-department-in-1998-and-the-ambassadors-at-the-bombed-us-embassies-in-east-africa-each-b/

Popular Forums
icon
Computer Help 47,885 discussions
icon
Computer Newbies 10,322 discussions
icon
iPhones, iPods, & iPads 3,188 discussions
icon
Security 30,333 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 20,177 discussions
icon
HDTV Picture Setting 1,932 discussions
icon
Phones 15,713 discussions
icon
Windows 7 6,210 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 14,510 discussions

Big stars on small screens

Smosh tells CNET what it took to make it big online

Internet sensations Ian Hecox and Anthony Padilla discuss how YouTube has changed and why among all their goals, "real TV" isn't an ambition.