Serious question about Benghazi and Rape-publi-scum: what exactly

[coalition_unwilling]

are they alleging that Obama either did or did not do?

I have not been following the issue very closely and I have been having a difficult time figuring out exactly what it is that has sparked all the grandstanding and poutrage. It seems like many of the DU threads about this presume a baseline context of understanding which I seem to have missed.

Leaving aside the near certainty that Rs are ginning up outrage merely for the purposes of weakening Obama, what exactly are they alleging that Obama did or did not do that was so wrong?

And, corollary, what is the refutation to what they allege?

I'd like to have a better understanding of the issue for battling with the Fucktards on FB and Yahoo.

I guess I need a primer that takes me through the issue. Thanks in advance.

[dennis4868]

1. Republicans

knowledge of Benghazi is based on what FOX News tells them. They see an opening to impeach Obama. They are fucking idiots!

[coalition_unwilling]

4. I figured as much and just want to arm myself before giving battle on FB and Yahoo. They throw

the word 'Benghazi' around like it's some kind of magical talisman that unlocks the secrets of the universe and I don't have the faintest fucking idea what they're going on about.

[malaise]

16. Not true - Rove was Fox as well n/t

[Whisp]

2. I don't think they know

they are just hoping Something Will Come Up. and if not, doesn't matter - they'll Make It Up.

[EOTE]

5. +1.

In fact, I'm quite certain that they don't know. The point is that some people died (4) under a democratic president, that's all they need to know. They conveniently forget about Bush doing absolutely nada to prevent 9/11 and the subsequent thousands (hundreds of thousands if you include casualties of war) that were killed. Republicans are well beyond needing an actual reason to be outraged.

[Lucinda]

3. They keep changing the accusations after each one is disproved, but

one of the biggest ones was that he watched the attack in real time and did nothing. Which isn't true.

[coalition_unwilling]

6. Ah, the old 'stab in the back' meme, first deployed by

Hitler to explain how Jews in Berlin defeated the German army in World War I, brought forward to Vietnam where the media caused the U.S. military to lose to a rag-tag body of irregulars. And now to Libya, where Obama supposedly tied the military's hands behind its back.

I'm guessing the Rape-publi-scum's charges are just total and utter bullshit, much as earlier iterations of 'stab in the back'-ism were.

[ProudProgressiveNow]

17. +1 nt

[TwilightGardener]

7. I think what they want to uncover is that Ambassador Stevens

was on the phone begging Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to protect him with more security, and that Obama The Muslim laughed an evil laugh: "HA HA HA, you silly white Christian man! No security for you! I will throw you to my Muslim-brother wolves, HA HA HA!" Or something like that. It's their fantasy.

[MynameisBlarney]

27. LOL

I just pictured him saying that like Wash from Firefly "Hahahaaa, Mine is an evil laugh!"

[Wellstone ruled]

8. Was there a move by

a certain GOP congressman to create a FAKE issue or October surprise? Sure looking like Boner has to start wearing Kevlar suits,his right hand man is not that trustworthy.

Baby,this can of worms is going to be very interesting indeed. Got to love it.

[patrice]

28. I think that was de-railed by Darrell Issa outing a CIA ops location, in the presence of MSM &

of course, the internet.

This was during the opening days of whatever congressional investigation Issa et al put together a several weeks ago.

[valerief]

9. Reason? No need for reasons. The RW media bellows angrily and throws out

buzzwords. That's all the base needs to know. "The president lied about what he knew when." Details aren't required other than that. You know how you can make a baby smile by smiling yourself? Or cry by crying? The RW audience is the baby.

[coalition_unwilling]

11. Yeah, it's really been annoying trying to rebut some of the claims because

of their stultifying lack of specificity. As I wrote in a reply upthread, the word 'Benghazi' is a code word for a whole set of grievances, real or imagined, but trying to figure out what the fuck they are is a whole other matter entirely.

Is there anybody on the right capable of articulating a case clearly and with specifics? Or is it all just heat and light?

[Hell Hath No Fury]

12. From some CNN boards I --

have read, the things I keep seeing repeated is that the four CIA/mercs asked for backup three times and were given orders to "stand down", that Obama left our men to die without any kind of backup/intervention, and that he is now arming al qaeda.

And now, of course, Petreaous was taken down to prevent him telling the Truth about Bengazi.

Snopes has a good page on it: http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/benghazi.asp

Also, check out their message board on Bengazi - lots of the FOX nutters there to read.

[coalition_unwilling]

13. Yeah, this seems to be the sense of this thread thus far. That Obama somehow

stabbed the embassy personnel in the back by not providing timely support.

Thanks for the Snopes link. Will check it out forthwith.

[patrice]

29. If you know there is a gun being held to the Ambassador's head, what do you do?

If you know the Safe House has been breached and MERCS of SOMETYPE have guns on Ambassador Stevens, what do you do?

Do you do what mercs of the same, similar, other types TELL you to do, or do you do what compromised intelligence ops advise?

[Berlum]

15. The Republicans SLASHED $300 million from the embassy security budget

How the Hell was America supposed to protect its diplomats after the Republicans crapped the bed on their responsibilities.

Why doesn't the corporate media pack (R) whine about that Republican FAIL?

[Whisp]

26. but wouldn't that be the SoS job? n/t

[Polldancer2012]

14. The allegations are very serious.

However... they have to make the allegations stick.

But to be honest here are the allegations (NOT FACTS):

1) The consulate had been attacked previously in the summer. Staff including Stevens asked for more security starting in the summer, even his last cable communication to D.C. right before he died asked about security increase.

The cables cited 10 AQ groups in the area, 2 of which have been ID'd in the attack.

2) On 9-11-2012 the anniversary of 9-11-2001 the Ambassador had literally no security.

3) During the 7 hour long attack, personnel on the ground requested reinforcements including air strikes from an Italian AFB 90 minutes away and help never came. When the CIA did send rescuers they were held up in the airport for hours.

4) There was never any indication that the attack in Benghazi was related to a "flash mob" of protestors. But for the next 2 weeks a number of administration officials used "weasel words" to suggest the attack was not a terrorist attack. Petraeus, Clinton, Rice and Obama all made confusing statements.





Now listen and listen closely.

I said I would list the allegations. I've listed the top allegations. I sincerely feel EACH and EVERY allegation will be disproved. I think it's simply a tragedy and Monday morning quarterbacking is not helpful.

So... for people who don't read this... I don't want to be accused of pushing FAUXNEWS talking points. I've listed the allegations. They are nothing more than that... just allegations. They're serious allegations but IMHO unfounded.

But the OP asked "serious question" so I answered his question.

OP: Serious question about Benghazi and Rape-publi-scum: what exactly


are they alleging that Obama either did or did not do?

[coalition_unwilling]

18. Thank you for the succinct and clearly worded list. I appreciate your

taking the time and effort to list the allegations as you understand them.

Looks like Snopes has pretty decisively refuted the most serious of these (the ones that concern events during the attack itself):

http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/benghazi.asp

The first allegation (that Stevens and other staff requested more security and did not receive it) long before the attacks in my opinion is the most problematic and the one that may require some serious investigation (but not finger-pointing). Why didn't the facility receive more security?

Thanks again. Much appreciated.

[Polldancer2012]

22. no problem.

What we have is 2 polar opposites and they're both wrong.

You have freepbagging Teathuglicans who try to make this sound like some ridiculous conspiracy and some here who say there's NOTHING there and it's all fantasy.

We will probably find the truth somewhere in between.

The one that has me interested.

The personnel on the ground indeed asked for direct military assistance several times. That's undisputed.

The CIA has stated unequivocally that they DID NOT deny military reinforcements to the defenders of the annex.

The White House has stated unequivocally that they DID NOT deny military reinforcements to the defenders of the annex.

So if the WH and the CIA didn't deny it.... WHO DID?

State Department doesn't have authority to deny air support. So who denied support? Someone did. Was it one of the Generals who were recently fired?

[Incitatus]

30. nm

[KharmaTrain]

19. The Highest Quality Bullshit From Bullshit Mountain...

This "controversy" started when their "Fast and Furious" poutrage ran out of pout and evidence. This is a Faux Noise manufactured "scandal" that was meant to help Rmoney bail out of his ill-fated tweets while the Benghazi compound was under attack (he got pummeled in the corporate media for jumping the gun and trying to politicize the murders) and attempt to diminish President Obama's successes in killing bin Laden and helping encourage the "Arab Spring" and the revolution in Libya.

It's a pure Rovian game of attacking one's strength as your opponent is usually prepared to defend against something they're weak on, but not something they assume is a positive. Turn that positive into a doubt or negative and you put your opponent at a big disadvantage. A classic example is the Obama campaign's attacks on Bain...suddenly the thing Willard thought was his strongest campaign asset became a liability. This was a desperate act by rushpublicans to embarrass this administration and to make it look weak in the past campaign. They failed.

The fun part of this "scandal" is to ask a teabagger your question...I'll bet you don't get the same answer from two people and then if you probe further you'll find they have no clue what they're talking about. Just ask them to name the capital of Libya...if they say Benghazi...that tells you a lot as their credibility on the topic.

Right now the unhinged and Faux noise are grappling to find some kind of "balance" in a world shattered by a rare encounter with reality. Now the hopes are to spark some type of "controversy" to rally the disheartened...

[coalition_unwilling]

21. Yeah, now it's starting to come together for me. Willard jumped on the deaths

immediately, a major faux pas, and was roundly criticized for it. Everything that has come since has been an attempt to rehabilitate Willard's image and to 'rally the disheartened'.

Before I probed Teabaggers on FB and Yahoo, though, I wanted to have at least a rudimentary understanding of the issue, but I take your points

[KharmaTrain]

25. Seems These Same People Are Very Defensive Of The Petreaus Fiasco...

I'm sure a lot of it comes from the nearly decade long love affair the corporate media...especially Faux has had with him and that he's also a rushpublican. They still want him to testify in hopes he'll drop some bombshell that will make President Obama or SOS Clinton look corrupt in some fashion...holding back on support and putting the Ambassador in a vulnerable situation. It's your typical mix of connecting dots and making shit up as you go...and hoping something eventually sticks.

I have to admit, I enjoy poking sticks at the hyenas when it comes to a Bullshit Mountain poutrage now...just to see what weird stuff drops out.

Cheers...

[librechik]

20. If only Obama had used his Kryptonic superhearing

He could have ripped off his Prez suit, revealed the superhero suit underneath, then flown to Bengazi as SuperObama and saved those poor diplomats!

They, of course had no idea they might be in danger in LIBYA They were poor victims forced by an evil president to serve their country, not loyal volunteers who took an oath to give their lives for the US. THEY WERE INNOCENT VICTIMS OF OBAMA'S MEGALOMANIA!!! SuperObama could have stopped the whole incident in 20 minutes with no loss of life.

But no. HE REFUSED!!!! SUPEROBAMA HEARD THEIR DESPARATE CRIES FOR HELP AND HE REFUSED TO HELP!!!---so he must be impeached, of course.

Prove them wrong.

The Repub strategy depends heavily on the assumption that Democrats are guilty before trial and must prove their innocence, not the other way around. They have just about everybody convinced they are right, too! (Thank you FOXNEWS!) But proving that something didn't happen is nearly impossible. This is how they stack the deck for Whitewater and Vince Foster Mach II Obama's demise.

Will they have the balls to do it? They had the balls to do it with Clinton. And those charges were just as bogus.

[coalition_unwilling]

23. While not exactly responding to the questions I raised in my OP, your response is

nonetheless beautiful and awesome (and much appreciated).

God, I hate those fuck-tards. I think we're kindred spirits

[librechik]

24. you betcha, c_u!