'ArtM72' pid='11692' datel Wrote:Somebody once said something to the effect that while there is a reality, each of us sees it differently through our own experiences. When I read from the oped you referenced: "The drone documents no crowds protesting any video [or any attack for that matter I suspect]. But at 4 pm Washington receives an email from the Benghazi mission [acually Tripoli?] that it is under military style attack. Subject: “U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack.” The email states, “The Regional Security Officer reports the diplomatic mission is under attack. Embassy Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well. Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four COM personnel are in the compound safe haven. The 17th of February militia is providing security support.” There is a fog of war that no one disputes. What I read is information that does not suggest the response, as your recommended oped stated, to send in fighter jets and attack helicopters. I read the five COM people are in the safe haven and the Libyans are providing security support. You have to ask, even if the attack on the first (and then later the second "safe house"was still going when the air support arrived just who is going to be targeted? Come in fast and hard and blindly kill anybody with a weapon as well as any unarmed friendly Libyans trying to help? My position remains that the President responded by stating he would find out what happened, who was responsible, bring those people to justice and as always determine what improvements could be made. Just how would any rational response be differen,t whether or not Benghazi was labelled early as terrorist or not? In my mind, finding out what happened, why and by whom and reacting appropriately is what is important. I just turned off FOX News which announced yet another investigation, this time by the Senate starting on or about November 15th. O'Reilly et al concluded the investigation wasn't scheduled until after the election because the White House was attempting a coverup. With a half dozen (my guess) Benghazi investigations already in progress I just don't think a new Senate investigation could accomplish anything between now and the election. But then, I don't believe finding truth is Fox's purpose when making the coverup claim. Fox's purpose in my view is to constantly throw sh*t against the wall knowing that something or other is likely to make an impression. As I said, we all view reality in different ways.
**********
..."My position remains that the President responded by stating he would find out what happened, who was responsible, bring those people to justice and as always determine what improvements could be made."...
Well Art, you should be a bit disappointed then. Is it a selective memory or a desire to not face reality? Your position is based on nothing as that's not what Obama did. You have bought into the spin. Let's contrast your version to reality.
OBAMA FINDS OUT WHAT HAPPENED: It didn't take Obama Administration very long to do that. About 12 hrs. tops. Obama immediately and vehemently blamed the attack on an insulting video which sparked a protest of the video and some bad actors got out of hand.
OBAMA FINDING OUT WHO IS RESPONSIBLE: Obama spent the next 2 weeks blaming (more like selling the US people a narrative) the video and the 'sketchy charachter' that made it.
OBAMA BRINGS THOSE PEOPLE TO JUSTICE: Obama has the 'sketchy guy' video maker arrested.
Case closed then Art, The Commander in Chief had it all figured out. Just like when Skip Gates was victimized by 'cops that acted foolishly'. Maybe Obama planned to host a 'Beer Summit' with the protestors and the families of the 4 dead Americans.
Then the facts got in Obama's way. He changed his story and lied to America/world in the 2nd debate. All while they were either, according to you, trying to find out what happened and who was responsible?