A Philosopher's Blog


Posted in Politics by Michael LaBossiere on October 30, 2012

By popular demand I am adding a post on Benghazi, specifically the attack launched against American personnel. This will allow a thread for people to present the talking points of their specific parties/ideologies.

My views on the matter:

  • Murdering people is morally wrong.
  • The murderers should be found and punished (most likely via Obama’s favored instrument of justice: the drone launched Hellfire missile).
  • If the administration acted improperly before, during or after the incident, then those responsible should be held accountable and punished appropriate (presumably not with a Hellfire missile).

That is what I have to say about the matter. This is the same view I had of the original 9/11 attack. It is interesting to see the difference between the reactions to these incidents in terms of the political leanings of those reacting.

Enhanced by Zemanta

49 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. WTP said, on October 30, 2012 at 12:24 pm

    I don’t consider this a news site, that’s not the point. No, the story…philosophical point, actually…that I was raising (if ghost spirits can raise points, and apparently they can) is not the story itself. The story I was alluding to was given the seriousness of this…ahh…happening, and the inconsistencies of the statement of various government officials, where are our intrepid reporters in the MSM? Why are they not dogging this like they did the (far more serious, I’m sure) Scooter Libby fiasco or some such? Who knows, there could be a George W. Bush connection. Inquiring minds want to know.

  2. magus71 said, on October 30, 2012 at 12:43 pm

    The number of inept actions and lies told is staggering at this point. I myself have zero confidence in the ability of some in power positions to properly analyze quickly developing sitiuations and act accordingly. Certain people in this administration always default to lying when cornered. Americans begging for help in Benghazi and yet the official line is now, “we didn’t know enough of what was going on to act”. When in the history of the world, prior to 20 years ago–have leaders been able to watch battles from thousands of miles away, receive digital updates on enemy movements and actions minutes after they occur, and be able to scramble special forces units for very quick deployment? And yet not enough was known? This would be like a woman calling police dispatchers calling asking that a police officer come to her houes because an armed man had broken into her house, but the dispatcher refusing because “not enough is known.” First off, it’s a military maxim that you always believe the man on the ground unless proven wrong. Men on the ground, CIA operators, were actually using SOFLAMs (laser designators) to pain enemy mortar positions, all the while sending memo to the White House asking for assistance. Nothing happened.

    Barak Obama says he told the SecDef to do anything to protect the Americans. Nothing happened. Who’s lying? Who ignored a direct order from the President or who lied about an order that never existed?

    • Michael LaBossiere said, on October 30, 2012 at 12:56 pm

      It is like deja vu all over again, only with some changes. One being that this 9/11 has a Democrat in the Oval Office and not a Republican.

      However, we can probably just dust off most of the original 9/11 questions and ask them again. What did they know? When did they know it? Why didn’t they stop it? Who will we invade? Who will we invade after that?

      • WTP said, on October 30, 2012 at 1:08 pm

        It is like deja vu all over again, only with some changes. One being that this 9/11 has a Democrat in the Oval Office and not a Republican.

        Yeah…Fist Full of Fallacies.

      • magus71 said, on October 30, 2012 at 3:26 pm

        Good evasion of the problems, Mike. I don’t ask that we invade any countries other than, in this case at least, to help Americans who are screaming for help as people fire RPGs and mortars at them. And I certainly don’t expect my governement to lie about things that my cats would know the truth about. I mean, are you going to bring up 9-11 conspiracies, now? Fact is, a series of bad foreign policy decisions were made when it came to bombing Libya, then a series of head-in-sand events took place in order to prevent the invalidation of certain beliefs about what was really going on in Libya, and then a bad tactical military decision was made because the employment of military force against the militias that killed Ghadaffi would have shown the decision to remove Ghadaffi was dubious in the first place. Then, when the refusal to use military force to stop the attack resulted in dead Americans, the answer is to lie, because, well, this Administration is at the end of the line.

        • Michael LaBossiere said, on October 30, 2012 at 3:43 pm

          I made my position clear regarding any cover up/misdeeds on the part of the administration. If they did wrong, they should be punished.

          • WTP said, on January 23, 2013 at 9:25 pm

            Prepare to hear from Mike how nobody did anything wrong. Or not. And by “not” I mean don’t expect to hear squat. If his testiness here is any indication, I’m sure he will do his best to avoid comment.

  3. T. J. Babson said, on October 30, 2012 at 4:18 pm

    A number of things bother me about Benghazi:

    1) Hillary Clinton telling the Dad of Tyrone Woods that “we will make sure that the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted”

    2) Joe Biden asking the Dad of Tyrone Woods “Did your son always have balls the size of cue balls?”

    3) The continual lying about what happened. Lie after lie after lie.

    4) The refusal to help American servicemen under attack on American soil, when that help could easily have been provided.

    It is true we do not know all of the facts. But we will.

    • Michael LaBossiere said, on October 30, 2012 at 6:28 pm

      I doubt we will ever know all the facts. However, the truth always remains, discovered or not.

      Could you specify some of the lies?

    • biomass2 said, on October 30, 2012 at 6:29 pm

      You say Joe Biden said that. . .Is it on tape (like Romney’s 47%)? What has Tyrone’s wife said about the treatment she received at the hands of Biden and Obama?

      Can we make a statement about “continual lying” when, as you state, “we do not know all the facts”. Lack of coordination between various security arms, complete ineptitude at various levels of government (what’s new—it happens even in small organizations), lack of intelligence within the intelligence community. If any or all of the former were present, claiming those involved were lying rather than simply inept, is working counter to the truth-finding process—likely for political purposes..

    • T. J. Babson said, on October 30, 2012 at 8:50 pm

      We can start here:

    • T. J. Babson said, on October 30, 2012 at 8:56 pm

      Here’s more:

      (CNN) — U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Thursday she has “absolutely no information or reason to believe there is any basis” to suggest that U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens believed he was on an al Qaeda hit list.

      The remark came after a source familiar with Stevens’ thinking told CNN that in the months leading up to his death, Stevens worried about constant security threats in Benghazi and mentioned that his name was on an al Qaeda hit list.

      Stevens spoke about a rise in Islamic extremism and al Qaeda’s growing presence in Libya, the source said.

      The White House, for the first time Thursday, declared the attack that killed Stevens and three other people a terrorist attack.


      • WTP said, on October 30, 2012 at 9:17 pm

        Hillary Clinton has “absolutely no information or reason to believe there is any basis” (note the quotes stop there). Just because some unnamed source “familiar” with Stevens’ thinking (whatever that might mean) told this to CNN does not make Hillary’s statement a lie. CNN had the information, not Hillary.

        And if, as you say, the White House declared the attack a terrorist attack, then there is no lie. Proof that these are just more right-wing talking points with no legitimate basis.

        • magus71 said, on October 30, 2012 at 9:44 pm

          Great….now biomass is posting under the names of legitimate users. Still not going to ban this Troll, Mike? I consider this a serious violation of the integrity of your blog. I wouldn’t care if he agreed with me on everything–I still want him to stop it. Yet you have never even asked him to stop making up stories under aliases (how’s the knee, Norm?).

          Ban the troll–even if it’s only a symbolic gesture. It’ll still have an impact.

          • WTP said, on October 30, 2012 at 9:52 pm

            Relax. You conservatives are such conspiracy mongers. I’m still me. I’m just exploring my feminine side. Thinking of getting a philosophy degree from OSU. Need to get my mind right.

            • biomass2 said, on October 30, 2012 at 10:29 pm

              WTP: His complaint does lend credence to my answers to his crazy accusations earlier.

              Funny thing is, I was about to nudge magus and TJ about the fact that our views (yours and mine—WTp and biomass2) seemed to somehow coincide on this issue. You’re usually dead wrong, or, at the very least obnoxious.

          • WTP said, on October 30, 2012 at 9:55 pm

            Oh, and BTW…In Mike’s book I’m not exactly a “legitimate user”.

            • WTP said, on October 30, 2012 at 9:55 pm

              Though apparently I am willing to learn…

          • biomass2 said, on October 30, 2012 at 10:40 pm

            Mike: I know you have faith in your friend’s judgment, if not his opinions. I’m leaping to that conclusion—a common practice here— from the fact that you believe his moonbat index was somehow indicative of his skills of observation or even, perhaps, a sense of humor.

            So, ban me, Mike. And while you’re at it, send my new-found friend WTp down with me. Good chance the majority of people who visit and contribute here will enjoy the echo chamber that remains in our absence.

          • biomass2 said, on October 30, 2012 at 10:59 pm

            Why don’t you and wTP go together and start your own blogs.? You know who to ban and Wtp knows what subjects Mike should write about. 🙂 Was that really WTP who hijacked the Peanuts article for a while?

      • biomass2 said, on October 30, 2012 at 10:13 pm

        “a source familiar with Stevens’ thinking. . .”
        Did that ‘source’ personally report Stevens’ belief that “he was on an al Qaeda hit list” to anyone on up the line? Is he willing to divulge specifics?
        Did the ‘source’ say whether Stevens believed the hit list was, in itself, a serious threat to him? Did Stevens, personally, report his hit list beliefs or perhaps his fears to superiors? To whom, in particular? To Hillary Clinton, perhaps?
        The source should know all these things. After all, he/she is “familiar with Stevens’ thinking”. Right? Most likely he/she has an M.F. A. in mind-reading. But perhaps this is all part of one person’s fevered rememberings.

        I’m not saying the source is lying. I’m saying the information provided here is incomplete hearsay and requires some serious fleshing-out to make it worth the space it occupies on this page.

    • T. J. Babson said, on October 30, 2012 at 9:09 pm

      And more:

      Even more shocking, Vice President Joseph R. Biden said in his debate with Rep. Paul Ryan that “we weren’t told they wanted more security there. We did not know they wanted more security there.” The outrageous claim came the day after State Department officials cataloged the repeated requests for more security after numerous attacks.


      • WTP said, on October 30, 2012 at 9:25 pm

        Quoting unnamed “officials”…The Washington Times is a right-wing newspaper founded by religious cult leader Sun Myung Moon. You’d be better off quoting Faux News.

    • T. J. Babson said, on October 30, 2012 at 9:27 pm

    • T. J. Babson said, on October 30, 2012 at 9:33 pm

  4. W.J. McCabe said, on October 30, 2012 at 5:37 pm

    A coherent explanation about why the administration’s response was so muddled would very much be appreciated, and there are a lot of unanswered questions. The Republicans are wrong for leaking sensitive information about the incident. The Administration is wrong for any attempt to cover it up, because if that is what it tried to do I would love to know how they thought they would get away with covering up a terrorist attack.

    • biomass2 said, on October 30, 2012 at 6:35 pm

      “The Administration is wrong for any attempt to cover it up, because if that is what it tried to do. . .”

      Why don’t you just write that “The administration is wrong for any attempt to cover it up”. In the way you state it above, there’s no “if” in your position—only in your word choice. You’re saying the Administration ^is^ covering up—no “ifs” about it. No need to write “because if that is what they tried to do. . .”

  5. magus71 said, on October 30, 2012 at 9:38 pm

    read all of TJ’s posts, Mike. There were several obvious lies here. Not to mention the incredibly bad decision not to help the Americans in the first place.

    “Watergate does not bother me…does your conscience bother you?–tell the truth.”~Sweet Home Alabama, Leonard Skynard.

    • biomass2 said, on October 30, 2012 at 10:23 pm

      magus: I read his 10/30 8:56pm. If you’re offering that up as an example of “obvious lies”, it falls short . I’ve generally skipped his videos since he provided that strangely edited video about Muslims in Britain. What a chop-job that was. If TJ wants to provide the time frames for relevant segments, I may give them some consideration, but the odds are against that.
      I will watch a funny vid. . . like a cat crawling into a drain pipe and coming out the other side covered in crud.

      • T. J. Babson said, on October 30, 2012 at 10:32 pm

        The vids are nice because the lies become obvious.

        • biomass2 said, on October 30, 2012 at 10:53 pm

          TJ: All I can do here is repeat what I just wrote. As with the British Islamist vid? Negative generalizations in a voice over about British Muslims as a street scene shows Muslims, all walking calmly down the street away from the camera. What better way to damn all or most Muslims in Britain while pretending to concentrate only on the ‘bad guys’. Continue with your vids, but, unless you want to identify what you feel to be the relevant time segments for me, I probably won’t watch them. Even then, don’t hold your breath .

          • T. J. Babson said, on October 30, 2012 at 11:17 pm

            Watch…don’t watch…all the same to me. You belong to the Obama tribe, so you are impervious to evidence.

            • biomass2 said, on October 31, 2012 at 8:56 am

              TJ, I’m impervious to your vids and your long, long, loooong quotations that are too often taken from politically questionable*# sources (That’s not evidence.).

              *#Of course I do have to admit that too, too many sources out there can be judged “politically questionable”. “biased” or simply shamelessly ideological. . . reasons I read them with a very critical mind. Give me more material that’s heavily sourced. And by that I don’t mean individual, unnamed sources who are providing their own opinionated, unsubstantiated observations.

  6. WTP said, on October 31, 2012 at 12:04 am

    Maybe Tyrone Woods’ father is a liar…

  7. magus71 said, on May 2, 2014 at 11:37 am

    Mike, are you still hand-waving this one away? Or is the Donald Sterling episode distracting you? What would you like to see happen if it’s shown that the President and Hillary Clinton lies and tried to cover up the reality of Benghazi? Don’t you like how the administration used the great scapegoat “American Intelligence” to try to get out of this? Then they had the maker of the film arrested..that’s pretty bad, Mike.

    • Michael LaBossiere said, on May 2, 2014 at 1:13 pm

      I’m still waiting for actual evidence that they lied and tried to cover it up. When that is available, let me know.

      • magus71 said, on May 4, 2014 at 12:12 am

        You must have seen the news:

        “Emails Show Susan Rice Prepped To Lie By White House: Newly obtained emails on Benghazi show then-U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice was coached by a key White House aide to lie and ignore the facts known and reported on the ground to make the administration look good.”


        The emails were originally provided to Congress during the initial investigation, but the portions telling Rice to spin the story about the video were redacted. Then Susan Rice and Clinton testified that US intelligence told the administration that this was a protest over the video. The former head of the CIA testified the other day that intelligence never lead anyone to believe that this was anything other than an organized terrorist attack on the embassy.

        All of this was because the dumb idea to bomb the Libyan government into oblivion and not have troops on the ground to control what would happen afterwards. The administration panicked and tried cover the fact that Libya is now an international safe haven that it created, and that contributed to US statesmen and national shame.

        Jay Carney keeps having to backtrack and make things up because the Whitehouse keeps trotting him out there to take the heat for the people who were really responsible.

      • magus71 said, on May 4, 2014 at 12:15 am

      • magus71 said, on May 4, 2014 at 12:23 am

        The memo to Rice said: “Underscore that these protests were rooted in an internet video and not a broader failure of policy”.

        The Whitehoues knew this had nothing to do with the video.

        • T. J. Babson said, on May 4, 2014 at 9:19 am

          They also deliberately withheld information from Congress.

          Magus, you really trust these guys to run the NSA with integrity?

          • magus71 said, on May 4, 2014 at 9:44 am

            No. Which is why I advised Americans not to vote for Obama. Instead, they did it twice. My criticisms of this administration are well known. In the case of Benghazi, we see the reflex of amateurs worried about the upcoming elections. I think this president has lied many times; there are still questions to me about his background. I still believe he has deep Marxist sentiments that he got from Frank Marshall Davis. In the case of the NSA, the black helicopter crowd ruined the atmosphere of legitimate complaint. In the cases that the NSA broke the rules, it was the agency itself that recorded and reported the violations (like the ones of the employees listening to ex-lovers calls etc).

            For me,, two major factors rule my decision:

            1) Metadata collection does not bother my conscience
            2) The courts have ruled it legal

            The main argument against NSA I think is when they ordered (again, legally) that private companies not reveal to clients that they were cooperating with NSA.

            • T. J. Babson said, on May 4, 2014 at 10:09 am

              Magus, do you think Obama sees the NSA as a way to protect us or as a way to keep us in line?

            • magus71 said, on May 4, 2014 at 10:25 am

              I think he may see it as both. The first report that Homeland Security produces was on the dangers of American right wing extremists. They deemed military veterans to be more dangerous than al-Qaeda. I myself have been personally mocked by Obama, as i cling to my guns and religion.

              The best way that we could have fixed our lot was to vote for a president that thinks differently. But I have less faith in the American people than you do, so I suppose in that regard I”m like Obama. Mass immigration has all but guaranteed repeated Democrat presidential elections and the decline of America.

              Our problems are much, much deeper than the NSA. Our problem is that we are a democracy and we are voting for our own doom. Which is pretty much the story of democracy. Enjoy it while it lasts.

            • T. J. Babson said, on May 4, 2014 at 10:25 am

              Magus, do you agree that Obama has been much more hostile to Tea Partiers and other domestic critics than he has than to our real adversaries such as Putin?

            • magus71 said, on May 4, 2014 at 10:30 am

              Oh, absolutely. From day one he’s seen America as a threat to the world. I think he’s the worst president we’ve ever had. Mike hand-waves the failures away, because Obama hasn’t (yet) made the country a smoking crater. But as Nixon said, it would take a genius to destroy the American economy.

              Like Peter Hitchens (Christopher Hitchens brother) says about Britain, I don’t write or talk about these things in hopes of changing them; I just want America to have a proper obituary. Many China will learn from us.

            • WTP said, on May 4, 2014 at 11:14 am

              He’s referred to his domestic political opposition as “our enemies…”, can you imagine him referring to Putin, Castro, Iran, Venezuela, or even the Norks in that manner? One (Mike as one) might argue that seizing on such a (presumed) misspeak is unfair. I seriously doubt a much less visible a misspeak by people on the right would be dismissed as easily. He’s the President of the United States. One invested with such honor and power should be conscious of this at all times, let alone when speaking publicly. Extemporaneously or telepromptarrily, as the case may be.

            • WTP said, on May 4, 2014 at 11:17 am

              It is interesting to see the difference between the reactions to these incidents in terms of the political leanings of those reacting

              From Mike above. Anyone put off by this? See any irony or hypocrisy here?

  8. magus71 said, on May 4, 2014 at 10:40 am

    TJ, Remember how big a deal Scooter Libby was? He was sentenced to 20 years in prison, I believe.Democrats are saying that the Republicans are just trying to score political points with Benghazi and maybe they are. But the Dems went after Libby for much much less and with just as much fervor.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: