Search the Lounge


« Scenes from Lower Manhattan | Main | Balloting Behind (Jail) Bars »

November 01, 2012


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Doug Richmond

Or, perhaps, the President did order that everything possible be done, he was obeyed, and all that could be done was still inadequate. Or, perhaps by the time his orders could be carried out, it was too late. Or maybe the reported begging never reached the President's ears, or did not get there timely, perhaps because the people to whom the pleas were directed thought they could capably address them. Or perhaps his orders were timely issued and expediently implemented, and the performance of them by those with boots on the ground (so to speak) was inadequate. We should all mourn for Chris Stevens, who, by all accounts, was a superb diplomat and excellent person. But that does not mean that his death was the President's fault, or, for that matter, the fault of anyone except his killers.

Calvin Massey

Doug Richmond's comment raises many of the questions to which we are entitled to have answers.

Doug Richmond

The problem, of course, is that people like Mr. Goldberg do not want answers in the sense that those answers will improve government or diplomatic security or intelligence gathering or anything else remotely related to this tragedy--they simply want some reason to blame President Obama or his administration for something. They will find some reason to blame the President no matter the answers they get.


The problem, of course, is that people who condemned the absence of wmd in Iraq did not want answers in the sense that those answers could have improved government or security or intelligence gathering or anything else remotely related to that tragedy--they simply wanted some reason to blame the President or his administration for something. They would have found some reason to blame the President no matter the answers they got.
And now, we have the proof.

Doug Richmond

And your point is what, anon? That motives do not matter so long as an inquiry yields answers? Or is it that a quest for blame here is fair because some who called for investigations into the flawed intelligence regarding WMDs were searching for reasons to criticize the Bush administration? I do not think the tragedy in Benghazi and the run up to war in Iraq can be compared, but, in any event, I dislike all witch hunts, even if the hunters happen upon a witch.


I am thinking of the hoopla about the PDB: warnings, but no action! That was billed as negligence, at minimum. Do we see that same level of concern now?
I am thinking about the purported reliance on "intelligence" that led to incorrect representations by the former President and others. Do we see the same level of concern here?
You say you are even-handed. I confess I haven't researched your position on "flawed intelligence" being a legitimate excuse for misinformation fed to the public. I haven't researched your posts on the meaning of the PDB that preceded our national horror. Accordingly, I can't validate your claim to be even-handed. Your post above is not very good evidence of your tolerence of legitimate questions, however.
You vilify "Mr. Goldberg"'s motives and goals, without, I believe, a shred of evidence to refute his contention: a contention that you don't address. Instead, you attack Mr. Goldberg because he dared to ask a question.
Be that as it may be, you are correct, there is no comparison between Libya and Iraq. UN Resolutions and a vote by Congress preceded US action in Iraq (check Biden's and Hillary's positions on that action, BTW).
There is no witch hunt here. Our consulate was sacked and our personnel were slain. You don't think it matters whether warnings were ignored, assistance was rejected, and misstatements were made after the fact that falsely put blame for this on a You Tube video?
I would guess you would have been far less likely to come to this conclusion that inquiry is inappropriate had the former President been in office at teh time of these events.
That is my point.

Doug Richmond

A point you make only under the cloak of anonymity because you are a coward.


Name calling doesn't win an argument, Mr. Richmond. It is quite juvenile, actually. Calling me a coward doesn’t make your attacks on Goldberg or anyone else more meritorious.
You seem to have become quite vicious when challenged.
This sort of viciousness on this blog is the reason I post here "under the cloak of anonymity."
Those who are vicious are likely also to be vindictive.
What a shame that your last post reveals this. I would have thought better of you but for your inappropriate outburst.
Finally, Mr. Richmond, if the proprietors of this blog wish to forbid posting here anonymously, they may do so. Until they do, your vicious sniping is contrary to the rules of this blog. Your post should be removed with an admonishment to cease that sort of behavior in the future.


There are many legitimate questions about what happened in Bengazi.

It is unfortunate that some have chosen to use the death of the Americans as a political prop.

Mr. Romney's statement, issued just hours after the attack ("It's disgraceful that the Obama Administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.") immediately politicized the incident and made serious inquiry more difficult.


That statement, seized upon by the press and partisans, hasn't made the inquiry more difficult in any sense.
What has made the inquiry more difficult are the confusing and contradictory statements about the incident issued from official sources.
How could the statement that you cite have made more difficult answering all the questions about the whether warnings were ignored, assistance was rejected, and misstatements were made after the fact that falsely put blame for the incident on a You Tube video?
Only a partisan would seize on that statement as an excuse to ignore all these questions, because almost everyone concedes the questions to be legitimate.
Now, partisans are claiming the questions don't need to be answered because Romney is NOT making an issue of all this.
Go figure.

The comments to this entry are closed.


  • StatCounter
Blog powered by Typepad