PDA

View Full Version : Biden contradicts State Department on Benghazi security



Carol
10-14-2012, 11:46 AM
link (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021524754)

Predictable reaction from many DUers. "DON'T POST NEGATIVE NEWS ARTICLES ABOUT OBAMA even if they are true because ......well I guess it just doesn't fit their narrative of Obama being perfect......and it might show just how much of a failure he is and effect the election.


dkf (29,613 posts)

Biden contradicts State Department on Benghazi security

Vice President Joe Biden claimed that the administration wasn't aware of requests for more security in Libya before the Sept. 11 attacks on the U.S. mission in Benghazi during Thursday night's debate, contradicting two State Department officials and the former head of diplomatic security in Libya.

"We weren't told they wanted more security. We did not know they wanted more security there," Biden said.

In fact, two security officials who worked for the State Department in Libya at the time testified Thursday that they repeatedly requested more security and two State Department officials admitted they had denied those requests.

"All of us at post were in sync that we wanted these resources," the top regional security officer in Libya over the summer, Eric Nordstrom, testified. "In those conversations, I was specifically told ‘You cannot request an SST extension.' I determined I was told that because there would be too much political cost. We went ahead and requested it anyway."

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/10/11/biden_contradicts_state_department_on_benghazi_sec urit


DURHAM D (16,582 posts)

1. I appreciate your hard work in bringing negative Obama news to DU.

DemocratSinceBirth (44,069 posts)

3. dkf, may i please inquire who you intend to vote for in the upcoming presidential election.
dkf (29,613 posts)

10. I fully intend to vote for Obama.

And maybe the problem is that State wasn't keeping the Oval Office up to date. That would fall on Hillary.

CreekDog (33,469 posts)

18. you "intend"?

what kind of wordsmithing is that?

leveymg (23,701 posts)

4. Requests from officers in the field aren't always communicated to the White House.

Apparently, there had already been a policy decision made at Foggy Bottom to not treat Libya as a continuing high-risk post. Nordstrum may well have been told quite accurately that "there would be too much political cost" to such an action.

But, ultimately, the Ambassador gets as much protection as he requests, and Stevens was on-board with policy because he was personally deeply invested in making regime change in Libya a success.
So the security officers who worked in Libya and who requested additional security and protection were lying when they said that they requested it repeatedly and were denied?

Considering all the bragging Obama has done about the success of his foreign policy one would think that he would have requested information about security in a turmoil ridden area.


nadinbrzezinski (109,753 posts)

25. That is part of it

but the other, is that it is ok if Republicans do it.

There were TWELVE, yes, TWELVE embassy attacks during the Bush Administration. The OP, and Republicans will scream though the rooftops that Obama had to know (Embassy and Consulate security is way bellow the pay grade of any US President... it is an administrative decision also driven by the moneys authorized for such by the US Congress, which did not approve the requested budget for such), but when the same happened twelve times during the Bush administration, they were silent.

There is more DEMOCRATS did not spin it into a political football

So if they are going to hold hearings, I want to know why those REPUBLICAN Congresmen screaming the loudest, did not aprove the moneys requested by Officials in the State Department.


Of course they refuse to acknowledge that the problem isn't just that there was an embassy/consulate terrorist attack........it's that there WASN'T ADDEQUATE SECURITY...in fact there was almost NO SECURITY.

AND THEN THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION DENIED THAT IT WAS A TERRORIST ATTACK FOR ALMOST 2 WEEKS WHEN THE KNEW THAT IT WAS WITHING 24 HOURS.


theinquisitivechad (142 posts)

26. Was this really necessary?

Was the effort to post negative information worth it to you? Do you think it will help your candidate?

FarPoint (1,628 posts)

29. Pure flaimbait...

Negativity runs rampant..... There is history.....

Must go on Ignore list since alerting is futile.
Many of them ONLY go to liberal sites to get their "news", and then they claim that they really know what is going on in the world.

They NEVER have this kind of information on their site unless it is really getting into the mainstream media so that they cannot ignore it .......then they have to post it so they can whitewash it and/or claim it is a "lie".

SarasotaRepub
10-14-2012, 01:27 PM
Hardly shocking.

The DUmmies only want "facts". :rolleyes:

DarkHalo
10-14-2012, 08:26 PM
Things have gotten even more 'structured' at our reality based neighbors playground I see. I liked that inquisition over the word 'intend'. I don't dare post with my remaining account there even with it being over 6 years old now.

Jim54
10-15-2012, 03:18 PM
[Response to theinquisitivechad (Reply #27)
Sun Oct 14, 2012, 11:03 AM
FarPoint (1,649 posts)
29. Pure flaimbait...

Negativity runs rampant..... There is history.....

Must go on Ignore list since alerting is futile.


They were unsuccessful in getting the OP banned so they must now pretend that he/she does not exist. There can be no deviation from the party line.:nono:

JB
10-15-2012, 05:39 PM
Many of them ONLY go to liberal sites to get their "news", and then they claim that they really know what is going on in the world.

They NEVER have this kind of information on their site unless it is really getting into the mainstream media so that they cannot ignore it...That's the best part. Countless times we've seen their idiots claim they only get their news from DU...and yet they are somehow informed and enlightened, etc.

Must. Reject. Hearing. The. Truth. About. Stuff. I. Don't. Agree. With. :biggrin-new: