HELP: Need Assistance Debunking "Obama Watched Libya and Did Nothing" Yarn

[theinquisitivechad]

I'm not trolling or flamebait, feel free to deem me as such, as long as you can help me debunk this one I don't care!

This is really hot on FB now and I'm not sure of all the facts. A friend posted this link with accompanying commentary to say that Obama watched Benghazi unfold and did nothing: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/explosive-benghazi-allegation-cia-told-to-stand-down-during-attack-3-urgent-requests-for-military-back-up-were-denied/

Can you all help me come up with a cogent argument here? My brain is fried from political warfare on so many fronts.

[krawhitham]

1. your concern is noted

[rbrnmw]

15. ditto that^

[BenzoDia]

2. Honestly, you can't win a debate with anyone so partisan and idiotic. Best to use your

time elsewhere.

[Lucinda]

3. Here ya go - Start with Snopes:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/benghazi.asp
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/10/benghazi-libya-state-emails

[theinquisitivechad]

8. Thank you! n/t

[womanofthehills]

4. Post this article from Mother Jones

I had the same problem on Facebook so I posted the Mother Jones article:

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/10/benghazi-libya-state-emails

GOP's Benghazi Smoking Gun Goes Up in Smoke

[theinquisitivechad]

12. AWESOME ty. n/t

[2pooped2pop]

5. I wouldn't even try to argue it with them.

It's a really weak case and all they can come up with. Let them run with it. They are a joke.

[liberalmuse]

6. Fuck these ignoramuses.

Let them stew in their lies and drown in their disinformation. They aren't worth the effort. NOTHING you would tell them - most especially the facts, would do any good. Pearls before swine and all that. Again, Fuck. Them.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

7. Nice way to link to theblaze.com

As right-wing blithering crazy as it comes.

[nichomachus]

9. Just ignore it

[still_one]

10. I would not waste my time if I were you. They will not believe

The facts. Anyone who believes the president intentionally allowed this to happen is so bias they cannot see straight

Ask them this, do they believe abortion should be allows for rape and incest?

Do they believe gm should have not had a government help?

Do they believe insurance should not cover birth control pills

Do they believe a woman doing the same job as a man should be paid comparably

Do they believe social security and Medicare should be privatized

I could go on, but I suspect the answer would be a typical republican answer, and why would you waste your time

[theinquisitivechad]

11. Thanks to everyone who took me seriously!

Off to post a cogent response. . .

[Lucinda]

13. Good luck with it!

I've been doing the same.

[theinquisitivechad]

14. Thanks so much!

These little battles can actually work in our favor. I've already changed a few minds and I hope to continue right up until evening November 6. Have a great night!

[trumad]

16. Good

Now that you have the answer...delete the Op.

[Lucinda]

17. The OP isn't the first one who has asked

It's good info to have

[theinquisitivechad]

18. Happy to do so, but before I do, may I ask you why?

Are you afraid that this is un-debunkable? The Snopes link does a really thorough job.

[trumad]

20. No---but Mother Jones blows it apart.

Right?

[theinquisitivechad]

21. I actually think the Snopes article gets more at the level of the detail that I was looking at

And speaks to who exactly was receiving the intelligence when - that it was a single State Department person listening to audio of Benghazi, not the Pres and Leon Panetta watching live. But the Mother Jones is helpful too.

I'm happy to delete this, but I also want other folks to have access to this information should they also need to use it.

[UTUSN]

19. I'm posting this in all the threads like this I see (about 1/2doz so far). Here:

Sunday, John Mc5PLANES (McCAIN who crashed about 5 planes) was whining that the requests for security were so known that the ambassador had "even" told HIM about it, so it stands to reason that Mc5PLANES did NOTHING!1

And the key meme of the day is: "Somebody told me this is as bad as Watergate, well, nobody DIED in Watergate."

I don't know why Mc5PLANES and GINGRICH are seen as desirable guests for media yakking.


Wingnuts are pinning their hopes on PETRAEUS, but PETRAEUS has Romnesia!1

Wingnut outlets are aflood with hopes that PETRAEUS is “throwing OBAMA under the bus” and that he says “It wasn’t me” (who supposedly denied requests for help.

Well, that wasn’t what he was saying when he sent early briefings to Congress critters or when he testified, and a Rethug critter says there was no daylight between what he and what the Administration were saying at the time.

But the backdrop for all of their faux outrage is: TeaBagger congress critters blocked funds for State security since 2010. RAYGUN cut and ran when 299 marines & other personnel were bombed in Beirut; should he have FORESEEN it or responded in kind within an HOUR?!1 Besides that he negotiated with and armed terrorists. The Cuban 1st generation Exiles/CIA-ers hated JFK/Dems for their claims for military air support. VFW bars were frequent scenes of ground combat vets griping against Air Force vets for generically/anecdotally not providing air support upon IMMEDIATE demands.


*************QUOTE**********

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57535773/cia-saw-possible-terror-ties-day-after-libya-hit-ap/

[font size=5]CIA saw possible terror ties day after Libya hit: AP (my/UTUSN edit:: “But...”)[/font]

AP/ October [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]19[/FONT], 2012, 5:18 AM

.... Such [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]raw[/FONT] intelligence reports by the CIA on the ground would normally be [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]sent first to[/FONT] analysts at the headquarters in [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]Langley[/FONT], Va., for vetting and comparing against other intelligence derived from eavesdropping drones and satellite images. [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]Only then[/FONT] would such intelligence generally be [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]shared with the White House and later, Congress[/FONT], a process that can take [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]hours, or days[/FONT] if the intelligence is coming only from one or two sources who may or may not be trusted.

U.S. intelligence officials say [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]in this case, the delay[/FONT] was due in part to the time it took to analyze various conflicting accounts. One official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to discuss the incident publicly, explained that it "was clear [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]a group of people gathered[/FONT] that evening" in Benghazi, but that [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]the early question was "whether extremists took over a crowd or they were the crowd."[/FONT] ....

[FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]"The early sense from the intelligence community differs from what we are hearing now[/FONT]," Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said. "It ended up being pretty [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]far afield[/FONT], so we want to figure out why ... though we don't want to deter the intelligence community from sharing their best first impressions" after such events in the future.

[FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]"The intelligence briefings we got a week to 10 days after were consistent with what the administration was saying,"[/FONT] said Rep. William Thornberry, [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]R[/FONT]-Texas, a member of the House Intelligence and Armed Services committees. Thornberry would not confirm the existence of the early CIA report but voiced skepticism over [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]how sure[/FONT] intelligence officials, including CIA Director David [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]Petraeus, seemed of their original account[/FONT] when they briefed lawmakers on Capitol Hill. ....

Two officials who witnessed Petraeus' closed-door testimony to lawmakers in the week after the attack said that during questioning he acknowledged that there were some intelligence analysts who disagreed with the conclusion that an unruly mob angry over the video had initiated the violence. But those officials said [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]Petraeus[/FONT] did not mention the CIA's early eyewitness reports. He did [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]warn legislators that the account could change as more intelligence was uncovered[/FONT], they said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the hearing was closed. ....

********UNQUOTE*******

[LaydeeBug]

23. I love you for this. Really. LOVE. YOU. for this. bookmarked. nt

[UTUSN]

24. OMZ!1 Well, I love you back, as our President says!1 n/t

[TheSlayer]

22. Pointless

I 100% believe you to be sincere. ...and I still think it is pointless. The right wing has gone totally wackadoo loony...totally. Facts mean less than nothing, to them. They simply hate MY President and most of them because he is Black. ...or is it anti-Christ or is it Muslim or is it Kenyan or is it metrosexual or is it that fake birth certificate or is it...

Why argue with people like that? Their minds are completely made up. Think of the stuff they said about Obama and Osama. They dissed President Obama, totally, said he could take no credit....even though the actual HEAD of the SEAL team that made the deadly raid, praised Obama.

Obama is a Black man with a Muslim sounding name and he is a Centrist Democrat. He is married to the same woman he has always been married to and he has two sweet daughters. He is a Christian.... He is elegant and well-spoken. He is well educated and Ivy League. He is everything they already find threatening and then add the Black in and....BLIND HATE.

They do not want to hear anything contrary. They don't HEAR anything contrary. Give it up....

[Anita Win]

25. Awesome post. Thanks!

[TheSlayer]

26. Thanks! n/t

[Anita Win]

28. This may be a stupid question but what does n/t mean?

[TheSlayer]

30. n/t

...means no text in the body of the message. : >

[theinquisitivechad]

27. Thanks for your input.

I understand that some people think I am 'trolling' and posting negative information just to post it, even though that is not the case (although I understand why they think this and I have hardened my heart many a time to posts I have thought were 'concern' posts).

Because you believe me to be sincere I would like your opinion on this. . .should I delete the post? I am happy to do so if someone who believes me to be coming from a good place thinks I should do so. I am new to this community and I don't really know what the protocol is for those posts that are asking for debunking information.

[TheSlayer]

31. Your Call

I am newer to the community than you are so I'm not really the one to ask. If it was my decision I would leave it. There is still some good info in the thread. : >

[LTR]

29. Those people are just creating their own mockrage

1. Couldn't he find a better source than The Blaze, which is Glen Beck's site, or does he really believe all the bullshit he hears from AM radio disc jockeys? Is he really that gullible? Tell him to quit crying like a bitch and come back with a REAL news source. Can you tell I'm not afraid to get my hands dirty with these fools?

2. If he and the other lemmings can blame Obama for Benghazi, does that mean we can blame Bush for incompetence on 9/11?

3. Many embassies and consulates were attacked during the Bush Administration, and many people died. Someone posted a list on DU earlier, but I don't have a link at my disposal.

4. When people ask me for sources, I try to seek out non-partisan ones, if possible. Daily Kos, Think Progress, etc. are excellent, but they'll call you out on it. Conservative sources are even better. I really blow minds when I use the Christian Science Monitor, which, despite it's name, is pretty neutral and has some excellent writing and reporting.