The Battling Boys of Benghazi

Posted Monday, February 4, 2013, at 1:46 PM
View 23 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • How do you conclude that Obama "didn't give a ****?" I don't think that's even close to true.

    -- Posted by Benevolus on Mon, Feb 4, 2013, at 2:28 PM
  • Benevolus, I didn't write the line, but, consider Obama's 'Bump in the road' comment, and draw your own conclusions, if any are needed to be concluded. It seems the author chose to conclude something to the extent he/she wrote.

    -- Posted by Navyblue on Mon, Feb 4, 2013, at 3:32 PM
  • Sorry, Navy, I didn't see that you were swiping this from another source. Nonetheless, can I assume that the reason you posted this is because you agree with the author's rational?

    If so, here is an alternative perspective: the point Obama was making is true, bringing democracy to middle-eastern countries is not going to be easy, and it's certain that brave Americans committed to this cause will be in harm's way, and inevitably, some will make the ultimate sacrifice.

    Hopefully we can agree that poor word choice doesn't necessarily mean that a person "doesn't give a ****". Because by this logic, anyone who has ever had a slip of the tongue must not care about the matter they are discussing, and that would mean our previous president didn't care about anything at all.

    -- Posted by Benevolus on Mon, Feb 4, 2013, at 7:53 PM
  • I appreciate your response, Benevolus. I was hoping you had just missed that I had not authored the poem. As for agreeing, you may to some extent, in that, I know what it is like to be in hostile circumstances, and having assistance delayed or rejected, for what-ever logic, usually political. What caused me to offer this, is that the chronology, as far as I can discern from news articles, and reports, is very very close to what happened. The Seals fought for, I believe it was, three or four hours, before the hundreds attacking, could finally kill them with mortar rounds (I surmise that the attackers, having lost over sixty trained men, to two Embassy 'workers' proved too much for them to be brave enough to continue attacking). I presume the attackers did not know they were ex-Navy Seals, or they just might have gone back home and forgotten about trying to kill them,,,,,I don't know. I do know that the words: 'Navy Seals' does put a streak of fear up the back of all potential adversaries. but I blather. Presumption is not good, except in gossip.

    I heard Obama's statement, about the loss being a 'bump in the road,' and the inflection I heard was far too cool and measured, to be anything much more than apathetic. That is an opinion, based on Military experience, Government experience, and Christian beliefs. Am I wrong? possibly, but I have a twinge of concern, and that is something no Military man ever wants to hear said by his/her superior, even the President (especially the President) of the United States. Only they that have been in hostile situations, with bullets/shells flying by and over (hopefully never through), can truly comprehend, so I don't challenge people about that, I just presume they haven't, or do not wish to discuss that traumatic adventure. (That may well be what got the Navy Seal murdered the other day, while he was trying to help a couple of men with what we used to call Battlefield fatigue. Combatants, never come home the same person that went to the fight.

    Don't worry about a slip of the tongue. How many times have you seen me apologize for one or more? Ha.

    Oh, FWIIW, The two Navy Seals were not there to be security for the mission. They were there representing another Agency of the Government, doing something else, as I understand. What they did, by going the mile over to help, was more a patriotic, reflex of their personality and training. They didn't have any responsibility to do what they did .... as I heard from a number of sources.

    -- Posted by Navyblue on Mon, Feb 4, 2013, at 8:33 PM
  • Wait a minute Navy, I just read the transcript of that exchange. The questions and responses preceding the reply you are worried about had nothing to with Benghazi. Neither did the question he directly replied to:

    Kroft: "Have the events that took place in the Middle East, the recent events in the Middle East given you any pause about your support for the governments that have come to power following the Arab Spring?"

    Obama: "Well, I'd said even at the time that this is going to be a rocky path. The question presumes that somehow we could have stopped this wave of change.

    I think it was absolutely the right thing for us to do to align ourselves with democracy, universal rights -- a notion that people have to be able to participate in their own governance.

    But I was pretty certain and continue to be pretty certain that there are going to be bumps in the road because, you know, in a lot of these places, the one organizing principle has been Islam."

    It isn't clear that anyone is even referring to Benghazi; it seems as though he is talking about the Arab Spring and US support of democracy in the Middle East more generally.

    The evidence is pretty underwhelming here I'm afraid. I wonder what it really is about Obama that causes many folks to jump to the conclusion that Obama "doesn't give a ****" about troops based on the comments above.

    -- Posted by Benevolus on Mon, Feb 4, 2013, at 11:09 PM
  • Benevolus, It pains me that you feel I was "swiping" the article, when I stated that the 'author is unknown,' and then your presumption of some sort of guilt must be associated with anyone in agreement with the unknown authors words; but I've already addressed that.

    The interview, I recollect, was primarily about Benghazi, and Obamas response addressed that, with amplification that included the generalities of the Middle East. Your assumption of intent in the Obama's words are your, mine are mine. We, each, have the right to understand Obama's words as we understand those words in the context offered.

    This clip, from FOX Nation interview:

    You cited transcript, I offer recorded words. If you see Obama's words separating the specific with the general comment, so be it, but please don't go righteous and demand I must believe as you; that's not very Constitutional of you.

    I offered another persons poem, for consideration, nothing more. Please do that. You have the right to your opinion, as do I.

    -- Posted by Navyblue on Tue, Feb 5, 2013, at 8:44 AM
  • You should go back and watch that interview that you posted Arley. No mention of Benghazi at all.

    -- Posted by CoolStoryBro on Tue, Feb 5, 2013, at 9:55 AM
  • CSB, Sorry, that is a ""Clip"" from the 60 Minutes 'interview,' that was primarily about the Benghazi incident, as I stated, above, with: "The interview, I recollect, was primarily ..." Please also note, I did not use the term 'Benghazi,' until after Benevolus introduced it into our dialogue.

    But, then, I am defending my words, and the article from what I feel is wild accusational diatribe, so I close my side of the conversation. You may rant all you like, and perhaps someone else may join in.

    If you desire perfection in conversation, please do so with yourselves, or God, whichever is your choice (only one of the choices actually is 'Perfection' though).

    -- Posted by Navyblue on Tue, Feb 5, 2013, at 10:32 AM
  • Arley,

    "Swiping" was meant playfully, I saw that you pointed out that it wasn't your own. Don't overreact.

    Also, you simply don't know what you are talking about with respect to the interview. That comment had nothing to do with Benghazi. The question that got the response you are mis-characterizing was about the Arab Spring in general. It is clear whether you watch the interview or read the transcript.

    What is it really about Obama that you dislike? There must be something causing you and folks like you to just make things up and jump to irrational conclusions, right? Just food for thought.

    -- Posted by Benevolus on Tue, Feb 5, 2013, at 1:59 PM
  • Of course POTUS didn't give a ****, nobody even knows where he was while an ambassador and bodyguards were being murdered. In fact there was no communication at all between the state department, the administration, and the defense department.

    -- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Fri, Feb 8, 2013, at 7:10 PM
  • I completely disagree.

    The majority of signs indicate that Obama cares very deeply about national security and the men and women who fight on our behalf. Likewise, he is doing a much better job than his predecessor in terms of reducing the capacities of the world's terrorist organizations while still garnering world support for our missions.

    -- Posted by Benevolus on Fri, Feb 8, 2013, at 7:18 PM
  • I completely disagree, Benghazi and the skyrocketing suicide rates for our soldiers prove it.

    -- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Sat, Feb 9, 2013, at 9:06 AM
  • If you believe that then you are fixed in your belief and unwilling to listen to reason, and so I will you undisturbed in the possession of your error.

    -- Posted by Benevolus on Sat, Feb 9, 2013, at 2:36 PM
  • Our soldier's needs are not met when thery come home. What could possibly be the reasoning behind that?

    Our true enemies are more emboldened to attack US interests abroad. What could possibly be the reasoning behind that?

    The demoralization of our combat forces that see this administrations version of the Department of Defense is to promote gay rights and women in combat over winning wars. What could possibly be the reasoning behind that?

    You are confusing "reason" with surrender of ideas. In my case, never.

    -- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Sat, Feb 9, 2013, at 6:47 PM
  • "Our soldier's needs are not met when thery come home. What could possibly be the reasoning behind that?"

    Republicans are to blame for this.

    "Our true enemies are more emboldened to attack US interests abroad."

    This is false. Our enemies are no more or less emboldened than they ever were. They are less capable now though, which is because of Obama.

    "The demoralization of our combat forces..."

    Source please? I have many friends that were or are in the military, I know quite a few of the ROTC folks around campus, my brother was a marine who fought in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and I don't know anyone among them who doesn't support women in combat roles. The fact is women already fight alongside men, and have been fighting for a long time. The reality is simply reflected in policy now. Nothing demoralizing about that.

    "You are confusing "reason" with surrender of ideas. In my case, never."

    That is because you are ideologue. When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, CPB?

    -- Posted by Benevolus on Sun, Feb 10, 2013, at 2:03 PM
  • I keep my mind open, critically studying research and opinions, carefully separating facts from BS. As is usually the case, the fact mesh with my world view.

    Ask your brother if he has seen a woman killed on the battle field. Ask him if he has seem what's left after an artillery does it's job. Bet it changes.

    The fact is, under this administration, our soldiers are in worse shape at home and abroad.

    -- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Sun, Feb 10, 2013, at 5:49 PM
  • In my experience most religious people are not open-minded, and they certainly do not adhere to facts or research, if they did they would cease to be religious.

    As is so often the case with you, your ideology has made you blind to reality.

    If your mind were open to facts and not closed by zealotry you would be shocked by the GOP actions linked above. Republicans, not Obama, have been ruinous for our troops both abroad and at home. From not being mission ready under Bush and Rumsfeld to the complete lack of support from Republicans in congress right now, the GOP has single-handedly put our soldiers in harms way abroad, and thwarted all attempts from Obama to help our troop once they are home.

    These are facts. Not the "BS" you claim as reality.

    -- Posted by Benevolus on Mon, Feb 11, 2013, at 12:25 AM
  • Benevolus, Shalom.

    Please read the article:

    with an open mind. I believe David says well, and further believe that both parties need adjust their logic, or this country is doomed to the trash heap.

    -- Posted by Navyblue on Mon, Feb 11, 2013, at 1:13 PM
  • "Moreover, three of the four Democrats who did make it to the White House -- Truman, Kennedy and Johnson -- were militant anti-Communists and military hawks, holding views indistinguishable from Republicans on national security."

    Arley, your article gets a few things right and a lot wrong.

    Obama is a hawk "holding views indistinguishable from Republicans" in almost every matter of war and national security. In fact, he has (much to liberal chagrin) doubled-down on almost all of the Bush era national security policies, and he is following the Bush era timelines from drawing down troops.

    "Democrats who were apoplectic over Bush's war in Iraq for its interventionist agendas and alleged unilateral approaches, were silent over Obama's unauthorized and disastrous interventions in the Middle East."

    Your article points this out but then the author unwittingly contradicts himself by lauding Republicans as bastions of national security while criticizing Obama for towing the Conservative line.

    Your author cannot have it both ways. He is defending and repudiating the same argument. Such stark contradictions are impossible to defend.

    Also, your conclusion that we are "doomed for the trash heap" is equally difficult to defend. Liberals said the same thing in Bush's second term...that we were doomed. It is a product of your guy not is not a product of reality.

    -- Posted by Benevolus on Mon, Feb 11, 2013, at 2:13 PM
  • Since I'm not religous, your assumption does not apply to me, or anyone I know. As far as soldiers being better off now, tell that to "the SHOOTER".

    -- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Mon, Feb 11, 2013, at 10:00 PM
  • Not quite, CPB.

    "GOP Senators who, on Friday, blocked a bi-partisan effort to pass a bill that would put veterans to work in jobs that look after the nation's federal land while also giving our fighting men and women a leg up when it comes to getting them hired by local police and fire departments."

    You don't have to look any further than "the shooter" to understand what Forbes (a right leaning publication) is talking about in the link above. The GOP has made it impossible to properly care for our returning vets. It's sad and when it comes to our troops, Obama has been hamstrung by the GOP who turned the party over to radical sectarians (read: Tea Party) for a fleeting moment of political capital.

    -- Posted by Benevolus on Tue, Feb 12, 2013, at 12:26 AM
  • Rick Ungar, the author of the above quote, describes himself as the token liberal of Forbes magazine. However, both Ungar and Benevolus fail to mention the bill was rejected because it is a duplicate of a veterans job bill already in a previously passed defense spending, except more costly.

    -- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Thu, Feb 14, 2013, at 4:52 PM
  • Benevolus, how am I supposed to think anything else but that Obama didn't "give a ****" when he called the two marines who gave their lives in defense of the United States of America "bumps in the road" ?

    -- Posted by Daveyboy on Tue, Jul 9, 2013, at 8:58 PM
Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration: