Shifting Reports on Libya Killings May Cost Obama
This is an article that talks of the different possibilities floating around the past couple of weeks about the killings in Benghazi, Libya. Initially the Obama Administration claimed that this attack was a spontaneous act that was a result of the derogatory video about the Profit Muhammad. However, more recently there is belief that the attacks may be linked to the Al Qaeda group as a terrorist attack, not simply a spontaneous attack. James R. Clapper Jr (an intelligence official of the nation) blatantly claimed on Friday that intelligence agencies "revised [their] initial assessment to reflect new information indicating that it was a deliberate and organized terrorist attack carried out by extremists." The question now that the Romney administration is touching on is the question of the accuracy of the nation's intelligence-gathering and if American personnel are receiving adequate protection. Romney has been critical of the White House administration's intelligence being scattered and has taken the recently-leaked accounts that there were around 230 requests of the officials in the embassy for higher protection that were not adequately answered. I am also questioning the efficiency of the Obama administration and the nation's intelligence agency. I recognize that the administration faced the difficulty of understanding the attacks and the motives behind them, yet it bothers me that it had been heavily enforcing the idea that the video insulting Islam was the cause of the killings, when this premise was simply disregarded a few weeks later.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Obama has always been strong in security and foreign policies. This question if the attack in Libya was spontaneous or a plan by Al Qaeda makes him look weak, not only as a candidate, but as our president. It is uncertain what really happen, but question in events allows the Romney campaign to gain ground in the categories of security and foreign policies because the Obama campaign looks very weak right now.
ReplyDeleteI find it hard to believe that with today's level of technology that it would take more than a few days to discover the motives of something as significant as the death of an ambassador. On the other hand, I question the leaked 230 accounts of ambassadors safety concerns. If these accounts documented something that was a present danger for the embassy, I find it hard to believe that any president could, in good conscience, wouldn't resolve the concern. This makes me believe Romney included minor safety concerns of ambassadors in his figure.
ReplyDeleteObama hasn't really been receiving a positive reputation. Now is crunch time for him. I feel like Obama hasn't really dedicated a lot of time into the fact that this was the 4th (I think) US Ambassador that's been killed in Libya. Someone needs to get his priorities straight and focus on foreign issues rather than Big Bird..
ReplyDeleteThere were 4 US personnel killed in the attack in Benghazi. This was not the "4th ambassador" killed in Libya.
DeleteYeah that's what I meant. I couldn't remember what the term was. My bad.
DeleteI am glad that this article was posted because I really don't know much about President Obama's or Governor Romney's views on foreign affairs and policy. I will anxiously wait to see their views in the next Presidential debate.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Sara that although Obama has always been strong in foreign policies and security, the questioning of the attack in Libya does make him look weak. As our president and with having such a strong stance on foreign policy, he should know what is going on in Libya.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Sara/Shannon that this poked a hole in Obama's usually strong record in foreign policies and security. I find it unsettling how much is unclear about this whole situation, but I think letting the dust settle before jumping to full-out accusations would be more appropriate. However, people should definitely be more skeptical of just how strong Obama's security team is.
ReplyDeleteI think that something like this is inherently confused and chaotic and no amount of technology can get into someone's head for their motive to kill someone. It is obviously not a good thing that the ambassador died, if only because he died. It is not good for Obama's campaign, but Obama still has a pretty good track record with foreign policy, and I'm sure the death of the ambassador will not be ignored.
ReplyDeleteAs much as we may be inclined to blame Obama for not doing enough to protect our ambassadors or trying to cover up this event, I think such a serious issue of terrorism is not the time to be politicizing or pointing fingers. Regardless of who will be president, such safety problems need to be addressed. And whether you're Democrat or Republican, if this is the reason you're questioning President Obama's record, you're doing it for the wrong reasons. Even if there were 230 warnings, it is unlikely that they would have made it all the way to the president's desk. I don't believe (at least not with the imformation currently available) that the President has guilt in this instance.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Ellie. We have no way of knowing why someone would want to kill another person. We will never be able to know why someone thought that killing someone was okay so instead of focusing on that I believe we should focus on how to prevent any future incidents. This incident should not be ignored but it should also not be the main focus of the presidential campaigns for either party.
ReplyDeleteI with Ian here. I've been told that Obama's foreign policies are good, but I know nothing about them. Even though the topic of foreign policy isn't all that important to me, it's good to know what candidates believe in and this will open up the opportunity for me to learn about them at the next debate.
ReplyDeleteObama's strength in foreign affairs and national security appears threatened by the attack on the ambassador, however the shifting and disorderly appearance of the reports carry very little weight to me on how this will effect his record, unless a consistent, accurate account can be published where he was actually to blame.
ReplyDeleteIt is difficult to determine who exactly was at fault in the investigation, and what factors contributed to the errors. However, as Benjamin J. Rhodes, a deputy national security adviser, stated in the article, the great desire for information by the public prompted the Obama Administration to release information as soon as it was attained. The reports immediately released were the latest updates on the ongoing search for answers in the Middle East.
ReplyDeleteWhile Obama has more experience than Romney with international relations, I do believe the critiques on his response to the Libyan attacks will mildly hurt his campaign. However, it would be absurd to blame Obama for these attacks in any way shape or form. In the long run, I expect that Obama's track record, including his victory over Bin Laden, will make up for this weak area. National security is an issue voters care a lot about, but I would hope this one issue would not be the deciding factor in one's vote.
ReplyDeleteConsidering that Romney has been criticized for his lack of foreign policy experience, the Romney campaign must be jumping at this opportunity to point fingers at Obama. "Republicans have a accused Mr. Obama's aides of deliberately playing down the attack," yet I don't understand why a down play of the attack would be done in a positive way. I'd hope that Obama's aides would see that the negative impact of an inaccurate report would overpower the positive effect of down playing a terrorist attack.
ReplyDeleteFrom what I understand about this attack, it was a terrorist attack in the guise of riot. I don't quite know if that's right, but I can give at least a basic theory on the lack of detail on the attack.
ReplyDeleteThe U.S's intelligence network is incredibly large and stupidly complicated. Getting a lot of facts sorted out from a lot of sources takes time, so the conflicting reports would eventually arise.
If Obama had waited on releasing any kind of report, he would have looked as though he didn't know what had happened. Saying something, and then having to correct himself, was probably the best move he could have made politically.