What we know about events prior to Benghazi:

On January 22, 2002, an attack at the U.S. Consulate at Calcutta, 5 died.

On June 14, 2002, an attack at the U.S. Consulate at Karachi, Pakistan, 10 were killed.

On February 28, 2003, an attack on the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan 2 were killed.

On June 30, 2004, an attack on the U.S. Embassy in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, 2 were killed.

On December 6, 2006, an attack on the U.S. Compound in Saudi Arabia, 9 were killed.

On March 2, 2006, an attack at the U.S. Consulate at Karachi (the second time, least anyone think that Bush can learn from his mistakes), 2 were killed.

On September 12, 2006, an attack at the U.S. Embassy in Syria left 1 dead.

On March 18, 2008, an attack at the U.S. Embassy at Yemen, 2 dead.

On July 9, 2008, an attack at the U.S. Consulate in Istanbul left 6 killed.

On September 17, 2008, an attack on the U.S. Embassy at Yemen (again, the second one) left 16 killed.

And from conservatives and this board...? "Listen. You can hear the crickets."

Now when, after four years of no embassy attack, we have an embassy attack in Benghazi, in which four were killed.

"Snarl! Snap! Gnash! Gnash! Impeach Obama, remove him from office and throw him into Guantanamo!"

"Ooooh, wait! Before we stick him into Gitmo, can I just punch him in the face once really, really hard? Pretty please?"

Yeah, I saw that same page from CNN, Patrick. Of course consulates and embassies have always been high profile targets (duh!) But how many of these involved the actual US ambassador killed, along with three other Americans? Not to say that American lives are more valuable than others' from a human being stance--but from a political standpoint (U.S.) at least....they ARE. But the biggest, most egregious factor here is the cover-up and willful deception of the administration because this attack, these American deaths were highly inconvenient to their timing, politically. Why try to concoct some stupid story about a youtube video? I've not lost a child, but I cannot imagine the pain of the families that lost these men to have their memories insulted by not even being able to get straight facts (or even attempts thereto) into how their deaths occurred.

Unfortunately, our society has simply glossed this over as...it happened in the middle east and Americans are dying over there every day...what's the big deal?

And heaven forbid that the mainstream media ever touch a story that makes Obama look bad. They're not even covering this stuff (barely).

So. Do you intend to excuse your own personal hero because someone else dropped the ball in the past?

You have no idea what you're advocating. You're just taking another opportunity to vent hate - and, at that, you're venting at those who aren't likely to approve of those older incidents, either.

Nice going.

FWIW, While I find Patterico a trust-worthy and reliable commentator, I have never found Andrew Malcom and/or the IBD to be reliable sources of information.

It may be that Malcolm has finally spotted his wolf -- perhaps too late for his reputation.

So, if I say anything that even remotely resembling advocating fairness to the current administration, that means Obama is my personal hero?

Rad, I honestly don't know whether to laugh at you or feel sorry for you.

One incident overlooked might be "dropping the ball." Nine incidents over two presidential terms is not "dropping the ball." It's an established pattern that this is a fact of life. It's tragic, yes, but not unheard of. And above all, we don't fault the President. Now, all of a sudden with one embassy attack during Obama's term, well, let's conveniently change our standards, shall we?

Sorry, Beth. Your reply was quite polite, yet here I am giving all this attention to the boorish Radwaste.

But I wish to point out also, we've lost diplomats under Bush, as well. Permit me...

2002: Barbara Green, an embassy worker in Pakistan, killed by grenades thrown into a church in Islamabad. She was in the process of becoming a full-time embassy employee.

Laurence Foley, U.S. Agency for International Development officer, was killed by gunfire in Amman, Jordan.

2004: Edward Seitz, an agent with the State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security, killed when his trailer is struck by rocket-fire or a mortar shell on an American base, near the Baghdad Airport.

2006: David Foy, a facilities maintenance officer at the U.S. embassy in Karachi, Pakistan was killed by a suicide bomber outside the U.S. consulate. This was the night before Bush visited the nation.

2008: American diplomat and humanitarian aid official, John Granville, shot to death in his car in Khartoum, Sudan.

American lives, and diplomats to boot. As I pointed out to Radwaste, this is not "dropping the ball." It's a pattern of seeing these events as tragic and outrageous, but certainly not worthy of blaming the administration. Now, when the Democrat is in office, we're ready to start impeachment proceedings.

Amy, I would say that Jerry's comment doesn't necessarily find this person to be "unreliable." I read it as him saying that this person never tripped his "reliable" switch.

Which of course merely changes the question, "What about Patterico do you find so reliable?"

Rice is an embarrassment. Could this administration not find any other woman of color to do this job?
And if an Ambassador had been killed during the Bush 43 years because the State Dept refused to send military aid, he would have been tarred and feathered.

Here's the media matters page on Malcolm:

http://mediamatters.org/tags/andrew-malcolm

I disagree with many things media matters writes about, but if you go through this page and only find 5% of it reliable, well, it goes along way to justifying doubts about Andrew Malcolm.

Then there's IBD. IBD does not have a reputation for accuracy and does have a reputation for peddling debunked investment strategies and conspiracy theories. Perhaps their most famous gaffe was when they wrote an editorial opposing Obamacare saying Stephen Hawking "wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the [British] National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless" Hawking of course, was born in and lives in the UK.

Thank you Patrick for your position, but to clarify, while I would not say Malcolm cannot be trusted at all, I would say, that I've read enough about him that he triggers, nay pegs, my bogosimeter.

Patterico on the other hand, I may disagree with, but I've seen enough evidence (and testimonials from his "opponents") to first assume he is a reliable reporter.

So now it's OK. It's an "established pattern". Ask Patrick.

Diplomats have been killed in the past, and will be killed in the future. What horrifies here is that the government left them to die without even attempting a rescue. It is as if the first responders in Boston had decided there might have been more bombs and had been ordered to show up the next day.

Patrick...the heat is not on the current administration because of the attack....which would be bad enough by itself if all the facts point to incompentence, which they surely seem to. It is the cover-up, the lies, the muzzling of people who spoke up b/c it would make the administration look bad...THAT's the heart of the issue here. IMHO.

I believe that diplomats of all levels have to be aware of the inherent danger of their positions--they'd be fairly naive not to.

Embassies being attacked and Americans dying= tragic, but maybe not necessarily POTUS' fault.

Embassies being attacked and Americans dying when it could have been prevented= much worse, shows incompetence and poor leadership.

Embassies being attacked and Americans dying when it could have been prevented and piling on false and misleading information to the public and the families simply to save political hide= absolutely unacceptable.

Rad, you already know what's wrong with your position. It's not just "getting" pathetic with you. It's "gotten" pathetic.

I never said that incidents like this are okay, as long as it's an "established pattern." I believe I described them in terms like "tragic." Does "tragic" sound like a synonym for "OK" to you? (As opposed to you, when you think nine incidents over two presidential terms is merely "dropping the ball.")

I am saying that the previous administration had incidents like this, but somehow, it never warranted an investigation of the administration. But now all of a sudden, with a new president who manages to go four years without incident (which was longer than Bush ever managed), we suddenly decide we're outraged?

I don't think the problem here is any feeling I have toward Obama. It's yours. Your obsessive hatred of Obama allows you to gloss over every fuck up Bush ever committed, but let Obama do the same thing, and you're boiling the oil.

But, you know, you already know that.

How many people in the attacks on Patrick's list were employees of the embassy? How many were under protection of the embassy guards (and not simply passing by)?

Were the attacks in the list concerted attacks or mob scenes outside the embassy (angry mob demonstrates outside and assaults passersby while the staff inside the embassy is safe)?

How many were bomb attacks in which any one on the street at the time of the explosion was injured or killed?

What stands out about the Benghazi attacks was that the ambassador was in a building that was known to the State Department to be unsafe and indefensible (sent there with an insufficient security detail on a date that was significant to that part of the world), assistance from outside was deliberately withheld, and afterward the incident was incompetently covered up.

According to earlier statements by Leon Panetta, Obama was informed of a serious attack on a US consulate (with the ambassador in the consulate) early in the evening and did not ask or express concern about it again that night.

No pictures of a concerned and involved president monitoring the crisis in the Situation Room are emerging from this fiasco.

No pictures of a concerned and involved president monitoring the crisis in the Situation Room are emerging from this fiasco
Neither were the bushmen involved before the planes flew into the towers, although they were warned. Just saying. Six of one, half dozen of the other. I think representative democracy is at a crisis. Over the last 50 years, only JFK, Reagan and Clinton knew how to communicate and had some economic ideas. The rest were just populists, handing out money.

Now when, after four years of no embassy attack, we have an embassy attack in Benghazi, in which four were killed.

Four American citizens. One of which was the Ambassador. You posted a long list of attacks on US embassies. I have questions:

How many of the dead were attackers?
How many of the dead were local law enforcement tasked with protection of the embassy?
How many of the dead were locals who were collateral damage?
How many of the dead were US citizens?

It's one thing when a truck bomb, a targeted assassination, or a botched kidnapping takes place, it's another thing when you're engaged in an hours-long firefight. Especially if the President is having a regularly scheduled meeting with SECDEF and they're informed of the attack in progress during that meeting.

"What assets do we have in the region, and how quickly can we get them there?" is the right question for the CINC to ask.

Apparently when that 3am call came at 5 in the afternoon, everyone let it go to voice mail...surely their lying to the American public should raise some eyebrows?

Neither were the bushmen involved before the planes flew into the towers, although they were warned.

And no hijackers had flown aircraft into a building on purpose prior to that day. Remind me again, what had been the standard operating procedure with a hijack? wait for them to issue demands, and start negotiations.

Unless you want to make the claim that the knew what the end game was. In which case, I'll call you a Truther and laugh at the notion that the US Government can be so thoroughly effective at pulling off a conspiracy that intricate without it leaking out.

Because the only thing this government is truely effective at is wasting money and fucking things up.

The Eric Boehlert piece on Malcolm is pretty damning in my eyes, and this piece of Malcolm's is so off the chart that it tries to convince people two weeks after Osama's death that Obama's decision to withhold Osama's photos was due to a) Obama selling out the American people and being beholden to foreign interests, and b) a lesson he draws from being a corrupt Chicago Democrat.

"http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/05/osama-bin-laden-lives-no-death-photo.html"

You write

"I am somehow able to post things from people I disagree with on some matters because I don't disagree with them (and even find them wise and accurate) on other matters."

And in fact you may be a better person than I on these issues, but once I've read enough crap from someone, then I don't care anymore that a stopped clock is right twice a day, they are forever a tainted, partisan, lying, dimwitted boob that will not get my endorsement in any form. And yeah, I am still annoyed you once, just once, posted in agreement with Amanda Marcotte.

In general, with sources like Malcolm (or Marcotte), I find very little they say that is so unique you have to quote them directly. Most of the time, they are cribbing their notes (for what are they if not hacks just spouting the party line) from someone else more interesting and intellectually honest.

In this case, as I said, I have no problem and even look forward to Patterico's take. His takedown of the LA Times over the years has been authoritative, enlightening, and damning.

But Malcolm, eager to press birtherism and conspiracy theories and slam the President over Osama's death wasn't producing anything of value then, and unless I see great evidence, I see no reason to even pick up his column now -- I don't have a bird cage that needs lining.

I'm sorry, after many repeated examples of hack journalism and extreme partisanship he wrote himself out of the conversation as far as I am concerned.

(And it certainly doesn't help his case that he writes for a nutbag IBD.)

Unless you want to make the claim that the knew what the end game was.
Not at all. I do feel that the current and previous administration is very callous, and treat the people like subjects or minions.

Conan, I think you'll find the answers to most of your questions here.

Conan, I think you'll find the answers to most of your questions here. -- Patrick at May 9, 2013 7:11 PM

Now here are some questions that you haven't really answered:

• How many of the concerted attacks on embassies have succeeded in causing deaths beyond the security teams?
• How many of the attacks have been blamed on a stupid video on YouTube?
• How many of the embassies or consulates asked for additional security ahead of time?
• While an embassy -- how many times did you hear about Bush ordering a stand down of additional troops or additional USAF support to not at least fly CAP?
• How many ambassadors have died under Bush?

An ambassador under internationally recognized standards (if not international law) is considered to be speaking for the leader of a country.

If an Estonian ambassador were to say to the president "We will not restrict your broadcasts of television to the Estonian republic." that is considered to be the word of the Estonian president.

If a U.S. ambassador were to say "We will not supply weapons to Syria." that statement is considered to be President Obama saying it.

Or in other words that wrath of "god" should have rained down on somebody, because they effectively killed Obama. It didn't happen. That means negligence, malfeasance or ignorance.

Pick one.

The majority of victims in the incidents on Patrick's list are bystanders, local security forces, and local police - meaning embassy/consulate security was either not involved or did its job. The incidents involving American deaths (like the residential compound in Jeddah) were heavily covered by the news media (even Fox).

Those weren't "little Benghazis" as the article claims. One big difference is that Bush didn't send his Rice to effect a cover-up on the Sunday morning talk shows.

Benghazi involved a consulate that was known to be indefensible and inadequate security forces in a country that had recently undergone a civil war (in which the US was heavily involved), was still establishing a secure government, and had its former leader murdered in the streets by an angry mob (are the non-angry mobs?). All on a date with special significance for America-hating people in that part of the world.

Security should have been increased in any US facility in Libya, not reduced.

A US ambassador was specifically targeted and killed by an organization known to be hostile and known to be active in the area, but whose continued existence was an embarrassment to the president since it refuted his claims to having destroyed the organization.

So let me get this straight Patrick, you think it is unfair to highlight the fact that someone in the administration ordered the rescue team to stand down, that security recomendations were ignored, and that the White House and State Department actively LIED for months simply becasue embassies were attacked when Bush was in office?

Are you fucking insane?

"
So, if I say anything that even remotely resembling advocating fairness to the current administration, that means Obama is my personal hero?"

Lujlp,Patrick made his point. Maybe not in the way he intended.

Yeah Patrick, looks like people will say or misconstrue just about anything to support their guy.

Of course, I could be wrong. Patrick might not be showing support for the current administration as he claims. This just might be his way of slipping the shiv to GW again cause hate doesn't have a statute of limitations.

I dont see how I misconstrued his words causticf

Rereading I see my point wasn't clear, Lujlp. I agree with your comment. My issue was with Patrick's way of comparing the events.

William Buckley had an analogy for this type of comparison and once said "this is the equivalent of saying that the man who pushes an old lady into the path of a hurtling bus is not to be distinguished from the man who pushes an old lady out of the path of a hurtling bus: on the grounds that, after all, in both cases someone is pushing old ladies around."

Yes, Patrick's list was a series of attacks on Embassies but the circumstances of the attacks and the Bush administration's response to the public were entirely different than those of the current administration. Patrick is misconstruing the events to make a point which just happens to be his accusation against those talking about Benghazi as a coverup. So his overall point is valid but he is the one playing cat in the sandbox and trying to cover up the shit.

The death of an ambassador is, in international law, a recognized reason to go to war.

What stuns me is that none of the historians have pointed out, that this action is the most severe breach of international relations. It does not matter if the host nation was behind it, this goes right to the most basic foundations of international relations.

And for the President and the SOS to cover up/lie/mis-represent this whole incident is, to me, shocking.

Hey, but what do I know. I've only lived in 10 countries, and spent time in 3 war zones.