What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

U.S. Ambassador to Libya Killed in Rocket Attack (1 Viewer)

9/12/12

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.
but besides that.. what ####### difference does it matter what caused the attack and whether it is labelled as "terror"?
why are we ignoring paragraph 4 of that speech?
Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.
IMO this very clearly draws a link between the video and the attack. Obama seems to take a position with this speech that the attack was an act of terror resulting from an spontaneous, chaotic uprising as a direct result of the youtube video - not an orchestrated attack by an al-queda affiliated organization.

That's the problem here. Calling it an act of terror or not - big deal. I don't really car about that, because "act of terror" has a broad meaning. It doesn't really matter.

What matters is that they perpetuated a false perception weeks after the event instead of admitting the reality that this was a planned, coordinated, event. That's what this is all about.
I'm not understanding how all of you get to this. The administration was constantly saying it was under investigation, referencing the video as a possible cause, but also not shying away from calling it terror. They were not definitive on it for 2 weeks and they did mention the video a lot.So now emails come out which show the terror evidence. Yeah, those are pieces of information they received. An investigation has many pieces of information showing different things. They were slow to officially label it, I agree. There were a lot of things going on at the time, like anti-video demonstrations in 19 middle eastern cities most notably in Cairo which isn't that far from Benghazi.

But you take these emails and turn it into the White House concluded they were the absolute truth and then decided to cover it up. How do you reach that conclusion?

When you are following an investigation or watching a trial, do you consider everything or just latch on to one idea and go with that?
obviously, you consider everything. Why was the video angle even considered plausible? That was ridiculous on 9/12, and it is even more ridiculous with the benefit of hindsight. The attack had nothing to do with the video, and the fact that the video was ever mentioned, much less as the most likely cause of the attack, leads one to wonder what was going on.I still want to know how an intelligent person could look at the evidence, and come to the conclusion that the attack was the result of a demonstration about a video.
You haven't seen all of the evidence. You conclude there was a cover-up because you've seen this part of the evidence is "begging the question".The government labelled it a terror attack eventually. Do you think they did that without evidence? The fact there is evidence shouldn't surprise anyone. If there wasn't, then people would be screaming that the administration is making terrorists the scapegoat.

So it comes down to communication during the 2 weeks. Whether they hadn't concluded the cause, or did but were covering it up. I see no direct evidence of a coverup, and I don't see a motive for covering it up.

You could argue that it's worse if random demonstrators killed an Ambassador. I can see the outrage coming from the right.. "That clown Obama can't protect our diplomats from unorganized demonstrators?!?!"

 
9/12/12

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.
but besides that.. what ####### difference does it matter what caused the attack and whether it is labelled as "terror"?
why are we ignoring paragraph 4 of that speech?
Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.
IMO this very clearly draws a link between the video and the attack. Obama seems to take a position with this speech that the attack was an act of terror resulting from an spontaneous, chaotic uprising as a direct result of the youtube video - not an orchestrated attack by an al-queda affiliated organization.

That's the problem here. Calling it an act of terror or not - big deal. I don't really car about that, because "act of terror" has a broad meaning. It doesn't really matter.

What matters is that they perpetuated a false perception weeks after the event instead of admitting the reality that this was a planned, coordinated, event. That's what this is all about.
I'm not understanding how all of you get to this. The administration was constantly saying it was under investigation, referencing the video as a possible cause, but also not shying away from calling it terror. They were not definitive on it for 2 weeks and they did mention the video a lot.So now emails come out which show the terror evidence. Yeah, those are pieces of information they received. An investigation has many pieces of information showing different things. They were slow to officially label it, I agree. There were a lot of things going on at the time, like anti-video demonstrations in 19 middle eastern cities most notably in Cairo which isn't that far from Benghazi.

But you take these emails and turn it into the White House concluded they were the absolute truth and then decided to cover it up. How do you reach that conclusion?

When you are following an investigation or watching a trial, do you consider everything or just latch on to one idea and go with that?
obviously, you consider everything. Why was the video angle even considered plausible? That was ridiculous on 9/12, and it is even more ridiculous with the benefit of hindsight. The attack had nothing to do with the video, and the fact that the video was ever mentioned, much less as the most likely cause of the attack, leads one to wonder what was going on.I still want to know how an intelligent person could look at the evidence, and come to the conclusion that the attack was the result of a demonstration about a video.
You haven't seen all of the evidence. You conclude there was a cover-up because you've seen this part of the evidence is "begging the question".The government labelled it a terror attack eventually. Do you think they did that without evidence? The fact there is evidence shouldn't surprise anyone. If there wasn't, then people would be screaming that the administration is making terrorists the scapegoat.

So it comes down to communication during the 2 weeks. Whether they hadn't concluded the cause, or did but were covering it up. I see no direct evidence of a coverup, and I don't see a motive for covering it up.

You could argue that it's worse if random demonstrators killed an Ambassador. I can see the outrage coming from the right.. "That clown Obama can't protect our diplomats from unorganized demonstrators?!?!"
Maybe because you're ignoring it. :shrug:
 
9/12/12

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.
but besides that.. what ####### difference does it matter what caused the attack and whether it is labelled as "terror"?
why are we ignoring paragraph 4 of that speech?
Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.
IMO this very clearly draws a link between the video and the attack. Obama seems to take a position with this speech that the attack was an act of terror resulting from an spontaneous, chaotic uprising as a direct result of the youtube video - not an orchestrated attack by an al-queda affiliated organization.

That's the problem here. Calling it an act of terror or not - big deal. I don't really car about that, because "act of terror" has a broad meaning. It doesn't really matter.

What matters is that they perpetuated a false perception weeks after the event instead of admitting the reality that this was a planned, coordinated, event. That's what this is all about.
I'm not understanding how all of you get to this. The administration was constantly saying it was under investigation, referencing the video as a possible cause, but also not shying away from calling it terror. They were not definitive on it for 2 weeks and they did mention the video a lot.So now emails come out which show the terror evidence. Yeah, those are pieces of information they received. An investigation has many pieces of information showing different things. They were slow to officially label it, I agree. There were a lot of things going on at the time, like anti-video demonstrations in 19 middle eastern cities most notably in Cairo which isn't that far from Benghazi.

But you take these emails and turn it into the White House concluded they were the absolute truth and then decided to cover it up. How do you reach that conclusion?

When you are following an investigation or watching a trial, do you consider everything or just latch on to one idea and go with that?
obviously, you consider everything. Why was the video angle even considered plausible? That was ridiculous on 9/12, and it is even more ridiculous with the benefit of hindsight. The attack had nothing to do with the video, and the fact that the video was ever mentioned, much less as the most likely cause of the attack, leads one to wonder what was going on.I still want to know how an intelligent person could look at the evidence, and come to the conclusion that the attack was the result of a demonstration about a video.
You haven't seen all of the evidence. You conclude there was a cover-up because you've seen this part of the evidence is "begging the question".The government labelled it a terror attack eventually. Do you think they did that without evidence? The fact there is evidence shouldn't surprise anyone. If there wasn't, then people would be screaming that the administration is making terrorists the scapegoat.

So it comes down to communication during the 2 weeks. Whether they hadn't concluded the cause, or did but were covering it up. I see no direct evidence of a coverup, and I don't see a motive for covering it up.

You could argue that it's worse if random demonstrators killed an Ambassador. I can see the outrage coming from the right.. "That clown Obama can't protect our diplomats from unorganized demonstrators?!?!"
We've had three nationally televused debates and countless television appearances. They've had plenty of chances to clarify, but they've chosen to muddy.As for motive, the libyans warned the US three days ahead of the attack, but these warnings were not heeded. Wouldn't want something like that out so close to an election...better it be some random unforseeable happenstance...

 
9/12/12

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.
but besides that.. what ####### difference does it matter what caused the attack and whether it is labelled as "terror"?
why are we ignoring paragraph 4 of that speech?
Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.
IMO this very clearly draws a link between the video and the attack. Obama seems to take a position with this speech that the attack was an act of terror resulting from an spontaneous, chaotic uprising as a direct result of the youtube video - not an orchestrated attack by an al-queda affiliated organization.

That's the problem here. Calling it an act of terror or not - big deal. I don't really car about that, because "act of terror" has a broad meaning. It doesn't really matter.

What matters is that they perpetuated a false perception weeks after the event instead of admitting the reality that this was a planned, coordinated, event. That's what this is all about.
I'm not understanding how all of you get to this. The administration was constantly saying it was under investigation, referencing the video as a possible cause, but also not shying away from calling it terror. They were not definitive on it for 2 weeks and they did mention the video a lot.So now emails come out which show the terror evidence. Yeah, those are pieces of information they received. An investigation has many pieces of information showing different things. They were slow to officially label it, I agree. There were a lot of things going on at the time, like anti-video demonstrations in 19 middle eastern cities most notably in Cairo which isn't that far from Benghazi.

But you take these emails and turn it into the White House concluded they were the absolute truth and then decided to cover it up. How do you reach that conclusion?

When you are following an investigation or watching a trial, do you consider everything or just latch on to one idea and go with that?
obviously, you consider everything. Why was the video angle even considered plausible? That was ridiculous on 9/12, and it is even more ridiculous with the benefit of hindsight. The attack had nothing to do with the video, and the fact that the video was ever mentioned, much less as the most likely cause of the attack, leads one to wonder what was going on.I still want to know how an intelligent person could look at the evidence, and come to the conclusion that the attack was the result of a demonstration about a video.
You haven't seen all of the evidence. You conclude there was a cover-up because you've seen this part of the evidence is "begging the question".The government labelled it a terror attack eventually. Do you think they did that without evidence? The fact there is evidence shouldn't surprise anyone. If there wasn't, then people would be screaming that the administration is making terrorists the scapegoat.

So it comes down to communication during the 2 weeks. Whether they hadn't concluded the cause, or did but were covering it up. I see no direct evidence of a coverup, and I don't see a motive for covering it up.

You could argue that it's worse if random demonstrators killed an Ambassador. I can see the outrage coming from the right.. "That clown Obama can't protect our diplomats from unorganized demonstrators?!?!"
For me, the concern is more about the fact that there were repeated attacks throughout the summer, requests for additional security, warnings from the Libyans about an imminent attack, and we provided no additional support and 4 Americans are now dead. Horrible decisions and lack of leadership on this issue, IMO.

 
9/12/12

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.
but besides that.. what ####### difference does it matter what caused the attack and whether it is labelled as "terror"?
why are we ignoring paragraph 4 of that speech?
Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.
IMO this very clearly draws a link between the video and the attack. Obama seems to take a position with this speech that the attack was an act of terror resulting from an spontaneous, chaotic uprising as a direct result of the youtube video - not an orchestrated attack by an al-queda affiliated organization.

That's the problem here. Calling it an act of terror or not - big deal. I don't really car about that, because "act of terror" has a broad meaning. It doesn't really matter.

What matters is that they perpetuated a false perception weeks after the event instead of admitting the reality that this was a planned, coordinated, event. That's what this is all about.
I'm not understanding how all of you get to this. The administration was constantly saying it was under investigation, referencing the video as a possible cause, but also not shying away from calling it terror. They were not definitive on it for 2 weeks and they did mention the video a lot.So now emails come out which show the terror evidence. Yeah, those are pieces of information they received. An investigation has many pieces of information showing different things. They were slow to officially label it, I agree. There were a lot of things going on at the time, like anti-video demonstrations in 19 middle eastern cities most notably in Cairo which isn't that far from Benghazi.

But you take these emails and turn it into the White House concluded they were the absolute truth and then decided to cover it up. How do you reach that conclusion?

When you are following an investigation or watching a trial, do you consider everything or just latch on to one idea and go with that?
obviously, you consider everything. Why was the video angle even considered plausible? That was ridiculous on 9/12, and it is even more ridiculous with the benefit of hindsight. The attack had nothing to do with the video, and the fact that the video was ever mentioned, much less as the most likely cause of the attack, leads one to wonder what was going on.I still want to know how an intelligent person could look at the evidence, and come to the conclusion that the attack was the result of a demonstration about a video.
You haven't seen all of the evidence. You conclude there was a cover-up because you've seen this part of the evidence is "begging the question".The government labelled it a terror attack eventually. Do you think they did that without evidence? The fact there is evidence shouldn't surprise anyone. If there wasn't, then people would be screaming that the administration is making terrorists the scapegoat.

So it comes down to communication during the 2 weeks. Whether they hadn't concluded the cause, or did but were covering it up. I see no direct evidence of a coverup, and I don't see a motive for covering it up.

You could argue that it's worse if random demonstrators killed an Ambassador. I can see the outrage coming from the right.. "That clown Obama can't protect our diplomats from unorganized demonstrators?!?!"
Maybe because you're ignoring it. :shrug:
Tell me the motive to steer things between these 2 scenarios:1) An organized terror attack kills our Ambassador in a region where we are at war with terrorists

- right wing response: "our president is weak on terror and isn't protecting our consulates"

2) Random demonstrators kill our Ambassador

- right wing response: "our president has made our consulates so weak that random demonstrators can kill an ambassador"

 
Horrible decisions and lack of leadership on this issue, IMO.
You won't get disagreement from me that the state department under Obama did not handle this well. In the course of a presidency, things go well, things go badly and you need to consider incidents like this when making your vote.But the coverup angle is a total BS October witchunt to try and pin something horrible on Obama.
 
9/12/12

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.
but besides that.. what ####### difference does it matter what caused the attack and whether it is labelled as "terror"?
why are we ignoring paragraph 4 of that speech?
Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.
IMO this very clearly draws a link between the video and the attack. Obama seems to take a position with this speech that the attack was an act of terror resulting from an spontaneous, chaotic uprising as a direct result of the youtube video - not an orchestrated attack by an al-queda affiliated organization.

That's the problem here. Calling it an act of terror or not - big deal. I don't really car about that, because "act of terror" has a broad meaning. It doesn't really matter.

What matters is that they perpetuated a false perception weeks after the event instead of admitting the reality that this was a planned, coordinated, event. That's what this is all about.
I'm not understanding how all of you get to this. The administration was constantly saying it was under investigation, referencing the video as a possible cause, but also not shying away from calling it terror. They were not definitive on it for 2 weeks and they did mention the video a lot.So now emails come out which show the terror evidence. Yeah, those are pieces of information they received. An investigation has many pieces of information showing different things. They were slow to officially label it, I agree. There were a lot of things going on at the time, like anti-video demonstrations in 19 middle eastern cities most notably in Cairo which isn't that far from Benghazi.

But you take these emails and turn it into the White House concluded they were the absolute truth and then decided to cover it up. How do you reach that conclusion?

When you are following an investigation or watching a trial, do you consider everything or just latch on to one idea and go with that?
obviously, you consider everything. Why was the video angle even considered plausible? That was ridiculous on 9/12, and it is even more ridiculous with the benefit of hindsight. The attack had nothing to do with the video, and the fact that the video was ever mentioned, much less as the most likely cause of the attack, leads one to wonder what was going on.I still want to know how an intelligent person could look at the evidence, and come to the conclusion that the attack was the result of a demonstration about a video.
You haven't seen all of the evidence. You conclude there was a cover-up because you've seen this part of the evidence is "begging the question".The government labelled it a terror attack eventually. Do you think they did that without evidence? The fact there is evidence shouldn't surprise anyone. If there wasn't, then people would be screaming that the administration is making terrorists the scapegoat.

So it comes down to communication during the 2 weeks. Whether they hadn't concluded the cause, or did but were covering it up. I see no direct evidence of a coverup, and I don't see a motive for covering it up.

You could argue that it's worse if random demonstrators killed an Ambassador. I can see the outrage coming from the right.. "That clown Obama can't protect our diplomats from unorganized demonstrators?!?!"
Maybe because you're ignoring it. :shrug:
Tell me the motive to steer things between these 2 scenarios:1) An organized terror attack kills our Ambassador in a region where we are at war with terrorists

- right wing response: "our president is weak on terror and isn't protecting our consulates"

2) Random demonstrators kill our Ambassador

- right wing response: "our president has made our consulates so weak that random demonstrators can kill an ambassador"
1. would be perceived as MUCH worse because the state department denied resources for an imminent attack and resulting in the deaths of 4 Americans.
 
Horrible decisions and lack of leadership on this issue, IMO.
You won't get disagreement from me that the state department under Obama did not handle this well. In the course of a presidency, things go well, things go badly and you need to consider incidents like this when making your vote.But the coverup angle is a total BS October witchunt to try and pin something horrible on Obama.
How can you see it as anything but a coverup? They knew it wasn't a video that caused this, so why pretend that it was and keep pushing that idea?
 
Horrible decisions and lack of leadership on this issue, IMO.
You won't get disagreement from me that the state department under Obama did not handle this well. In the course of a presidency, things go well, things go badly and you need to consider incidents like this when making your vote.But the coverup angle is a total BS October witchunt to try and pin something horrible on Obama.
How can you see it as anything but a coverup? They knew it wasn't a video that caused this, so why pretend that it was and keep pushing that idea?
How can you see it anything then bad communication and faulty intelligence. Like 17 said above this hasnt been handled well but to try and make it out to be some conspiracy is pretty telling.
 
Horrible decisions and lack of leadership on this issue, IMO.
You won't get disagreement from me that the state department under Obama did not handle this well. In the course of a presidency, things go well, things go badly and you need to consider incidents like this when making your vote.But the coverup angle is a total BS October witchunt to try and pin something horrible on Obama.
How can you see it as anything but a coverup? They knew it wasn't a video that caused this, so why pretend that it was and keep pushing that idea?
I need to see direct evidence of a coverup and I'll agree. Showing that they had some info and the reasons don't seem to add up isn't sufficient for me to reach that conclusion.I'm sure you think I'm putting my fingers in my ears because I support Obama. But I'm particularly sensitive to this fallacy because I witness it at work just about every week. The rank and file folks in the company jump to all kinds of negative conclusions about how management decisions because they have about 10% of the information.
 
Horrible decisions and lack of leadership on this issue, IMO.
You won't get disagreement from me that the state department under Obama did not handle this well. In the course of a presidency, things go well, things go badly and you need to consider incidents like this when making your vote.But the coverup angle is a total BS October witchunt to try and pin something horrible on Obama.
How can you see it as anything but a coverup? They knew it wasn't a video that caused this, so why pretend that it was and keep pushing that idea?
I need to see direct evidence of a coverup and I'll agree. Showing that they had some info and the reasons don't seem to add up isn't sufficient for me to reach that conclusion.I'm sure you think I'm putting my fingers in my ears because I support Obama. But I'm particularly sensitive to this fallacy because I witness it at work just about every week. The rank and file folks in the company jump to all kinds of negative conclusions about how management decisions because they have about 10% of the information.
Sure does appear that way.
 
Horrible decisions and lack of leadership on this issue, IMO.
You won't get disagreement from me that the state department under Obama did not handle this well. In the course of a presidency, things go well, things go badly and you need to consider incidents like this when making your vote.But the coverup angle is a total BS October witchunt to try and pin something horrible on Obama.
How can you see it as anything but a coverup? They knew it wasn't a video that caused this, so why pretend that it was and keep pushing that idea?
I need to see direct evidence of a coverup and I'll agree. Showing that they had some info and the reasons don't seem to add up isn't sufficient for me to reach that conclusion.I'm sure you think I'm putting my fingers in my ears because I support Obama. But I'm particularly sensitive to this fallacy because I witness it at work just about every week. The rank and file folks in the company jump to all kinds of negative conclusions about how management decisions because they have about 10% of the information.
I can't think of any justifiable reason to be so adamant about the video being the cause when there really was evidence that could have led to a completely different conclusion. It was no more likely that it was the video than it wasn't the video, yet they kept talking about "facts" and "concrete evidence". To me, that's trying to push a particular story when, at best, you really had no idea what caused it.
 
How can you see it anything then bad communication and faulty intelligence. Like 17 said above this hasnt been handled well but to try and make it out to be some conspiracy is pretty telling.
:goodposting: I'm not sure which attitude is more myopic: the belief that there was a deliberate cover-up here, or the belief that this issue is actually going to matter come election day.
 
Horrible decisions and lack of leadership on this issue, IMO.
You won't get disagreement from me that the state department under Obama did not handle this well. In the course of a presidency, things go well, things go badly and you need to consider incidents like this when making your vote.But the coverup angle is a total BS October witchunt to try and pin something horrible on Obama.
How can you see it as anything but a coverup? They knew it wasn't a video that caused this, so why pretend that it was and keep pushing that idea?
I need to see direct evidence of a coverup and I'll agree. Showing that they had some info and the reasons don't seem to add up isn't sufficient for me to reach that conclusion.I'm sure you think I'm putting my fingers in my ears because I support Obama. But I'm particularly sensitive to this fallacy because I witness it at work just about every week. The rank and file folks in the company jump to all kinds of negative conclusions about how management decisions because they have about 10% of the information.
I can't think of any justifiable reason to be so adamant about the video being the cause when there really was evidence that could have led to a completely different conclusion. It was no more likely that it was the video than it wasn't the video, yet they kept talking about "facts" and "concrete evidence". To me, that's trying to push a particular story when, at best, you really had no idea what caused it.
Right.The Obama administration didn't want to "jump the gun" like Romney and declare it a terrorist attack, so instead they run with a completely false story with no basis in reality. Makes perfect sense. :loco:
 
How can you see it anything then bad communication and faulty intelligence. Like 17 said above this hasnt been handled well but to try and make it out to be some conspiracy is pretty telling.
:goodposting: I'm not sure which attitude is more myopic: the belief that there was a deliberate cover-up here, or the belief that this issue is actually going to matter come election day.
Exactly. Never has the right tried to make so much out of so little.
 
The main communication conduit through the 2 weeks was Carney and he never pushed the video as the determined cause. There was never a reversal of the cause. There was 2 weeks of "we'll get back to you".

Inside the right wing bubble everyone will tell you they absolutely concluded it was the video, covered it up while laughing at all of us, and then did a 180 when their lies were exposed. :lmao:

 
I can't think of any justifiable reason to be so adamant about the video being the cause when there really was evidence that could have led to a completely different conclusion. It was no more likely that it was the video than it wasn't the video, yet they kept talking about "facts" and "concrete evidence". To me, that's trying to push a particular story when, at best, you really had no idea what caused it.
Really?This isn't exactly rocket science. At the exact same time as the Libyan attack, there were protests going on all throughout the Muslim world over that stupid video. The protests only increased over the next few days, in EVERY MUSLIM COUNTRY (and in practically every Muslim community around the globe.) Why is it so preposterous for our government to assume that there was a connection?

 
How can you see it anything then bad communication and faulty intelligence. Like 17 said above this hasnt been handled well but to try and make it out to be some conspiracy is pretty telling.
:goodposting: I'm not sure which attitude is more myopic: the belief that there was a deliberate cover-up here, or the belief that this issue is actually going to matter come election day.
Exactly. Never has the right tried to make so much out of so little.
You're right, it was only 4 Americans killed on US soil when we had adequate warning to be able to protect them. Really not a big deal at all.
 
How can you see it anything then bad communication and faulty intelligence. Like 17 said above this hasnt been handled well but to try and make it out to be some conspiracy is pretty telling.
:goodposting: I'm not sure which attitude is more myopic: the belief that there was a deliberate cover-up here, or the belief that this issue is actually going to matter come election day.
Exactly. Never has the right tried to make so much out of so little.
let's go back to talking about important stuff like binders. Terrorist attacks on American soil and lying to the world don't matter at all in your looney tunes world.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
How can you see it anything then bad communication and faulty intelligence. Like 17 said above this hasnt been handled well but to try and make it out to be some conspiracy is pretty telling.
:goodposting: I'm not sure which attitude is more myopic: the belief that there was a deliberate cover-up here, or the belief that this issue is actually going to matter come election day.
What year is this? It's not like Obama is getting reports by carrier pigeon or the pony express. There is no possible way that they wouldn't realize the protest/video story was complete garbage a week later. And yet, that was still their best guess. NOT POSSIBLE. The state department was following the events in real time. They had drones monitoring the situation. There's a email trail. You really think this was all because of bad intel?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The main communication conduit through the 2 weeks was Carney and he never pushed the video as the determined cause. There was never a reversal of the cause. There was 2 weeks of "we'll get back to you".Inside the right wing bubble everyone will tell you they absolutely concluded it was the video, covered it up while laughing at all of us, and then did a 180 when their lies were exposed. :lmao:
CARNEY: [september 18] I’m saying that based on information that we – our initial information, and that includes all information — we saw no evidence to back up claims by others that this was a preplanned or premeditated attack; that we saw evidence that it was sparked by the reaction to this video. And that is what we know thus far based on the evidence, concrete evidence – not supposition — concrete evidence that we have thus far.
 
I can't think of any justifiable reason to be so adamant about the video being the cause when there really was evidence that could have led to a completely different conclusion. It was no more likely that it was the video than it wasn't the video, yet they kept talking about "facts" and "concrete evidence". To me, that's trying to push a particular story when, at best, you really had no idea what caused it.
Really?This isn't exactly rocket science. At the exact same time as the Libyan attack, there were protests going on all throughout the Muslim world over that stupid video. The protests only increased over the next few days, in EVERY MUSLIM COUNTRY (and in practically every Muslim community around the globe.) Why is it so preposterous for our government to assume that there was a connection?
Because there was no protest in Benghazi?
 
How can you see it anything then bad communication and faulty intelligence.

Like 17 said above this hasnt been handled well but to try and make it out to be some conspiracy is pretty telling.
:goodposting: I'm not sure which attitude is more myopic: the belief that there was a deliberate cover-up here, or the belief that this issue is actually going to matter come election day.
Exactly. Never has the right tried to make so much out of so little.
Well- this part may not be true. Remember the Clinton years? Whitewater, Vince Foster, the Travel Office firings, the FBI files, drugs smuggled into Mena, Arkansas, Clinton the habitual rapist-There's a long list.

 
How can you see it anything then bad communication and faulty intelligence. Like 17 said above this hasnt been handled well but to try and make it out to be some conspiracy is pretty telling.
:goodposting: I'm not sure which attitude is more myopic: the belief that there was a deliberate cover-up here, or the belief that this issue is actually going to matter come election day.
Exactly. Never has the right tried to make so much out of so little.
You're right, it was only 4 Americans killed on US soil when we had adequate warning to be able to protect them. Really not a big deal at all.
:rolleyes:
 
Horrible decisions and lack of leadership on this issue, IMO.
You won't get disagreement from me that the state department under Obama did not handle this well. In the course of a presidency, things go well, things go badly and you need to consider incidents like this when making your vote.But the coverup angle is a total BS October witchunt to try and pin something horrible on Obama.
How can you see it as anything but a coverup? They knew it wasn't a video that caused this, so why pretend that it was and keep pushing that idea?
I need to see direct evidence of a coverup and I'll agree. Showing that they had some info and the reasons don't seem to add up isn't sufficient for me to reach that conclusion.I'm sure you think I'm putting my fingers in my ears because I support Obama. But I'm particularly sensitive to this fallacy because I witness it at work just about every week. The rank and file folks in the company jump to all kinds of negative conclusions about how management decisions because they have about 10% of the information.
I can't think of any justifiable reason to be so adamant about the video being the cause when there really was evidence that could have led to a completely different conclusion. It was no more likely that it was the video than it wasn't the video, yet they kept talking about "facts" and "concrete evidence". To me, that's trying to push a particular story when, at best, you really had no idea what caused it.
Right.The Obama administration didn't want to "jump the gun" like Romney and declare it a terrorist attack, so instead they run with a completely false story with no basis in reality. Makes perfect sense. :loco:
Romney is a candidate. He has no responsibility.You've never led people before have you? Publicly declaring things without weighing all the facts gets you in trouble pretty damned fast.Like I said, if the administration did that you guys would create another angle. Something like: "Obama quickly scapegoats terrorists to coverup public demonstrations against US"
 
How can you see it anything then bad communication and faulty intelligence. Like 17 said above this hasnt been handled well but to try and make it out to be some conspiracy is pretty telling.
:goodposting: I'm not sure which attitude is more myopic: the belief that there was a deliberate cover-up here, or the belief that this issue is actually going to matter come election day.
Exactly. Never has the right tried to make so much out of so little.
You're right, it was only 4 Americans killed on US soil when we had adequate warning to be able to protect them. Really not a big deal at all.
:rolleyes:
The attack went on for seven hours. Do you think they could have sent some aerial help from one of those aircraft carriers that Obama likes to snark about?
 
Horrible decisions and lack of leadership on this issue, IMO.
You won't get disagreement from me that the state department under Obama did not handle this well. In the course of a presidency, things go well, things go badly and you need to consider incidents like this when making your vote.But the coverup angle is a total BS October witchunt to try and pin something horrible on Obama.
How can you see it as anything but a coverup? They knew it wasn't a video that caused this, so why pretend that it was and keep pushing that idea?
I need to see direct evidence of a coverup and I'll agree. Showing that they had some info and the reasons don't seem to add up isn't sufficient for me to reach that conclusion.I'm sure you think I'm putting my fingers in my ears because I support Obama. But I'm particularly sensitive to this fallacy because I witness it at work just about every week. The rank and file folks in the company jump to all kinds of negative conclusions about how management decisions because they have about 10% of the information.
I can't think of any justifiable reason to be so adamant about the video being the cause when there really was evidence that could have led to a completely different conclusion. It was no more likely that it was the video than it wasn't the video, yet they kept talking about "facts" and "concrete evidence". To me, that's trying to push a particular story when, at best, you really had no idea what caused it.
Right.The Obama administration didn't want to "jump the gun" like Romney and declare it a terrorist attack, so instead they run with a completely false story with no basis in reality. Makes perfect sense. :loco:
Romney is a candidate. He has no responsibility.You've never led people before have you? Publicly declaring things without weighing all the facts gets you in trouble pretty damned fast.

Like I said, if the administration did that you guys would create another angle. Something like: "Obama quickly scapegoats terrorists to coverup public demonstrations against US"
Oh the irony.
 
How can you see it anything then bad communication and faulty intelligence.

Like 17 said above this hasnt been handled well but to try and make it out to be some conspiracy is pretty telling.
:goodposting: I'm not sure which attitude is more myopic: the belief that there was a deliberate cover-up here, or the belief that this issue is actually going to matter come election day.
What year is this? It's not like Obama is getting reports by carrier pigeon or the pony express. There is no possible way that they wouldn't realize the protest/video story was complete garbage a week later. And yet, that was still their best guess. NOT POSSIBLE. The state department was following the events in real time. They had drones monitoring the situation. There's a email trail. You really think this was all because of bad intel?
:lmao: Dude, you're not Jack Bauer.
 
How can you see it anything then bad communication and faulty intelligence.

Like 17 said above this hasnt been handled well but to try and make it out to be some conspiracy is pretty telling.
:goodposting: I'm not sure which attitude is more myopic: the belief that there was a deliberate cover-up here, or the belief that this issue is actually going to matter come election day.
What year is this? It's not like Obama is getting reports by carrier pigeon or the pony express. There is no possible way that they wouldn't realize the protest/video story was complete garbage a week later. And yet, that was still their best guess. NOT POSSIBLE. The state department was following the events in real time. They had drones monitoring the situation. There's a email trail. You really think this was all because of bad intel?
:lmao: Dude, you're not Jack Bauer.
WTH are you talking about? And you're not Joe Biden, I guess. :shrug:
 
How can you see it anything then bad communication and faulty intelligence.

Like 17 said above this hasnt been handled well but to try and make it out to be some conspiracy is pretty telling.
:goodposting: I'm not sure which attitude is more myopic: the belief that there was a deliberate cover-up here, or the belief that this issue is actually going to matter come election day.
What year is this? It's not like Obama is getting reports by carrier pigeon or the pony express. There is no possible way that they wouldn't realize the protest/video story was complete garbage a week later. And yet, that was still their best guess. NOT POSSIBLE. The state department was following the events in real time. They had drones monitoring the situation. There's a email trail. You really think this was all because of bad intel?
:lmao: Dude, you're not Jack Bauer.
Truck, congrats on all of the great fishing you've done over the years with this alias. I think this last set of posts has really pushed the credulity a hair too far, but it was a great run.

 
How can you see it anything then bad communication and faulty intelligence. Like 17 said above this hasnt been handled well but to try and make it out to be some conspiracy is pretty telling.
:goodposting: I'm not sure which attitude is more myopic: the belief that there was a deliberate cover-up here, or the belief that this issue is actually going to matter come election day.
Exactly. Never has the right tried to make so much out of so little.
1. Birth certificate2. Rev Wright3. Blue dressbut your point still stands
 
9/12/12

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.
but besides that.. what ####### difference does it matter what caused the attack and whether it is labelled as "terror"?
why are we ignoring paragraph 4 of that speech?
Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.
IMO this very clearly draws a link between the video and the attack. Obama seems to take a position with this speech that the attack was an act of terror resulting from an spontaneous, chaotic uprising as a direct result of the youtube video - not an orchestrated attack by an al-queda affiliated organization.

That's the problem here. Calling it an act of terror or not - big deal. I don't really car about that, because "act of terror" has a broad meaning. It doesn't really matter.

What matters is that they perpetuated a false perception weeks after the event instead of admitting the reality that this was a planned, coordinated, event. That's what this is all about.
I'm not understanding how all of you get to this. The administration was constantly saying it was under investigation, referencing the video as a possible cause, but also not shying away from calling it terror. They were not definitive on it for 2 weeks and they did mention the video a lot.So now emails come out which show the terror evidence. Yeah, those are pieces of information they received. An investigation has many pieces of information showing different things. They were slow to officially label it, I agree. There were a lot of things going on at the time, like anti-video demonstrations in 19 middle eastern cities most notably in Cairo which isn't that far from Benghazi.

But you take these emails and turn it into the White House concluded they were the absolute truth and then decided to cover it up. How do you reach that conclusion?

When you are following an investigation or watching a trial, do you consider everything or just latch on to one idea and go with that?
obviously, you consider everything. Why was the video angle even considered plausible? That was ridiculous on 9/12, and it is even more ridiculous with the benefit of hindsight. The attack had nothing to do with the video, and the fact that the video was ever mentioned, much less as the most likely cause of the attack, leads one to wonder what was going on.I still want to know how an intelligent person could look at the evidence, and come to the conclusion that the attack was the result of a demonstration about a video.
You haven't seen all of the evidence. You conclude there was a cover-up because you've seen this part of the evidence is "begging the question".The government labelled it a terror attack eventually. Do you think they did that without evidence? The fact there is evidence shouldn't surprise anyone. If there wasn't, then people would be screaming that the administration is making terrorists the scapegoat.

So it comes down to communication during the 2 weeks. Whether they hadn't concluded the cause, or did but were covering it up. I see no direct evidence of a coverup, and I don't see a motive for covering it up.

You could argue that it's worse if random demonstrators killed an Ambassador. I can see the outrage coming from the right.. "That clown Obama can't protect our diplomats from unorganized demonstrators?!?!"
you know what...I'd like to walk back my previous comments. I just went back and reviewed this thread as well as some older articles, and the only things the administration is guilty of are (1)poor communication, which led the right wing zealots spin away; and (2) perhaps focusing not enough attention to the planned attack facet of this event and too much attention to the rioting. I'm guilty of being partial to the right-wing zealots, and and am prone to believe them sometimes, it's something I'm working on.

Here's a re-cap what happened, as near as I can figure:

[*]there were demonstrations related to the video in Cairo. The State Department issued some sort of statement condemning the video.

[*]al-queda-related operatives had been planning an attack on the consulate in Benghazi. When the riots started in Cairo, they decided that would be a good time to launch their attack.

[*]after the attack, everyone knew what was going on...there are two issues at play, and I think the right wing zealots conflated the two issues - riots and the attack.

[*]Riots are clearly a response to the movie.

[*]Attack was not a response to the movie.

[*]When the Obama folks talked about the riots, they blamed the movie. Because there were also riots in Benghazi, some folks latched onto that part, and assumed that the Administration was referring to the attack.

 
How can you see it anything then bad communication and faulty intelligence.

Like 17 said above this hasnt been handled well but to try and make it out to be some conspiracy is pretty telling.
:goodposting: I'm not sure which attitude is more myopic: the belief that there was a deliberate cover-up here, or the belief that this issue is actually going to matter come election day.
Exactly. Never has the right tried to make so much out of so little.
Well- this part may not be true. Remember the Clinton years? Whitewater, Vince Foster, the Travel Office firings, the FBI files, drugs smuggled into Mena, Arkansas, Clinton the habitual rapist-There's a long list.
But many of those examples at least had what appeared at first glance to have a little more substance than this...there was actual some wrongdoing in Whitewater...Foster committed suicide (and some people always question a finding of suicide)...Some people in the travel office were fired...Juanita Broderick (sp?) did claim Clinton raped her...etc.But to paraphrase what Gertrude Stein said about Oakland, in this situation there doesn't seem to be any there, there.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
9/12/12

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.
but besides that.. what ####### difference does it matter what caused the attack and whether it is labelled as "terror"?
why are we ignoring paragraph 4 of that speech?
Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.
IMO this very clearly draws a link between the video and the attack. Obama seems to take a position with this speech that the attack was an act of terror resulting from an spontaneous, chaotic uprising as a direct result of the youtube video - not an orchestrated attack by an al-queda affiliated organization.

That's the problem here. Calling it an act of terror or not - big deal. I don't really car about that, because "act of terror" has a broad meaning. It doesn't really matter.

What matters is that they perpetuated a false perception weeks after the event instead of admitting the reality that this was a planned, coordinated, event. That's what this is all about.
I'm not understanding how all of you get to this. The administration was constantly saying it was under investigation, referencing the video as a possible cause, but also not shying away from calling it terror. They were not definitive on it for 2 weeks and they did mention the video a lot.So now emails come out which show the terror evidence. Yeah, those are pieces of information they received. An investigation has many pieces of information showing different things. They were slow to officially label it, I agree. There were a lot of things going on at the time, like anti-video demonstrations in 19 middle eastern cities most notably in Cairo which isn't that far from Benghazi.

But you take these emails and turn it into the White House concluded they were the absolute truth and then decided to cover it up. How do you reach that conclusion?

When you are following an investigation or watching a trial, do you consider everything or just latch on to one idea and go with that?
obviously, you consider everything. Why was the video angle even considered plausible? That was ridiculous on 9/12, and it is even more ridiculous with the benefit of hindsight. The attack had nothing to do with the video, and the fact that the video was ever mentioned, much less as the most likely cause of the attack, leads one to wonder what was going on.I still want to know how an intelligent person could look at the evidence, and come to the conclusion that the attack was the result of a demonstration about a video.
You haven't seen all of the evidence. You conclude there was a cover-up because you've seen this part of the evidence is "begging the question".The government labelled it a terror attack eventually. Do you think they did that without evidence? The fact there is evidence shouldn't surprise anyone. If there wasn't, then people would be screaming that the administration is making terrorists the scapegoat.

So it comes down to communication during the 2 weeks. Whether they hadn't concluded the cause, or did but were covering it up. I see no direct evidence of a coverup, and I don't see a motive for covering it up.

You could argue that it's worse if random demonstrators killed an Ambassador. I can see the outrage coming from the right.. "That clown Obama can't protect our diplomats from unorganized demonstrators?!?!"
you know what...I'd like to walk back my previous comments. I just went back and reviewed this thread as well as some older articles, and the only things the administration is guilty of are (1)poor communication, which led the right wing zealots spin away; and (2) perhaps focusing not enough attention to the planned attack facet of this event and too much attention to the rioting. I'm guilty of being partial to the right-wing zealots, and and am prone to believe them sometimes, it's something I'm working on.

Here's a re-cap what happened, as near as I can figure:

[*]there were demonstrations related to the video in Cairo. The State Department issued some sort of statement condemning the video.

[*]al-queda-related operatives had been planning an attack on the consulate in Benghazi. When the riots started in Cairo, they decided that would be a good time to launch their attack.

[*]after the attack, everyone knew what was going on...there are two issues at play, and I think the right wing zealots conflated the two issues - riots and the attack.

[*]Riots are clearly a response to the movie.

[*]Attack was not a response to the movie.

[*]When the Obama folks talked about the riots, they blamed the movie. Because there were also riots in Benghazi, some folks latched onto that part, and assumed that the Administration was referring to the attack.
except here is what was going on in Cairo
 
Horrible decisions and lack of leadership on this issue, IMO.
You won't get disagreement from me that the state department under Obama did not handle this well. In the course of a presidency, things go well, things go badly and you need to consider incidents like this when making your vote.But the coverup angle is a total BS October witchunt to try and pin something horrible on Obama.
How can you see it as anything but a coverup? They knew it wasn't a video that caused this, so why pretend that it was and keep pushing that idea?
How can you see it anything then bad communication and faulty intelligence. Like 17 said above this hasnt been handled well but to try and make it out to be some conspiracy is pretty telling.
If there was talk of the CIA taking corrective action, then I would see it as bad communication and faulty intelligence. But all I see is the administration saying it was bad communication and faulty intellience and the CIA looking like :unsure:
 
American life must be cheap.At least in the valuation of the White House and the other big buildings around Washington.Must be the men and women sent overseas mean nothing. We’ll meet your coffin at Andrews, if there are TV cameras, but damned if we’ll come to your rescue.That’s what we learned at Benghazi.As details have come out in dribs and drabs, each new revelation has illustrated the uncomfortable fact that we left those men to fight and die alone.We did not defend them, we did not relieve them, we just watched them. Our drone circled overhead, providing a real-time video feed, but it did not fire its missiles, it was not used to guide in a relief force, it just took pictures.Grisly souvenirs of a gutless administration.For most of a year, our Libyan ambassador and various members of his security detachment warned of danger and pleaded for assistance. Time and time again the people on the ground said it wasn’t safe and they needed protection. Time and time again people in Washington declined the requests. Instead of increasing our security forces there, the administration cut them.And then the attack came.On September 11, in a concerted and effective three-pronged attack, well-rehearsed terrorist soldiers moved against our consulate.It was like shooting fish in a barrel.We were outgunned and defenseless. Our “safe room” became a death trap and our “safe house” was a point of ambush.Almost immediately, the consulate contacted Washington and passed steady information about the attack. Maybe Washington didn’t need to be told. At some point before or during the attack, a Predator drone began circling the fight, sending video back to Washington.The State Department quickly and repeatedly sent secure e-mail updates to senior officials and organizations across the government – to include the White House situation room. Two hours into an eight-hour attack, the State Department reported that an al Qaeda-linked local militia had taken credit for the action.Much attention has been paid to what the White House and senior officials did, not to what they didn’t do.What they did do is swear for almost two weeks that the attack was a passionate outgrowth of protests over a YouTube video. Over and over, including on a taxpayer-funded ad in Pakistan, the president and secretary of State apologized for the video and condemned it as disrespectful to Islam.That’s what they did.And it’s worthy of attention.But even more worthy is what they didn’t do.And what they didn’t do is help the besieged Americans in Benghazi.They let them die, live on surveillance TV.The fight, we have learned in the last two days, lasted not two or six hours, but eight. For eight hours our men and women were under fire. At the end of those eight hours, apparently from some sort of explosive, the last two Americans – former Navy SEALs – lost their lives.While we did nothing.Yes, the government had endangered the Libyan mission by gutting its security and denying its requests for more.But, yes, when the attack began, and for a couple of hours after, American forces seem to have been well within quick-response distance.Though our Sixth Fleet supposedly asserts American power in the Mediterranean and northern Africa, it has been gutted to such an extent that it is almost meaningless. President Obama says this has something to do with horses and bayonets.Almost any naval vessel, however, could send missiles to Benghazi. Further, U.S. Navy aircraft in Spain and Crete seem to be within easy range of Libya.Not a one of them was sent to relieve the besieged Americans.But that’s not the worst part. In a situation like this, the Navy was the junior varsity. Sitting an hour’s flying time north of Benghazi is an entire U.S. Air Force base in Italy.It is incomprehensible that over the course of an eight-hour battle in which Americans were fighting and dying that not a single one of those aircraft was scrambled. We had attack aircraft, fighters and gunships a plenty, parked on the pavement in Italy, and none of them were brought to bear.Further, we have an airborne Brigade Combat Team in Italy. Not a one of those soldiers was moved. The only report of military response to the Benghazi attack was the activation of a quick-response force in Stuttgart, Germany.But it wasn’t that quick and it wasn’t that close. And by the time it got to Sicily the fight had been over for several hours.The bottom line: We didn’t do anything.Which means we are either impotent posers, incapable of actually pulling our sword from its sheath, or we decided to let them die.Either our head was so far up our backside that through several hours of fighting nobody had the brains or the balls to order a sortie, or we just decided to let them die.Neither explanation is very comforting.Neither explanation is consistent with American values.Our ethic is to leave no man behind.In this situation, we left a lot of men behind, and we took pictures.And then we blamed it all on a movie.When we knew that it was a terrorist attack that had nothing to do with a movie.That’s not the American way. It’s the way things are done in Washington under the current regime, it’s not the American way.American life must be cheap.At least in the eyes of the people in charge.
 
9/12/12

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.
but besides that.. what ####### difference does it matter what caused the attack and whether it is labelled as "terror"?
why are we ignoring paragraph 4 of that speech?
Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.
IMO this very clearly draws a link between the video and the attack. Obama seems to take a position with this speech that the attack was an act of terror resulting from an spontaneous, chaotic uprising as a direct result of the youtube video - not an orchestrated attack by an al-queda affiliated organization.

That's the problem here. Calling it an act of terror or not - big deal. I don't really car about that, because "act of terror" has a broad meaning. It doesn't really matter.

What matters is that they perpetuated a false perception weeks after the event instead of admitting the reality that this was a planned, coordinated, event. That's what this is all about.
I'm not understanding how all of you get to this. The administration was constantly saying it was under investigation, referencing the video as a possible cause, but also not shying away from calling it terror. They were not definitive on it for 2 weeks and they did mention the video a lot.So now emails come out which show the terror evidence. Yeah, those are pieces of information they received. An investigation has many pieces of information showing different things. They were slow to officially label it, I agree. There were a lot of things going on at the time, like anti-video demonstrations in 19 middle eastern cities most notably in Cairo which isn't that far from Benghazi.

But you take these emails and turn it into the White House concluded they were the absolute truth and then decided to cover it up. How do you reach that conclusion?

When you are following an investigation or watching a trial, do you consider everything or just latch on to one idea and go with that?
obviously, you consider everything. Why was the video angle even considered plausible? That was ridiculous on 9/12, and it is even more ridiculous with the benefit of hindsight. The attack had nothing to do with the video, and the fact that the video was ever mentioned, much less as the most likely cause of the attack, leads one to wonder what was going on.I still want to know how an intelligent person could look at the evidence, and come to the conclusion that the attack was the result of a demonstration about a video.
You haven't seen all of the evidence. You conclude there was a cover-up because you've seen this part of the evidence is "begging the question".The government labelled it a terror attack eventually. Do you think they did that without evidence? The fact there is evidence shouldn't surprise anyone. If there wasn't, then people would be screaming that the administration is making terrorists the scapegoat.

So it comes down to communication during the 2 weeks. Whether they hadn't concluded the cause, or did but were covering it up. I see no direct evidence of a coverup, and I don't see a motive for covering it up.

You could argue that it's worse if random demonstrators killed an Ambassador. I can see the outrage coming from the right.. "That clown Obama can't protect our diplomats from unorganized demonstrators?!?!"
you know what...I'd like to walk back my previous comments. I just went back and reviewed this thread as well as some older articles, and the only things the administration is guilty of are (1)poor communication, which led the right wing zealots spin away; and (2) perhaps focusing not enough attention to the planned attack facet of this event and too much attention to the rioting. I'm guilty of being partial to the right-wing zealots, and and am prone to believe them sometimes, it's something I'm working on.

Here's a re-cap what happened, as near as I can figure:

[*]there were demonstrations related to the video in Cairo. The State Department issued some sort of statement condemning the video.

[*]al-queda-related operatives had been planning an attack on the consulate in Benghazi. When the riots started in Cairo, they decided that would be a good time to launch their attack.

[*]after the attack, everyone knew what was going on...there are two issues at play, and I think the right wing zealots conflated the two issues - riots and the attack.

[*]Riots are clearly a response to the movie.

[*]Attack was not a response to the movie.

[*]When the Obama folks talked about the riots, they blamed the movie. Because there were also riots in Benghazi, some folks latched onto that part, and assumed that the Administration was referring to the attack.
Well I'm glad you took the time to re-examine things and joined those of use with a reasonable view!It's a foreign policy and communications blunder. It's not a coverup scandal unless you really, really want it to be.

 
9/12/12

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.
but besides that.. what ####### difference does it matter what caused the attack and whether it is labelled as "terror"?
why are we ignoring paragraph 4 of that speech?
Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.
IMO this very clearly draws a link between the video and the attack. Obama seems to take a position with this speech that the attack was an act of terror resulting from an spontaneous, chaotic uprising as a direct result of the youtube video - not an orchestrated attack by an al-queda affiliated organization.

That's the problem here. Calling it an act of terror or not - big deal. I don't really car about that, because "act of terror" has a broad meaning. It doesn't really matter.

What matters is that they perpetuated a false perception weeks after the event instead of admitting the reality that this was a planned, coordinated, event. That's what this is all about.
I'm not understanding how all of you get to this. The administration was constantly saying it was under investigation, referencing the video as a possible cause, but also not shying away from calling it terror. They were not definitive on it for 2 weeks and they did mention the video a lot.So now emails come out which show the terror evidence. Yeah, those are pieces of information they received. An investigation has many pieces of information showing different things. They were slow to officially label it, I agree. There were a lot of things going on at the time, like anti-video demonstrations in 19 middle eastern cities most notably in Cairo which isn't that far from Benghazi.

But you take these emails and turn it into the White House concluded they were the absolute truth and then decided to cover it up. How do you reach that conclusion?

When you are following an investigation or watching a trial, do you consider everything or just latch on to one idea and go with that?
obviously, you consider everything. Why was the video angle even considered plausible? That was ridiculous on 9/12, and it is even more ridiculous with the benefit of hindsight. The attack had nothing to do with the video, and the fact that the video was ever mentioned, much less as the most likely cause of the attack, leads one to wonder what was going on.I still want to know how an intelligent person could look at the evidence, and come to the conclusion that the attack was the result of a demonstration about a video.
You haven't seen all of the evidence. You conclude there was a cover-up because you've seen this part of the evidence is "begging the question".The government labelled it a terror attack eventually. Do you think they did that without evidence? The fact there is evidence shouldn't surprise anyone. If there wasn't, then people would be screaming that the administration is making terrorists the scapegoat.

So it comes down to communication during the 2 weeks. Whether they hadn't concluded the cause, or did but were covering it up. I see no direct evidence of a coverup, and I don't see a motive for covering it up.

You could argue that it's worse if random demonstrators killed an Ambassador. I can see the outrage coming from the right.. "That clown Obama can't protect our diplomats from unorganized demonstrators?!?!"
you know what...I'd like to walk back my previous comments. I just went back and reviewed this thread as well as some older articles, and the only things the administration is guilty of are (1)poor communication, which led the right wing zealots spin away; and (2) perhaps focusing not enough attention to the planned attack facet of this event and too much attention to the rioting. I'm guilty of being partial to the right-wing zealots, and and am prone to believe them sometimes, it's something I'm working on.

Here's a re-cap what happened, as near as I can figure:

[*]there were demonstrations related to the video in Cairo. The State Department issued some sort of statement condemning the video.

[*]al-queda-related operatives had been planning an attack on the consulate in Benghazi. When the riots started in Cairo, they decided that would be a good time to launch their attack.

[*]after the attack, everyone knew what was going on...there are two issues at play, and I think the right wing zealots conflated the two issues - riots and the attack.

[*]Riots are clearly a response to the movie.

[*]Attack was not a response to the movie.

[*]When the Obama folks talked about the riots, they blamed the movie. Because there were also riots in Benghazi, some folks latched onto that part, and assumed that the Administration was referring to the attack.
There never were riots in Benghazi. It was just the attack.
 
9/12/12

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.
but besides that.. what ####### difference does it matter what caused the attack and whether it is labelled as "terror"?
why are we ignoring paragraph 4 of that speech?
Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.
IMO this very clearly draws a link between the video and the attack. Obama seems to take a position with this speech that the attack was an act of terror resulting from an spontaneous, chaotic uprising as a direct result of the youtube video - not an orchestrated attack by an al-queda affiliated organization.

That's the problem here. Calling it an act of terror or not - big deal. I don't really car about that, because "act of terror" has a broad meaning. It doesn't really matter.

What matters is that they perpetuated a false perception weeks after the event instead of admitting the reality that this was a planned, coordinated, event. That's what this is all about.
I'm not understanding how all of you get to this. The administration was constantly saying it was under investigation, referencing the video as a possible cause, but also not shying away from calling it terror. They were not definitive on it for 2 weeks and they did mention the video a lot.So now emails come out which show the terror evidence. Yeah, those are pieces of information they received. An investigation has many pieces of information showing different things. They were slow to officially label it, I agree. There were a lot of things going on at the time, like anti-video demonstrations in 19 middle eastern cities most notably in Cairo which isn't that far from Benghazi.

But you take these emails and turn it into the White House concluded they were the absolute truth and then decided to cover it up. How do you reach that conclusion?

When you are following an investigation or watching a trial, do you consider everything or just latch on to one idea and go with that?
obviously, you consider everything. Why was the video angle even considered plausible? That was ridiculous on 9/12, and it is even more ridiculous with the benefit of hindsight. The attack had nothing to do with the video, and the fact that the video was ever mentioned, much less as the most likely cause of the attack, leads one to wonder what was going on.I still want to know how an intelligent person could look at the evidence, and come to the conclusion that the attack was the result of a demonstration about a video.
You haven't seen all of the evidence. You conclude there was a cover-up because you've seen this part of the evidence is "begging the question".The government labelled it a terror attack eventually. Do you think they did that without evidence? The fact there is evidence shouldn't surprise anyone. If there wasn't, then people would be screaming that the administration is making terrorists the scapegoat.

So it comes down to communication during the 2 weeks. Whether they hadn't concluded the cause, or did but were covering it up. I see no direct evidence of a coverup, and I don't see a motive for covering it up.

You could argue that it's worse if random demonstrators killed an Ambassador. I can see the outrage coming from the right.. "That clown Obama can't protect our diplomats from unorganized demonstrators?!?!"
you know what...I'd like to walk back my previous comments. I just went back and reviewed this thread as well as some older articles, and the only things the administration is guilty of are (1)poor communication, which led the right wing zealots spin away; and (2) perhaps focusing not enough attention to the planned attack facet of this event and too much attention to the rioting. I'm guilty of being partial to the right-wing zealots, and and am prone to believe them sometimes, it's something I'm working on.

Here's a re-cap what happened, as near as I can figure:

[*]there were demonstrations related to the video in Cairo. The State Department issued some sort of statement condemning the video.

[*]al-queda-related operatives had been planning an attack on the consulate in Benghazi. When the riots started in Cairo, they decided that would be a good time to launch their attack.

[*]after the attack, everyone knew what was going on...there are two issues at play, and I think the right wing zealots conflated the two issues - riots and the attack.

[*]Riots are clearly a response to the movie.

[*]Attack was not a response to the movie.

[*]When the Obama folks talked about the riots, they blamed the movie. Because there were also riots in Benghazi, some folks latched onto that part, and assumed that the Administration was referring to the attack.
There never were riots in Benghazi. It was just the attack.
:goodposting:
 
http://www.nationaljournal.com/nationalsecurity/benghazi-the-real-libya-story-is-no-story-20121024

Benghazi: The Real Libya Story Is No Story

No evidence has surfaced to indicate the administration is guilty of anything other than looking flat-footed...

To supporters of Republican nominee Mitt Romney in the chattering classes and in the House of Representatives, where an investigative committee has been hard at work probing the attacks and, apparently, leaking information, there is a lot more going on here. They see a deliberate effort by the Obama administration to play down evidence that new al-Qaida-linked terrorist groups were at work killing Americans. After all, one of the presidents big talking points in a tough election race is that hes killed Osama bin Laden and decimated al-Qaida.

It sounds very plausible. Theres only one problem with that view: No evidence has surfaced so far to support the idea that the Obama administration deceived the public deliberately. On Wednesday a new spate of stories emerged, quoting unclassified e-mails sent to the White House and State Department only hours after the attacks that indicate the extremist Libyan militia Ansar al-Sharia had asserted responsibility. Smoking gun! Jennifer Rubin, a conservative blogger, tweeted. The White House cover storynamely that CIA got it all wrong and the White House (in urging us to believe the murder of four Americans was the result of a video riot gone bad) was telling us what it knew, when it knewhas been severely undercut, she added on her blog. Three e-mails sent to the White House within two hours of the attack identify it as a terrorist operation and inform the White House that local jihadists with al-Qaida connections claimed responsibility.

But that story doesnt hold up well either. The e-mails in question contained nothing more than raw intelligence, uncorroborated and unverified, that often flows in after an event. Intelligence officials typically dont deliver their assessments until they have finished reports based on multiple sources, and corroborated evidence, and Obama officials such as Rice certainly would not have been out in front of the TV cameras citing raw intelligence. And as the governments most senior officials say, the Benghazi case has taken them a long time to finish. People forget that a Palestinian group was the first to claim credit for 9/11, the intelligence official said. There was no message from the field in those first hectic days that would have eliminated questions or proven who was behind the attack.

Indeed, as White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters, all that Wednesdays stories reported was an open-source, unclassified e-mail about a posting on a Facebook site. I would also note I think that within a few hours, that organization itself [Ansar al-Sharia] claimed that it had not been responsible. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, in separate remarks on Wednesday, also said that posting something on Facebook is not in and of itself evidence, and I think it just underscores how fluid the reporting was at the time and continued for some time to be.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
http://www.nationalj...-story-20121024

Benghazi: The Real Libya Story Is No Story

No evidence has surfaced to indicate the administration is guilty of anything other than looking flat-footed...

To supporters of Republican nominee Mitt Romney in the chattering classes and in the House of Representatives, where an investigative committee has been hard at work probing the attacks and, apparently, leaking information, there is a lot more going on here. They see a deliberate effort by the Obama administration to play down evidence that new al-Qaida-linked terrorist groups were at work killing Americans. After all, one of the president's big talking points in a tough election race is that he's killed Osama bin Laden and decimated al-Qaida.

It sounds very plausible. There's only one problem with that view: No evidence has surfaced so far to support the idea that the Obama administration deceived the public deliberately. On Wednesday a new spate of stories emerged, quoting unclassified e-mails sent to the White House and State Department only hours after the attacks that indicate the extremist Libyan militia Ansar al-Sharia had asserted responsibility. "Smoking gun!" Jennifer Rubin, a conservative blogger, tweeted. "The White House cover story—namely that CIA got it all wrong and the White House (in urging us to believe the murder of four Americans was the result of a video riot gone bad) was telling us what it knew, when it knew—has been severely undercut," she added on her blog. "Three e-mails sent to the White House within two hours of the attack identify it as a terrorist operation and inform the White House that local jihadists with al-Qaida connections claimed responsibility."

But that story doesn't hold up well either. The e-mails in question contained nothing more than "raw" intelligence, uncorroborated and unverified, that often flows in after an event. Intelligence officials typically don't deliver their assessments until they have "finished" reports based on multiple sources, and corroborated evidence, and Obama officials such as Rice certainly would not have been out in front of the TV cameras citing raw intelligence. And as the government's most senior officials say, the Benghazi case has taken them a long time to finish. "People forget that a Palestinian group was the first to claim credit for 9/11," the intelligence official said. "There was no message from the field in those first hectic days that would have eliminated questions or proven who was behind the attack."

Indeed, as White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters, all that Wednesday's stories reported was "an open-source, unclassified e-mail about a posting on a Facebook site. I would also note I think that within a few hours, that organization itself [Ansar al-Sharia] claimed that it had not been responsible." Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, in separate remarks on Wednesday, also said that "posting something on Facebook is not in and of itself evidence, and I think it just underscores how fluid the reporting was at the time and continued for some time to be."
This comes as no surprise to most of us.
 
Sorry, you conspiracy theorists: more evidence from someone who would know that this is a complete non-story:

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/10/25/condi-rice-downplays-benghazi-criticism

Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice believes the death of the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans was not due to any breaches in protocol, pointing instead to the fog created by chaotic situations like the attack on the Benghazi consulate.

Rice, now a professor at Stanford University, told Fox News that it's difficult to know exactly what is going on in situations like this, made more complicated by the necessity of diplomats to often step from behind security walls to do their work effectively.

Her comments come days after the release of emails from the U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya asking Washington for increased security. Republicans and other political opponents of President Barack Obama have framed these documents as an example of the administration's failure to anticipate and handle the situation. Rice, a Republican, served in the administration of President George W. Bush and was briefly mentioned as a possible vice presidential running mate for GOP nominee Mitt Romney.

It is not very easy in circumstances like this to know precisely what's going on as it's unfolding," she told Fox's Greta Van Susteren. "There are protocols in place, I have no reason to believe they weren't followed, but it is not very easy in circumstances like this to know precisely what's going on as it's unfolding."

Rice also noted the inherent dangers of diplomacy in insecure countries like Libya.

"You can't keep your diplomats in a bunker, you want them out doing their work," she says. "You want to make certain you're making the right safety precautions for them, as well."

 
Sorry, you conspiracy theorists: more evidence from someone who would know that this is a complete non-story:

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/10/25/condi-rice-downplays-benghazi-criticism

Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice believes the death of the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans was not due to any breaches in protocol, pointing instead to the fog created by chaotic situations like the attack on the Benghazi consulate.

Rice, now a professor at Stanford University, told Fox News that it's difficult to know exactly what is going on in situations like this, made more complicated by the necessity of diplomats to often step from behind security walls to do their work effectively.

Her comments come days after the release of emails from the U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya asking Washington for increased security. Republicans and other political opponents of President Barack Obama have framed these documents as an example of the administration's failure to anticipate and handle the situation. Rice, a Republican, served in the administration of President George W. Bush and was briefly mentioned as a possible vice presidential running mate for GOP nominee Mitt Romney.

It is not very easy in circumstances like this to know precisely what's going on as it's unfolding," she told Fox's Greta Van Susteren. "There are protocols in place, I have no reason to believe they weren't followed, but it is not very easy in circumstances like this to know precisely what's going on as it's unfolding."

Rice also noted the inherent dangers of diplomacy in insecure countries like Libya.

"You can't keep your diplomats in a bunker, you want them out doing their work," she says. "You want to make certain you're making the right safety precautions for them, as well."
This is what is killing the Administration, and to a lesser point her statement about the Ambassador having to step from behind walls is more metaphorical and not really applicable here.
 
Sorry, you conspiracy theorists: more evidence from someone who would know that this is a complete non-story:

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/10/25/condi-rice-downplays-benghazi-criticism

Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice believes the death of the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans was not due to any breaches in protocol, pointing instead to the fog created by chaotic situations like the attack on the Benghazi consulate.

Rice, now a professor at Stanford University, told Fox News that it's difficult to know exactly what is going on in situations like this, made more complicated by the necessity of diplomats to often step from behind security walls to do their work effectively.

Her comments come days after the release of emails from the U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya asking Washington for increased security. Republicans and other political opponents of President Barack Obama have framed these documents as an example of the administration's failure to anticipate and handle the situation. Rice, a Republican, served in the administration of President George W. Bush and was briefly mentioned as a possible vice presidential running mate for GOP nominee Mitt Romney.

It is not very easy in circumstances like this to know precisely what's going on as it's unfolding," she told Fox's Greta Van Susteren. "There are protocols in place, I have no reason to believe they weren't followed, but it is not very easy in circumstances like this to know precisely what's going on as it's unfolding."

Rice also noted the inherent dangers of diplomacy in insecure countries like Libya.

"You can't keep your diplomats in a bunker, you want them out doing their work," she says. "You want to make certain you're making the right safety precautions for them, as well."
This is what is killing the Administration, and to a lesser point her statement about the Ambassador having to step from behind walls is more metaphorical and not really applicable here.
what and what?
 
Sorry, you conspiracy theorists: more evidence from someone who would know that this is a complete non-story:

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/10/25/condi-rice-downplays-benghazi-criticism

Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice believes the death of the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans was not due to any breaches in protocol, pointing instead to the fog created by chaotic situations like the attack on the Benghazi consulate.

Rice, now a professor at Stanford University, told Fox News that it's difficult to know exactly what is going on in situations like this, made more complicated by the necessity of diplomats to often step from behind security walls to do their work effectively.

Her comments come days after the release of emails from the U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya asking Washington for increased security. Republicans and other political opponents of President Barack Obama have framed these documents as an example of the administration's failure to anticipate and handle the situation. Rice, a Republican, served in the administration of President George W. Bush and was briefly mentioned as a possible vice presidential running mate for GOP nominee Mitt Romney.

It is not very easy in circumstances like this to know precisely what's going on as it's unfolding," she told Fox's Greta Van Susteren. "There are protocols in place, I have no reason to believe they weren't followed, but it is not very easy in circumstances like this to know precisely what's going on as it's unfolding."

Rice also noted the inherent dangers of diplomacy in insecure countries like Libya.

"You can't keep your diplomats in a bunker, you want them out doing their work," she says. "You want to make certain you're making the right safety precautions for them, as well."
I don't think the administration did anything that led to the deaths.What I want to know is why the administration had no uncertainty that it was a response to the YouTube video, when as Rice points out "it's difficult to know exactly what is going on in situations like this".

Instead of blaming it on the YouTube video, and using that explanation to make a religous statement, they could have said that they were still investigating it and had not determined exactly what happened. But that's not what they chose to do. Why?

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top