17seconds
root of all aliai
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.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.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.why are we ignoring paragraph 4 of that speech?9/12/12
but besides that.. what ####### difference does it matter what caused the attack and whether it is labelled as "terror"?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.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.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.
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.
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?
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?!?!"

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.

