U.S. Ambassador to Libya Killed in Rocket Attack (2 Viewers)

[sporthenry]

Just checking back in to this. Whatever happened to the guy they perp walked who had posted that YouTube video?

A federal judge on Wednesday sentenced the filmmaker behind "Innocence of Muslims,” the anti-Islam film that sparked rioting across the globe, to a year behind bars after the man admitted to violating the terms of his release from an earlier conviction.

Mark Basseley Youssef admitted to four violations, including lying to his probation officer and using bogus names. In exchange, prosecutors dropped four other counts, including allegations that Youssef lied in saying that his role in the film's production was limited to writing the script. Youssef was under a type of federal probation -- known as supervised release -- after being convicted in 2010 of bank and credit-card fraud, in which he was accused of causing $800,000 in losses.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/11/innocence-muslims-filmmaker-sentenced.html

He was also sentenced to death in Egypt. Rough life.

The case was seen as largely symbolic because the defendants, most of whom live in the United States, are all outside Egypt and unlikely to ever serve the sentences, the wire service reported.

Egypt's official news agency said the court found the defendants guilty of harming national unity, insulting and publicly attacking Islam and spreading false information — charges that carry the death sentence.

Good thing we instilled our democracy in Egypt.

 

[pittstownkiller]

Just checking back in to this. Whatever happened to the guy they perp walked who had posted that YouTube video?

A federal judge on Wednesday sentenced the filmmaker behind "Innocence of Muslims, the anti-Islam film that sparked rioting across the globe, to a year behind bars after the man admitted to violating the terms of his release from an earlier conviction.

Mark Basseley Youssef admitted to four violations, including lying to his probation officer and using bogus names. In exchange, prosecutors dropped four other counts, including allegations that Youssef lied in saying that his role in the film's production was limited to writing the script. Youssef was under a type of federal probation -- known as supervised release -- after being convicted in 2010 of bank and credit-card fraud, in which he was accused of causing $800,000 in losses.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/11/innocence-muslims-filmmaker-sentenced.htmlHe was also sentenced to death in Egypt. Rough life.

The case was seen as largely symbolic because the defendants, most of whom live in the United States, are all outside Egypt and unlikely to ever serve the sentences, the wire service reported.

Egypt's official news agency said the court found the defendants guilty of harming national unity, insulting and publicly attacking Islam and spreading false information charges that carry the death sentence.

Good thing we instilled our democracy in Egypt.

We throw him in jail, they sentence him to death; sounds like we are with Egypt.

 

[pittstownkiller]

What exactly did they cover up?

Before the election, the current administration did not what the public to know that the attack was committed by known terrorists, and that the CIA had warned of the possibility of the attack before hand.

The president mentioning actually calling the Benghazi attack an act of terror the day after the attack completely discredits that mime.

Even Crowley backed off of that crap.

Here is the quote from Obama in the Rose Garden the day after the attack:

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

I wonder what Obama was referring to?

He's clearly (or as clear as he wants to be) referring to 9/11 and the people who have fought for the country after that attack; implying that the four died, because they were in harm's way, in the ongoing struggle from 9/11 - wrong place wrong time. The President never refers to an attack from the enemy that we have been fighting for more than a decade, instead he alludes to the previous dispatch of "an uprising". He started off his speech saying that the United States respects all faiths; where does that come from, if this was another coordinated al-Qaeda attack - I think a-Q doesn't care about that. I guess the condemnations from the President and the SOS about the film, not to mention a nighttime raid and arrest of the filmmaker, were just coincidence.

From the beginning of his RG 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.

Your opinion is that he was talking about 9/11/2001, and not 9/11/2012 with that remark?

Sorry Tommy, I tried to answer this last night but ran into the overnight board update and decided to go to sleep instead. Yes, I do believe he was talking about 9/11/01; if he wasn't, then I think his other comments are meant to obfuscate the intent of his speech and still portray the "spontaneous uprising" aspect.

 

[southeastjerome]

Also another example of how sadly desperate the right is.

If this is the Straw they grasp at for the long term, they once again do more damage to themselves than Obama/Hillary ever could on their own accord.

Would be nice if there were a level headed conservative that could come up with a real issue to motivate debate... but these seem harder and harder to come by these days.

Not really on either side here necessarily, but I wouldn't characterize an administration blatantly lying to try to mislead the public so they could look good politically as grasping for straws. The Republicans have made a lot of mistakes, but even the most staunch Obama honks need to realize he messed up here. What would you be saying if this was GW Bush? I don't think you would be looking at it this way.

 

[matuski]

Also another example of how sadly desperate the right is.

If this is the Straw they grasp at for the long term, they once again do more damage to themselves than Obama/Hillary ever could on their own accord.

Would be nice if there were a level headed conservative that could come up with a real issue to motivate debate... but these seem harder and harder to come by these days.

Not really on either side here necessarily, but I wouldn't characterize an administration blatantly lying to try to mislead the public so they could look good politically as grasping for straws. The Republicans have made a lot of mistakes, but even the most staunch Obama honks need to realize he messed up here. What would you be saying if this was GW Bush? I don't think you would be looking at it this way.

He clearly messed up. This has nothing to do with my post.

 

[southeastjerome]

Also another example of how sadly desperate the right is.

If this is the Straw they grasp at for the long term, they once again do more damage to themselves than Obama/Hillary ever could on their own accord.

Would be nice if there were a level headed conservative that could come up with a real issue to motivate debate... but these seem harder and harder to come by these days.

Not really on either side here necessarily, but I wouldn't characterize an administration blatantly lying to try to mislead the public so they could look good politically as grasping for straws. The Republicans have made a lot of mistakes, but even the most staunch Obama honks need to realize he messed up here. What would you be saying if this was GW Bush? I don't think you would be looking at it this way.

He clearly messed up. This has nothing to do with my post.

Sorry, I didn't get that impression from reading your post. I agree that he messed up and I'm sure this will be endless fodder for the right. I do think it hurts Hillary going forward, I certainly would never consider voting for her because of this. Unfortunately people have short memories and will vote with the party and not the person no matter what. It really is a sad state right now that both sides just attack each other, zealously defending their side even though both sides hold a ton of the blame. Its tough to make people accountable when the loyal left and the loyal right follow their side no matter what. The people who are open minded enough to bring both parties together will never get elected as president because they would get crucified by their own party for not being loyal. This is especially true on the Republican side. /side rant

 

[sporthenry]

Also another example of how sadly desperate the right is.

If this is the Straw they grasp at for the long term, they once again do more damage to themselves than Obama/Hillary ever could on their own accord.

Would be nice if there were a level headed conservative that could come up with a real issue to motivate debate... but these seem harder and harder to come by these days.

Not really on either side here necessarily, but I wouldn't characterize an administration blatantly lying to try to mislead the public so they could look good politically as grasping for straws. The Republicans have made a lot of mistakes, but even the most staunch Obama honks need to realize he messed up here. What would you be saying if this was GW Bush? I don't think you would be looking at it this way.

He clearly messed up. This has nothing to do with my post.

Sorry, I didn't get that impression from reading your post. I agree that he messed up and I'm sure this will be endless fodder for the right. I do think it hurts Hillary going forward, I certainly would never consider voting for her because of this. Unfortunately people have short memories and will vote with the party and not the person no matter what. It really is a sad state right now that both sides just attack each other, zealously defending their side even though both sides hold a ton of the blame. Its tough to make people accountable when the loyal left and the loyal right follow their side no matter what. The people who are open minded enough to bring both parties together will never get elected as president because they would get crucified by their own party for not being loyal. This is especially true on the Republican side. /side rant

I'd say anyone who isn't voting for her because of this probably was never voting for her. Forget the fact that the Republicans don't have a candidate yet (so you'd vote Palin over Hillary if it came down to it?) but nothing has really even been tied to her yet. Sure, there might be questions that still linger around it but unless more comes out, there isn't really that much here WRT to Hillary although I'm sure some can see what they want or accuse me of ignoring what they want.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I'd say anyone who isn't voting for her because of this probably was never voting for her. Forget the fact that the Republicans don't have a candidate yet (so you'd vote Palin over Hillary if it came down to it?) but nothing has really even been tied to her yet. Sure, there might be questions that still linger around it but unless more comes out, there isn't really that much here WRT to Hillary although I'm sure some can see what they want or accuse me of ignoring what they want.

I don't think this is entirely fair. I keep hearing over and over again that Hillary has been an exceptionally strong Secretary of State, and that's part of why she's qualified to be president. Well, if you're going to argue on behalf of her candidacy on the grounds of competence, then stuff like this deserves some kind of explanation.

For what it's worth, I've seen nothing of Hillary Clinton, ever, that makes me think she would be an effective president. She single-handedly set health care reform back decades in her husband's first term, she coined the phrase "vast right wing conspiracy," she did nothign during the her time in the Senate, and she ran a miserable presidential campaign. And then of course her agency seems to have completely botched the response to the Benghazi attack. Frankly, she's not in Obama's league.

 

[sporthenry]

I'd say anyone who isn't voting for her because of this probably was never voting for her. Forget the fact that the Republicans don't have a candidate yet (so you'd vote Palin over Hillary if it came down to it?) but nothing has really even been tied to her yet. Sure, there might be questions that still linger around it but unless more comes out, there isn't really that much here WRT to Hillary although I'm sure some can see what they want or accuse me of ignoring what they want.

I don't think this is entirely fair. I keep hearing over and over again that Hillary has been an exceptionally strong Secretary of State, and that's part of why she's qualified to be president. Well, if you're going to argue on behalf of her candidacy on the grounds of competence, then stuff like this deserves some kind of explanation.

For what it's worth, I've seen nothing of Hillary Clinton, ever, that makes me think she would be an effective president. She single-handedly set health care reform back decades in her husband's first term, she coined the phrase "vast right wing conspiracy," she did nothign during the her time in the Senate, and she ran a miserable presidential campaign. And then of course her agency seems to have completely botched the response to the Benghazi attack. Frankly, she's not in Obama's league.

Well as your 2nd paragraph goes on, you weren't voting with her to begin with and had other reasons. That is fine but don't try to paint this as the reason you weren't voting for her when it certainly seems people weren't going to vote for her regardless. I don't disagree that questions can be asked but everyone who keeps trying to make this career defining will be sorely disappointed.

 

[sporthenry]

As for the rest of this, Pickering was just on Meet the Press with Issa. He had nothing to do with the talking points (which most people acknowledge they don't care about) but stands by his review based on everything else. He will apparently have a private deposition with Issa and Co. tomorrow so I guess we won't get to see the truth as Issa wants us to.

But I digress, Pickering acknowledged that security was lacking and that was a majority of his talking points but that the military response was more than adequate based on everyone he talked to. He has also talked to witnesses who were in Benghazi and seems to be the one with the most info.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Sounds like Congress will need a special committee and they should. Presidents in the past would have to account for what happened here, we've had hearings on much less that needed to be accounted for. Obama is not gonna be impeached but we do need to find out where the lapse was and if it was the FBI or the military or whatever but a few heads are gonna have to roll or someone is not going to be able to get promoted in the future...but nothing will happen to Obama so let the GOP run this up the flag pole until they bleep all over themselves, it changes nothing.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Also another example of how sadly desperate the right is.

If this is the Straw they grasp at for the long term, they once again do more damage to themselves than Obama/Hillary ever could on their own accord.

Would be nice if there were a level headed conservative that could come up with a real issue to motivate debate... but these seem harder and harder to come by these days.

Not really on either side here necessarily, but I wouldn't characterize an administration blatantly lying to try to mislead the public so they could look good politically as grasping for straws. The Republicans have made a lot of mistakes, but even the most staunch Obama honks need to realize he messed up here. What would you be saying if this was GW Bush? I don't think you would be looking at it this way.

This DID happen under GWBush. 13 times. And there were 3 hearings total.

There have been 9 hearings already about Benghazi.

 

[sporthenry]

Sounds like Congress will need a special committee and they should. Presidents in the past would have to account for what happened here, we've had hearings on much less that needed to be accounted for. Obama is not gonna be impeached but we do need to find out where the lapse was and if it was the FBI or the military or whatever but a few heads are gonna have to roll or someone is not going to be able to get promoted in the future...but nothing will happen to Obama so let the GOP run this up the flag pole until they bleep all over themselves, it changes nothing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/us/politics/3-state-dept-officials-resign-following-benghazi-report.html?_r=0

Heads have already rolled. Of course they are still going to go after Obama and Hillary but they'll just take out others like Rice. It seems up to the election, it was go after Obama and now it is go after Hillary since she is a threat but they won't find anything tying them to this. On MTP, someone said the only thing the White House even changed in the drafting process was changing it from calling it a consulate to a mission and a syntax issue.

Additionally, Pickering said that Hillary has already said the buck stopped at her but with any investigation, if we just stopped at her and blamed her, then we wouldn't really find who was actually at fault, what went wrong and what we could do to guarantee it never happens again.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

. Yes, I do believe he was talking about 9/11/01; if he wasn't, then I think his other comments are meant to obfuscate the intent of his speech and still portray the "spontaneous uprising" aspect.

Right...

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.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I'd say anyone who isn't voting for her because of this probably was never voting for her. Forget the fact that the Republicans don't have a candidate yet (so you'd vote Palin over Hillary if it came down to it?) but nothing has really even been tied to her yet. Sure, there might be questions that still linger around it but unless more comes out, there isn't really that much here WRT to Hillary although I'm sure some can see what they want or accuse me of ignoring what they want.

I don't think this is entirely fair. I keep hearing over and over again that Hillary has been an exceptionally strong Secretary of State, and that's part of why she's qualified to be president. Well, if you're going to argue on behalf of her candidacy on the grounds of competence, then stuff like this deserves some kind of explanation. For what it's worth, I've seen nothing of Hillary Clinton, ever, that makes me think she would be an effective president. She single-handedly set health care reform back decades in her husband's first term, she coined the phrase "vast right wing conspiracy," she did nothign during the her time in the Senate, and she ran a miserable presidential campaign. And then of course her agency seems to have completely botched the response to the Benghazi attack. Frankly, she's not in Obama's league.

Well as your 2nd paragraph goes on, you weren't voting with her to begin with and had other reasons. That is fine but don't try to paint this as the reason you weren't voting for her when it certainly seems people weren't going to vote for her regardless. I don't disagree that questions can be asked but everyone who keeps trying to make this career defining will be sorely disappointed.

I definitely wasn't voting for her -- I think she's a despicable human being. I'm just saying that if pro-Hillary people attempt to argue for her on the basis of her qualifications, and then dismiss criticism of how her department handled Benghazi by hand-waving references to how nobody is really interested in her qualifications in the first place, that's sort of self-defeating. In other words the argument that "Anybody who's bothered by this was never going to vote for Hillary anyway" is a tacit admission that people who care about basic competence and responsibility were never going to vote for her under any circumstances. I don't think that's the message that her campaign means to send out. Edit: Also, I agree that this one particular event isn't career-defining. Hillary Clinton's career is already well-defined as one in which scandal, dishonesty, and incompetence follow her wherever she goes. The way Benghazi was handled is just one small instance of a much larger tapestry.

 

[sporthenry]

I'd say anyone who isn't voting for her because of this probably was never voting for her. Forget the fact that the Republicans don't have a candidate yet (so you'd vote Palin over Hillary if it came down to it?) but nothing has really even been tied to her yet. Sure, there might be questions that still linger around it but unless more comes out, there isn't really that much here WRT to Hillary although I'm sure some can see what they want or accuse me of ignoring what they want.

I don't think this is entirely fair. I keep hearing over and over again that Hillary has been an exceptionally strong Secretary of State, and that's part of why she's qualified to be president. Well, if you're going to argue on behalf of her candidacy on the grounds of competence, then stuff like this deserves some kind of explanation. For what it's worth, I've seen nothing of Hillary Clinton, ever, that makes me think she would be an effective president. She single-handedly set health care reform back decades in her husband's first term, she coined the phrase "vast right wing conspiracy," she did nothign during the her time in the Senate, and she ran a miserable presidential campaign. And then of course her agency seems to have completely botched the response to the Benghazi attack. Frankly, she's not in Obama's league.

Well as your 2nd paragraph goes on, you weren't voting with her to begin with and had other reasons. That is fine but don't try to paint this as the reason you weren't voting for her when it certainly seems people weren't going to vote for her regardless. I don't disagree that questions can be asked but everyone who keeps trying to make this career defining will be sorely disappointed.

I definitely wasn't voting for her -- I think she's a despicable human being. I'm just saying that if pro-Hillary people attempt to argue for her on the basis of her qualifications, and then dismiss criticism of how her department handled Benghazi by hand-waving references to how nobody is really interested in her qualifications in the first place, that's sort of self-defeating. In other words the argument that "Anybody who's bothered by this was never going to vote for Hillary anyway" is a tacit admission that people who care about basic competence and responsibility were never going to vote for her under any circumstances. I don't think that's the message that her campaign means to send out. Edit: Also, I agree that this one particular event isn't career-defining. Hillary Clinton's career is already well-defined as one in which scandal, dishonesty, and incompetence follow her wherever she goes. The way Benghazi was handled is just one small instance of a much larger tapestry.

Not really an admission like that at all. I'm not sure what Benghazi has to do about competence and responsibility unless of course anything that happens underneath you is directly attributable to you in which case we can blame Bush for 9/11, which I don't think most level headed people do.

But this is a circular argument which is off topic. There will be plenty of time to argue for this if she even runs, which I don't think she will unless Dems push her b/c they don't have another candidate.

 

[pittstownkiller]

. Yes, I do believe he was talking about 9/11/01; if he wasn't, then I think his other comments are meant to obfuscate the intent of his speech and still portray the "spontaneous uprising" aspect.

Right... 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.

And? This was answered in Tommy and my nested postings.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Not really an admission like that at all. I'm not sure what Benghazi has to do about competence and responsibility unless of course anything that happens underneath you is directly attributable to you in which case we can blame Bush for 9/11, which I don't think most level headed people do.

To clarify, I don't blame Hillary or Obama for the attack on the embassy itself. I said way back when that Obama could have done a much better job handling the aftermath. Specifically, he should have been much more forthright in acknowledging that this was a planned terrorist attack as opposed to something spontaneous, but while that's something that merits criticism, it's not that big a deal either. I didn't give much thought at all to Hillary's role in all this until it turned out that the State Department was busy covering her ###, which just reminded me of why she shouldn't be president in the first place.

In other words, this isn't so much like blaming Bush for 9/11 as much as it's like blaming Bush and Cheney for pinning 9/11 on Iraqis.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Benghoofy!

 

[BigSteelThrill]

. Yes, I do believe he was talking about 9/11/01; if he wasn't, then I think his other comments are meant to obfuscate the intent of his speech and still portray the "spontaneous uprising" aspect.

Right... 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.

And? This was answered in Tommy and my nested postings.

Wrongly answered.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

I'd say anyone who isn't voting for her because of this probably was never voting for her. Forget the fact that the Republicans don't have a candidate yet (so you'd vote Palin over Hillary if it came down to it?) but nothing has really even been tied to her yet. Sure, there might be questions that still linger around it but unless more comes out, there isn't really that much here WRT to Hillary although I'm sure some can see what they want or accuse me of ignoring what they want.

I don't think this is entirely fair. I keep hearing over and over again that Hillary has been an exceptionally strong Secretary of State, and that's part of why she's qualified to be president. Well, if you're going to argue on behalf of her candidacy on the grounds of competence, then stuff like this deserves some kind of explanation. For what it's worth, I've seen nothing of Hillary Clinton, ever, that makes me think she would be an effective president. She single-handedly set health care reform back decades in her husband's first term, she coined the phrase "vast right wing conspiracy," she did nothign during the her time in the Senate, and she ran a miserable presidential campaign. And then of course her agency seems to have completely botched the response to the Benghazi attack. Frankly, she's not in Obama's league.

Plus she killed Vince Foster.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I'd say anyone who isn't voting for her because of this probably was never voting for her. Forget the fact that the Republicans don't have a candidate yet (so you'd vote Palin over Hillary if it came down to it?) but nothing has really even been tied to her yet. Sure, there might be questions that still linger around it but unless more comes out, there isn't really that much here WRT to Hillary although I'm sure some can see what they want or accuse me of ignoring what they want.

I don't think this is entirely fair. I keep hearing over and over again that Hillary has been an exceptionally strong Secretary of State, and that's part of why she's qualified to be president. Well, if you're going to argue on behalf of her candidacy on the grounds of competence, then stuff like this deserves some kind of explanation. For what it's worth, I've seen nothing of Hillary Clinton, ever, that makes me think she would be an effective president. She single-handedly set health care reform back decades in her husband's first term, she coined the phrase "vast right wing conspiracy," she did nothign during the her time in the Senate, and she ran a miserable presidential campaign. And then of course her agency seems to have completely botched the response to the Benghazi attack. Frankly, she's not in Obama's league.

Plus she killed Vince Foster.

No, not so much.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Not really an admission like that at all. I'm not sure what Benghazi has to do about competence and responsibility unless of course anything that happens underneath you is directly attributable to you in which case we can blame Bush for 9/11, which I don't think most level headed people do.

To clarify, I don't blame Hillary or Obama for the attack on the embassy itself. I said way back when that Obama could have done a much better job handling the aftermath. Specifically, he should have been much more forthright in acknowledging that this was a planned terrorist attack as opposed to something spontaneous, but while that's something that merits criticism, it's not that big a deal either. I didn't give much thought at all to Hillary's role in all this until it turned out that the State Department was busy covering her ###, which just reminded me of why she shouldn't be president in the first place.

In other words, this isn't so much like blaming Bush for 9/11 as much as it's like blaming Bush and Cheney for pinning 9/11 on Iraqis.

Do you think analysis and recommendations from the intelligence agencies had anything to do with Obama's initial characterizations of the attacks?

 

[3C's]

I'd say anyone who isn't voting for her because of this probably was never voting for her. Forget the fact that the Republicans don't have a candidate yet (so you'd vote Palin over Hillary if it came down to it?) but nothing has really even been tied to her yet. Sure, there might be questions that still linger around it but unless more comes out, there isn't really that much here WRT to Hillary although I'm sure some can see what they want or accuse me of ignoring what they want.

I don't think this is entirely fair. I keep hearing over and over again that Hillary has been an exceptionally strong Secretary of State, and that's part of why she's qualified to be president. Well, if you're going to argue on behalf of her candidacy on the grounds of competence, then stuff like this deserves some kind of explanation. For what it's worth, I've seen nothing of Hillary Clinton, ever, that makes me think she would be an effective president. She single-handedly set health care reform back decades in her husband's first term, she coined the phrase "vast right wing conspiracy," she did nothign during the her time in the Senate, and she ran a miserable presidential campaign. And then of course her agency seems to have completely botched the response to the Benghazi attack. Frankly, she's not in Obama's league.

Plus she killed Vince Foster.

No, not so much.

Pretty sure Bill O'Reilly proved this to be true.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Not really an admission like that at all. I'm not sure what Benghazi has to do about competence and responsibility unless of course anything that happens underneath you is directly attributable to you in which case we can blame Bush for 9/11, which I don't think most level headed people do.

To clarify, I don't blame Hillary or Obama for the attack on the embassy itself. I said way back when that Obama could have done a much better job handling the aftermath. Specifically, he should have been much more forthright in acknowledging that this was a planned terrorist attack as opposed to something spontaneous, but while that's something that merits criticism, it's not that big a deal either. I didn't give much thought at all to Hillary's role in all this until it turned out that the State Department was busy covering her ###, which just reminded me of why she shouldn't be president in the first place.

In other words, this isn't so much like blaming Bush for 9/11 as much as it's like blaming Bush and Cheney for pinning 9/11 on Iraqis.

Do you think analysis and recommendations from the intelligence agencies had anything to do with Obama's initial characterizations of the attacks?

No. I think Obama understandably wanted to downplay the terror angle during an election. It's understandable, but still wrong. Like I said, I truly don't consider it a big deal, and I said so at the time, probably in this thread.

Edit: Well okay I didn't say that in this thread. It was probably in one of the election threads somewhere.

 

[pittstownkiller]

. Yes, I do believe he was talking about 9/11/01; if he wasn't, then I think his other comments are meant to obfuscate the intent of his speech and still portray the "spontaneous uprising" aspect.

Right... 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.

And? This was answered in Tommy and my nested postings.

Wrongly answered.

You offer up this solitary paragraph (removed from the speech around it) but ignore the many times the President, and people in his administration, said this attack in Benghazi was in response to a video, including the paragraph in this speech saying that the American people respect all religions and denounce "hate-speech"; answered wrongly, I think not.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Not really an admission like that at all. I'm not sure what Benghazi has to do about competence and responsibility unless of course anything that happens underneath you is directly attributable to you in which case we can blame Bush for 9/11, which I don't think most level headed people do.

To clarify, I don't blame Hillary or Obama for the attack on the embassy itself. I said way back when that Obama could have done a much better job handling the aftermath. Specifically, he should have been much more forthright in acknowledging that this was a planned terrorist attack as opposed to something spontaneous, but while that's something that merits criticism, it's not that big a deal either. I didn't give much thought at all to Hillary's role in all this until it turned out that the State Department was busy covering her ###, which just reminded me of why she shouldn't be president in the first place.

In other words, this isn't so much like blaming Bush for 9/11 as much as it's like blaming Bush and Cheney for pinning 9/11 on Iraqis.

Do you think analysis and recommendations from the intelligence agencies had anything to do with Obama's initial characterizations of the attacks?

No. I think Obama understandably wanted to downplay the terror angle during an election. It's understandable, but still wrong. Like I said, I truly don't consider it a big deal, and I said so at the time, probably in this thread.

Edit: Well okay I didn't say that in this thread. It was probably in one of the election threads somewhere.

Unsurprisingly, I'm in the "this whole thing is stupid" camp, since Obama's characterizations had literally zero affect on anything that happened. I find it surprising that you don't think the intelligence agencies had any influence on Obama's early statements since we know now that they removed language from Susan Rice's talking points the following weekend in order to preserve investigations that were underway.

 

[tommyGunZ]

. Yes, I do believe he was talking about 9/11/01; if he wasn't, then I think his other comments are meant to obfuscate the intent of his speech and still portray the "spontaneous uprising" aspect.

Right... 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.

And? This was answered in Tommy and my nested postings.

Wrongly answered.

You offer up this solitary paragraph (removed from the speech around it) but ignore the many times the President, and people in his administration, said this attack in Benghazi was in response to a video, including the paragraph in this speech saying that the American people respect all religions and denounce "hate-speech"; answered wrongly, I think not.

Do you think that paragraph is highlighted because it actually contains the language that so many of you guys are criticizing Obama for not using?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

. Yes, I do believe he was talking about 9/11/01; if he wasn't, then I think his other comments are meant to obfuscate the intent of his speech and still portray the "spontaneous uprising" aspect.

Right... 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.

And? This was answered in Tommy and my nested postings.

Wrongly answered.

You offer up this solitary paragraph (removed from the speech around it) but ignore the many times the President, and people in his administration, said this attack in Benghazi was in response to a video, including the paragraph in this speech saying that the American people respect all religions and denounce "hate-speech"; answered wrongly, I think not.

Do you think that paragraph is highlighted because it actually contains the language that so many of you guys are criticizing Obama for not using?

☝

 

[pittstownkiller]

. Yes, I do believe he was talking about 9/11/01; if he wasn't, then I think his other comments are meant to obfuscate the intent of his speech and still portray the "spontaneous uprising" aspect.

Right... 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.

And? This was answered in Tommy and my nested postings.

Wrongly answered.

You offer up this solitary paragraph (removed from the speech around it) but ignore the many times the President, and people in his administration, said this attack in Benghazi was in response to a video, including the paragraph in this speech saying that the American people respect all religions and denounce "hate-speech"; answered wrongly, I think not.

Do you think that paragraph is highlighted because it actually contains the language that so many of you guys are criticizing Obama for not using?

I told you that I believe the paragraph is in reference to 9/11/01; to hold this single vague reference to "acts of terror" as an example of the Administration's forthrightness about the reasons for Benghazi is telling enough about their actions.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Do you think that paragraph is highlighted because it actually contains the language that so many of you guys are criticizing Obama for not using?

☝

Would you guys mind posting a full transcript of Obama's comments? That might help some of us put this in context.

(Hint: I've read the transcript and I know what the context is going to show).

 

[Ghost Rider]

Also another example of how sadly desperate the right is.

If this is the Straw they grasp at for the long term, they once again do more damage to themselves than Obama/Hillary ever could on their own accord.

Would be nice if there were a level headed conservative that could come up with a real issue to motivate debate... but these seem harder and harder to come by these days.

Not really on either side here necessarily, but I wouldn't characterize an administration blatantly lying to try to mislead the public so they could look good politically as grasping for straws. The Republicans have made a lot of mistakes, but even the most staunch Obama honks need to realize he messed up here. What would you be saying if this was GW Bush? I don't think you would be looking at it this way.

This DID happen under GWBush. 13 times. And there were 3 hearings total.

There have been 9 hearings already about Benghazi.

All true, but how many of those 13 attacks under W. resulted in the death of an ambassador overseas?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Actually, since I know that nobody else is going to do it, I'll post the transcript:

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Every day, all across the world, American diplomats and civilians work tirelessly to advance the interests and values of our nation. Often, they are away from their families. Sometimes, they brave great danger.

Yesterday, four of these extraordinary Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Benghazi. Among those killed was our Ambassador, Chris Stevens, as well as Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith. We are still notifying the families of the others who were killed. And today, the American people stand united in holding the families of the four Americans in our thoughts and in our prayers.

The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack. We're working with the government of Libya to secure our diplomats. I've also directed my administration to increase our security at diplomatic posts around the world. And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.

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.

Already, many Libyans have joined us in doing so, and this attack will not break the bonds between the United States and Libya. Libyan security personnel fought back against the attackers alongside Americans. Libyans helped some of our diplomats find safety, and they carried Ambassador Stevens’s body to the hospital, where we tragically learned that he had died.

It's especially tragic that Chris Stevens died in Benghazi because it is a city that he helped to save. At the height of the Libyan revolution, Chris led our diplomatic post in Benghazi. With characteristic skill, courage, and resolve, he built partnerships with Libyan revolutionaries, and helped them as they planned to build a new Libya. When the Qaddafi regime came to an end, Chris was there to serve as our ambassador to the new Libya, and he worked tirelessly to support this young democracy, and I think both Secretary Clinton and I relied deeply on his knowledge of the situation on the ground there. He was a role model to all who worked with him and to the young diplomats who aspire to walk in his footsteps.

Along with his colleagues, Chris died in a country that is still striving to emerge from the recent experience of war. Today, the loss of these four Americans is fresh, but our memories of them linger on. I have no doubt that their legacy will live on through the work that they did far from our shores and in the hearts of those who love them back home.

Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. We mourned with the families who were lost on that day. I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed. And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.

As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.

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 we also know that the lives these Americans led stand in stark contrast to those of their attackers. These four Americans stood up for freedom and human dignity. They should give every American great pride in the country that they served, and the hope that our flag represents to people around the globe who also yearn to live in freedom and with dignity.

We grieve with their families, but let us carry on their memory, and let us continue their work of seeking a stronger America and a better world for all of our children.

Thank you. May God bless the memory of those we lost and may God bless the United States of America.

Note that the embassy attack was never referred to as an act of terror even though there were numerous opportunities to do so. It was always just referred to as an "attack" or an "outrageous and shocking attack" or something similar, but never as a "terrorist attack." The term "act of terror" only occurs at the end of speech after Obama has started speaking more broadly about 9/11 and Afghanistan and Iraq.

Furthermore, note the early reference to how the US condemns "efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others," which we now know, and which the administration knew at the time, had nothing whatsoever to do with this.

In other words, you guys are being intellectually dishonest when you yank the "act of terror" line out of context to make it look like Obama was completely forthright about this from the get-go. He wasn't, and the transcript makes that 100% clear.

Like I said above a couple of times, I can forgive that. It's not like Obama is some sort of Secret Muslim who wanted the embassy to be attacked. But honest Obama supporters should have no problem admitting that he didn't handle the immediate aftermath of this episode in a particularly noble manner.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

They had to make a statement.... and were still figuring out details.

Move on.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Actually, since I know that nobody else is going to do it, I'll post the transcript:

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Every day, all across the world, American diplomats and civilians work tirelessly to advance the interests and values of our nation. Often, they are away from their families. Sometimes, they brave great danger.

Yesterday, four of these extraordinary Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Benghazi. Among those killed was our Ambassador, Chris Stevens, as well as Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith. We are still notifying the families of the others who were killed. And today, the American people stand united in holding the families of the four Americans in our thoughts and in our prayers.

The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack. We're working with the government of Libya to secure our diplomats. I've also directed my administration to increase our security at diplomatic posts around the world. And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.

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.

Already, many Libyans have joined us in doing so, and this attack will not break the bonds between the United States and Libya. Libyan security personnel fought back against the attackers alongside Americans. Libyans helped some of our diplomats find safety, and they carried Ambassador Stevens’s body to the hospital, where we tragically learned that he had died.

It's especially tragic that Chris Stevens died in Benghazi because it is a city that he helped to save. At the height of the Libyan revolution, Chris led our diplomatic post in Benghazi. With characteristic skill, courage, and resolve, he built partnerships with Libyan revolutionaries, and helped them as they planned to build a new Libya. When the Qaddafi regime came to an end, Chris was there to serve as our ambassador to the new Libya, and he worked tirelessly to support this young democracy, and I think both Secretary Clinton and I relied deeply on his knowledge of the situation on the ground there. He was a role model to all who worked with him and to the young diplomats who aspire to walk in his footsteps.

Along with his colleagues, Chris died in a country that is still striving to emerge from the recent experience of war. Today, the loss of these four Americans is fresh, but our memories of them linger on. I have no doubt that their legacy will live on through the work that they did far from our shores and in the hearts of those who love them back home.

Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. We mourned with the families who were lost on that day. I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed. And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.

As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.

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 we also know that the lives these Americans led stand in stark contrast to those of their attackers. These four Americans stood up for freedom and human dignity. They should give every American great pride in the country that they served, and the hope that our flag represents to people around the globe who also yearn to live in freedom and with dignity.

We grieve with their families, but let us carry on their memory, and let us continue their work of seeking a stronger America and a better world for all of our children.

Thank you. May God bless the memory of those we lost and may God bless the United States of America.

Note that the embassy attack was never referred to as an act of terror even though there were numerous opportunities to do so. It was always just referred to as an "attack" or an "outrageous and shocking attack" or something similar, but never as a "terrorist attack." The term "act of terror" only occurs at the end of speech after Obama has started speaking more broadly about 9/11 and Afghanistan and Iraq.

Furthermore, note the early reference to how the US condemns "efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others," which we now know, and which the administration knew at the time, had nothing whatsoever to do with this.

In other words, you guys are being intellectually dishonest when you yank the "act of terror" line out of context to make it look like Obama was completely forthright about this from the get-go. He wasn't, and the transcript makes that 100% clear.

Like I said above a couple of times, I can forgive that. It's not like Obama is some sort of Secret Muslim who wanted the embassy to be attacked. But honest Obama supporters should have no problem admitting that he didn't handle the immediate aftermath of this episode in a particularly noble manner.

 

[sporthenry]

Also another example of how sadly desperate the right is.

If this is the Straw they grasp at for the long term, they once again do more damage to themselves than Obama/Hillary ever could on their own accord.

Would be nice if there were a level headed conservative that could come up with a real issue to motivate debate... but these seem harder and harder to come by these days.

Not really on either side here necessarily, but I wouldn't characterize an administration blatantly lying to try to mislead the public so they could look good politically as grasping for straws. The Republicans have made a lot of mistakes, but even the most staunch Obama honks need to realize he messed up here. What would you be saying if this was GW Bush? I don't think you would be looking at it this way.

This DID happen under GWBush. 13 times. And there were 3 hearings total.

There have been 9 hearings already about Benghazi.

All true, but how many of those 13 attacks under W. resulted in the death of an ambassador overseas?

This is another thing that I don't get and actually sort of infuriates me. Why do you need to qualify it with an ambassador? Why not just say, how many resulted in the death of Americans?

 

[pittstownkiller]

They had to make a statement.... and were still figuring out details. Move on.

When you are trying to figure something out it is helpful to not to jump to conclusions, like "it was in response to a video".

 

[Carolina Hustler]

They had to make a statement.... and were still figuring out details. Move on.

When you are trying to figure something out it is helpful to not to jump to conclusions, like "it was in response to a video".

They didn't know all the details and everyone knows, when that's the case, just make something up, and since you're making something up, might as well find a patsy (the video maker) and throw him in prison for a year..

 

[sporthenry]

They had to make a statement.... and were still figuring out details. Move on.

When you are trying to figure something out it is helpful to not to jump to conclusions, like "it was in response to a video".

I agree. They scrubbed everything from their statement but this. They should have scrubbed this. However, the video was about the only thing left after every agency got done covering their ### that was left.

But as David Brooks said on MTP, everyone looks at the CIA and Intelligence Community as being these pure entities who aren't involved in the politics when that isn't true. Their initial statements were probably extremely one sided shifting all the blame away from them. The State Department wasn't going to take it all so they went through a ton of revisions. Why the video part wasn't scrubbed? I don't know. Should it have been? Yes, they should have been very vague and said the investigation was ongoing (although that probably would have pissed people off as well). But do I think it is a giant conspiracy coming from Hillary or Barack? No, it is just the business of politics with every agency seeking to cover their ###.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

They had to make a statement.... and were still figuring out details. Move on.

When you are trying to figure something out it is helpful to not to jump to conclusions, like "it was in response to a video".

It stated that in his speech?

A: No, it didn't.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

, just make something up,

The conservative specialty.

 

[Fennis]

Wolf! Wolf! Wolf!

 

[pittstownkiller]

They had to make a statement.... and were still figuring out details. Move on.

When you are trying to figure something out it is helpful to not to jump to conclusions, like "it was in response to a video".

I agree. They scrubbed everything from their statement but this. They should have scrubbed this. However, the video was about the only thing left after every agency got done covering their ### that was left. But as David Brooks said on MTP, everyone looks at the CIA and Intelligence Community as being these pure entities who aren't involved in the politics when that isn't true. Their initial statements were probably extremely one sided shifting all the blame away from them. The State Department wasn't going to take it all so they went through a ton of revisions. Why the video part wasn't scrubbed? I don't know. Should it have been? Yes, they should have been very vague and said the investigation was ongoing (although that probably would have pissed people off as well). But do I think it is a giant conspiracy coming from Hillary or Barack? No, it is just the business of politics with every agency seeking to cover their ###.

I do not think if there is any stink from this that Hillary can truly distance herself from it; she was the head of the State Department after all.

 

[sporthenry]

They had to make a statement.... and were still figuring out details. Move on.

When you are trying to figure something out it is helpful to not to jump to conclusions, like "it was in response to a video".

I agree. They scrubbed everything from their statement but this. They should have scrubbed this. However, the video was about the only thing left after every agency got done covering their ### that was left. But as David Brooks said on MTP, everyone looks at the CIA and Intelligence Community as being these pure entities who aren't involved in the politics when that isn't true. Their initial statements were probably extremely one sided shifting all the blame away from them. The State Department wasn't going to take it all so they went through a ton of revisions. Why the video part wasn't scrubbed? I don't know. Should it have been? Yes, they should have been very vague and said the investigation was ongoing (although that probably would have pissed people off as well). But do I think it is a giant conspiracy coming from Hillary or Barack? No, it is just the business of politics with every agency seeking to cover their ###.

I do not think if there is any stink from this that Hillary can truly distance herself from it; she was the head of the State Department after all.

I'd say it is pretty easy to distance herself. She already has. Most Americans have already moved on and unless they directly tie her to a cover up, which just seems more like a turf war at this point, she should be fine. And the beauty of it, is that the CIA did call it a spontaneous attack inspired by Egypt. So I guess that is the CIA's fault? Even if the administration acknowledged al-Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia, they still thought it was sparked by the Egypt protest and video. So would people still be angry if that was the case?

 

[pittstownkiller]

They had to make a statement.... and were still figuring out details. Move on.

When you are trying to figure something out it is helpful to not to jump to conclusions, like "it was in response to a video".

I agree. They scrubbed everything from their statement but this. They should have scrubbed this. However, the video was about the only thing left after every agency got done covering their ### that was left. But as David Brooks said on MTP, everyone looks at the CIA and Intelligence Community as being these pure entities who aren't involved in the politics when that isn't true. Their initial statements were probably extremely one sided shifting all the blame away from them. The State Department wasn't going to take it all so they went through a ton of revisions. Why the video part wasn't scrubbed? I don't know. Should it have been? Yes, they should have been very vague and said the investigation was ongoing (although that probably would have pissed people off as well). But do I think it is a giant conspiracy coming from Hillary or Barack? No, it is just the business of politics with every agency seeking to cover their ###.

I do not think if there is any stink from this that Hillary can truly distance herself from it; she was the head of the State Department after all.

I'd say it is pretty easy to distance herself. She already has. Most Americans have already moved on and unless they directly tie her to a cover up, which just seems more like a turf war at this point, she should be fine. And the beauty of it, is that the CIA did call it a spontaneous attack inspired by Egypt. So I guess that is the CIA's fault? Even if the administration acknowledged al-Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia, they still thought it was sparked by the Egypt protest and video. So would people still be angry if that was the case?

I am not sure your opinion is one that is shared by the masses.

 

[sporthenry]

They had to make a statement.... and were still figuring out details. Move on.

When you are trying to figure something out it is helpful to not to jump to conclusions, like "it was in response to a video".

I agree. They scrubbed everything from their statement but this. They should have scrubbed this. However, the video was about the only thing left after every agency got done covering their ### that was left. But as David Brooks said on MTP, everyone looks at the CIA and Intelligence Community as being these pure entities who aren't involved in the politics when that isn't true. Their initial statements were probably extremely one sided shifting all the blame away from them. The State Department wasn't going to take it all so they went through a ton of revisions. Why the video part wasn't scrubbed? I don't know. Should it have been? Yes, they should have been very vague and said the investigation was ongoing (although that probably would have pissed people off as well). But do I think it is a giant conspiracy coming from Hillary or Barack? No, it is just the business of politics with every agency seeking to cover their ###.

I do not think if there is any stink from this that Hillary can truly distance herself from it; she was the head of the State Department after all.

I'd say it is pretty easy to distance herself. She already has. Most Americans have already moved on and unless they directly tie her to a cover up, which just seems more like a turf war at this point, she should be fine. And the beauty of it, is that the CIA did call it a spontaneous attack inspired by Egypt. So I guess that is the CIA's fault? Even if the administration acknowledged al-Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia, they still thought it was sparked by the Egypt protest and video. So would people still be angry if that was the case?

I am not sure your opinion is one that is shared by the masses.

What opinion? The fact that her approval rating is so high and most evidence points to her not having any involvement in the talking points?

 

[pittstownkiller]

They had to make a statement.... and were still figuring out details. Move on.

When you are trying to figure something out it is helpful to not to jump to conclusions, like "it was in response to a video".

I agree. They scrubbed everything from their statement but this. They should have scrubbed this. However, the video was about the only thing left after every agency got done covering their ### that was left. But as David Brooks said on MTP, everyone looks at the CIA and Intelligence Community as being these pure entities who aren't involved in the politics when that isn't true. Their initial statements were probably extremely one sided shifting all the blame away from them. The State Department wasn't going to take it all so they went through a ton of revisions. Why the video part wasn't scrubbed? I don't know. Should it have been? Yes, they should have been very vague and said the investigation was ongoing (although that probably would have pissed people off as well). But do I think it is a giant conspiracy coming from Hillary or Barack? No, it is just the business of politics with every agency seeking to cover their ###.

I do not think if there is any stink from this that Hillary can truly distance herself from it; she was the head of the State Department after all.

I'd say it is pretty easy to distance herself. She already has. Most Americans have already moved on and unless they directly tie her to a cover up, which just seems more like a turf war at this point, she should be fine. And the beauty of it, is that the CIA did call it a spontaneous attack inspired by Egypt. So I guess that is the CIA's fault? Even if the administration acknowledged al-Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia, they still thought it was sparked by the Egypt protest and video. So would people still be angry if that was the case?

I am not sure your opinion is one that is shared by the masses.

What opinion? The fact that her approval rating is so high and most evidence points to her not having any involvement in the talking points?

I am sure the "what does it matter" line from her testimony is going to be presented in a glowing manner.

 

[Mark Davis]

They had to make a statement.... and were still figuring out details. Move on.

When you are trying to figure something out it is helpful to not to jump to conclusions, like "it was in response to a video".

I agree. They scrubbed everything from their statement but this. They should have scrubbed this. However, the video was about the only thing left after every agency got done covering their ### that was left. But as David Brooks said on MTP, everyone looks at the CIA and Intelligence Community as being these pure entities who aren't involved in the politics when that isn't true. Their initial statements were probably extremely one sided shifting all the blame away from them. The State Department wasn't going to take it all so they went through a ton of revisions. Why the video part wasn't scrubbed? I don't know. Should it have been? Yes, they should have been very vague and said the investigation was ongoing (although that probably would have pissed people off as well). But do I think it is a giant conspiracy coming from Hillary or Barack? No, it is just the business of politics with every agency seeking to cover their ###.

I do not think if there is any stink from this that Hillary can truly distance herself from it; she was the head of the State Department after all.

I'd say it is pretty easy to distance herself. She already has. Most Americans have already moved on and unless they directly tie her to a cover up, which just seems more like a turf war at this point, she should be fine. And the beauty of it, is that the CIA did call it a spontaneous attack inspired by Egypt. So I guess that is the CIA's fault? Even if the administration acknowledged al-Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia, they still thought it was sparked by the Egypt protest and video. So would people still be angry if that was the case?

Not angry. Just extremely sad if people in charge really thought that silly video was truly the reason. Honestly I'd feel better if it was a deliberate lie.

 

[sporthenry]

They had to make a statement.... and were still figuring out details. Move on.

When you are trying to figure something out it is helpful to not to jump to conclusions, like "it was in response to a video".

I agree. They scrubbed everything from their statement but this. They should have scrubbed this. However, the video was about the only thing left after every agency got done covering their ### that was left. But as David Brooks said on MTP, everyone looks at the CIA and Intelligence Community as being these pure entities who aren't involved in the politics when that isn't true. Their initial statements were probably extremely one sided shifting all the blame away from them. The State Department wasn't going to take it all so they went through a ton of revisions. Why the video part wasn't scrubbed? I don't know. Should it have been? Yes, they should have been very vague and said the investigation was ongoing (although that probably would have pissed people off as well). But do I think it is a giant conspiracy coming from Hillary or Barack? No, it is just the business of politics with every agency seeking to cover their ###.

I do not think if there is any stink from this that Hillary can truly distance herself from it; she was the head of the State Department after all.

I'd say it is pretty easy to distance herself. She already has. Most Americans have already moved on and unless they directly tie her to a cover up, which just seems more like a turf war at this point, she should be fine. And the beauty of it, is that the CIA did call it a spontaneous attack inspired by Egypt. So I guess that is the CIA's fault? Even if the administration acknowledged al-Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia, they still thought it was sparked by the Egypt protest and video. So would people still be angry if that was the case?

Not angry. Just extremely sad if people in charge really thought that silly video was truly the reason. Honestly I'd feel better if it was a deliberate lie.

You mean, the same video which was the reason our embassy in Cairo was breached?

 

[matuski]

Also another example of how sadly desperate the right is.

If this is the Straw they grasp at for the long term, they once again do more damage to themselves than Obama/Hillary ever could on their own accord.

Would be nice if there were a level headed conservative that could come up with a real issue to motivate debate... but these seem harder and harder to come by these days.

Not really on either side here necessarily, but I wouldn't characterize an administration blatantly lying to try to mislead the public so they could look good politically as grasping for straws. The Republicans have made a lot of mistakes, but even the most staunch Obama honks need to realize he messed up here. What would you be saying if this was GW Bush? I don't think you would be looking at it this way.

He clearly messed up. This has nothing to do with my post.

Sorry, I didn't get that impression from reading your post. I agree that he messed up and I'm sure this will be endless fodder for the right. I do think it hurts Hillary going forward, I certainly would never consider voting for her because of this. Unfortunately people have short memories and will vote with the party and not the person no matter what. It really is a sad state right now that both sides just attack each other, zealously defending their side even though both sides hold a ton of the blame. Its tough to make people accountable when the loyal left and the loyal right follow their side no matter what. The people who are open minded enough to bring both parties together will never get elected as president because they would get crucified by their own party for not being loyal. This is especially true on the Republican side. /side rant

This is what I'm saying. This will hurt Hillary... a little bit, and for a little bit.

However, "team Right" seems to be picking this out as their go-to for the long-haul. In the end this will predictably backfire as they refuse to move on to something meaningful. They will hurt themselves more than anything or anyone else could....

Obama/Hillary will sit back and watch the conservative machine burn itself to the ground... again.