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

[jamny]

[Khattala] also maintained that the violence in Benghazi that night grew out of a protest against a movie produced in the United States that lampooned Islam and the Prophet Muhammad, rather than being a planned action by militants. (This has been a much-contested question; Kirkpatrick concluded that “the reality in Benghazi was different, and murkier, than either of those story lines suggests.… The attack does not appear to have been meticulously planned, but neither was it spontaneous or without warning signs.”)

link

Abu Khattala has repeatedly denied leading or even taking part in the assault

 

[pantagrapher]

[Khattala] also maintained that the violence in Benghazi that night grew out of a protest against a movie produced in the United States that lampooned Islam and the Prophet Muhammad, rather than being a planned action by militants. (This has been a much-contested question; Kirkpatrick concluded that “the reality in Benghazi was different, and murkier, than either of those story lines suggests.… The attack does not appear to have been meticulously planned, but neither was it spontaneous or without warning signs.”)

link

Abu Khattala has repeatedly denied leading or even taking part in the assault

He could be innocent, for sure. That's why he'll have a trial. But he does admit he was there, so he was in a position to know what was going on and why.

The assertion days later that the attack was inspired by the video was not the nefarious cover-up it was made out to be.

 

[jamny]

[Khattala] also maintained that the violence in Benghazi that night grew out of a protest against a movie produced in the United States that lampooned Islam and the Prophet Muhammad, rather than being a planned action by militants. (This has been a much-contested question; Kirkpatrick concluded that “the reality in Benghazi was different, and murkier, than either of those story lines suggests.… The attack does not appear to have been meticulously planned, but neither was it spontaneous or without warning signs.”)

link

Abu Khattala has repeatedly denied leading or even taking part in the assault

He could be innocent, for sure. That's why he'll have a trial. But he does admit he was there, so he was in a position to know what was going on and why.

The assertion days later that the attack was inspired by the video was not the nefarious cover-up it was made out to be.

FTR, I've never looked at the whole thing as a coverup or conspiracy. Just poorly handled all around, bordering on incompetence.

 

[Chaka]

Ham Rove! Accusing people of trolling is solid shtick.

 

[Chaka]

Which terrorist organization claimed responsibility for the attack?

 

[matuski]

This is unbelievable. First it that the administration was wrong and stuck to that narrative for too long. Now it looks like that narrative may have been correct and it's "How could they possibly have known that at the time?"

Weren't you guys criticizing them for not knowing the exact motivation immediately? Now you question how they could have possibly known?

Come on guys, just stop trying to make this into a scandal.

May have been correct?

Because of unnamed Libyans that are saying that they heard the video was Khattala's reason for the attack?

That's all it takes?

I'm convinced that most of these people are trolling. Nobody could possibly be that thick and still function in society.

Fact 1: The administration message to the world was this this was a spontaneous protest that got out of hand

Fact 2: The event was not spontaneous. Was preplanned, was an intentional attack by a known terrorist group and was not a protest.

Fact 3: There was clarity around fact 2 while the attack was going on

Fact 4: Fact 1 narrative varies greatly with fact 2 narrative

conclusion; The administration lied

QED

nutjobs look ridiculous because they double down on their losing position that nobody ever cared about anyway.

 

[Rove!]

Which terrorist organization claimed responsibility for the attack?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/24/us-usa-benghazi-emails-idUSBRE89N02C20121024

Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.The emails, obtained by Reuters from government sources not connected with U.S. spy agencies or the State Department and who requested anonymity, specifically mention that the Libyan group called Ansar al-Sharia had asserted responsibility for the attacks.

 

[jamny]

Pretty good timeline

 

[Josie Maran]

So can someone give me a quick bullet point list of what exactly you think is being covered up about this?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Chaka]

Which terrorist organization claimed responsibility for the attack?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/24/us-usa-benghazi-emails-idUSBRE89N02C20121024

Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.The emails, obtained by Reuters from government sources not connected with U.S. spy agencies or the State Department and who requested anonymity, specifically mention that the Libyan group called Ansar al-Sharia had asserted responsibility for the attacks.

The emails, obtained by Reuters from government sources not connected with U.S. spy agencies or the State Department and who requested anonymity, specifically mention that the Libyan group called Ansar al-Sharia had asserted responsibility for the attacks.

This is your definitive fact? At least I was intellectually honest enough to include "May have" in my statements.Don't groups like Ansar al-Sharia typically shout from the rooftops when they pull off something big like this?

 

[Chaka]

And is this even the same Ansar al-Sharia?

David Kirkpatrick of the New York Times reported that 20-year-old neighbor Mohamed Bishari witnessed the attack. According to Bishari, it was launched without warning or protest and was led by the Islamist militia Ansar al-Sharia (different from the group called Ansar al-Sharia based in Yemen designated by the U.N. and the U.S. Department of State as a terrorist organization[133]). Kirkpatrick reported that Ansar al-Sharia said they were launching the assault in retaliation for the release of the anti-Islamic video, Innocence of Muslims.[134][135] It was further reported that Ahmed Abu Khattala was called a ringleader of the attack by both witnesses and authorities, though he insisted he did not play a part in the aggression at the American compound. Witnesses, Benghazi residents, and Western news reports have described him as a leader of Ansar al-Sharia, though he stated he was close to the group but not an official part of it. He further stated he was the commander of an Islamist brigade, Abu Obaida ibn al-Jarrah, some of whose members had joined Ansar al-Sharia.[136]

 

[Chaka]

So can someone give me a quick bullet point list of what exactly you think is being covered up about this?

Thanks in advance.

Nothing. I thought the outrage was promoting a narrative they did not like that may still prove to have been accurate.

Either that or Obama and Hillary personally led a hit squad that attacked the embassy themselves.

 

[Rove!]

Which terrorist organization claimed responsibility for the attack?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/24/us-usa-benghazi-emails-idUSBRE89N02C20121024

Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.The emails, obtained by Reuters from government sources not connected with U.S. spy agencies or the State Department and who requested anonymity, specifically mention that the Libyan group called Ansar al-Sharia had asserted responsibility for the attacks.

The emails, obtained by Reuters from government sources not connected with U.S. spy agencies or the State Department and who requested anonymity, specifically mention that the Libyan group called Ansar al-Sharia had asserted responsibility for the attacks.

This is your definitive fact? At least I was intellectually honest enough to include "May have" in my statements.Don't groups like Ansar al-Sharia typically shout from the rooftops when they pull off something big like this?

You asked a question, I provided the answer. I didn't make any statement; I just quoted Reuters.

 

[Daywalker]

So can someone give me a quick bullet point list of what exactly you think is being covered up about this?

Thanks in advance.

Nothing. I thought the outrage was promoting a narrative they did not like that may still prove to have been accurate.

So now we are at their lie was actually true but it was still a lie at the time?

 

[Chaka]

Which terrorist organization claimed responsibility for the attack?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/24/us-usa-benghazi-emails-idUSBRE89N02C20121024

Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.The emails, obtained by Reuters from government sources not connected with U.S. spy agencies or the State Department and who requested anonymity, specifically mention that the Libyan group called Ansar al-Sharia had asserted responsibility for the attacks.

The emails, obtained by Reuters from government sources not connected with U.S. spy agencies or the State Department and who requested anonymity, specifically mention that the Libyan group called Ansar al-Sharia had asserted responsibility for the attacks.

This is your definitive fact? At least I was intellectually honest enough to include "May have" in my statements.Don't groups like Ansar al-Sharia typically shout from the rooftops when they pull off something big like this?

You asked a question, I provided the answer. I didn't make any statement; I just quoted Reuters.

I am not saying it wasn't a planned terrorist attack by a known terrorist organization but I am questioning whether or not it is a Fact as you stated so confidently.

Fact 2: The event was not spontaneous. Was preplanned, was an intentional attack by a known terrorist group and was not a protest.

Fact 3: There was clarity around fact 2 while the attack was going on

The evidence at the time supports the notion that there was a ton of conflicting information coming in during the attack and that there was no consensus in the weeks that followed. It was an incredibly chaotic event and pushing the notion that the government should be all seeing and all knowing and then screaming "SCANDAL!!!" when it is demonstrated that in reality that they are not is horribly disingenuous. My god Bush is responsible for thousands of American deaths based, and tens of thousand innocent Iraqi deaths (not to mention the maimings) based on horrible intelligence information about Iraq. This is not a "BUSH SUCKS" statement rather it is a statement about the fact that our intelligence system is not perfect.

Accept it and move on.

 

[Chaka]

So can someone give me a quick bullet point list of what exactly you think is being covered up about this?

Thanks in advance.

Nothing. I thought the outrage was promoting a narrative they did not like that may still prove to have been accurate.

So now we are at their lie was actually true but it was still a lie at the time?

No that is not where we are at.

 

[Rove!]

Which terrorist organization claimed responsibility for the attack?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/24/us-usa-benghazi-emails-idUSBRE89N02C20121024

Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.The emails, obtained by Reuters from government sources not connected with U.S. spy agencies or the State Department and who requested anonymity, specifically mention that the Libyan group called Ansar al-Sharia had asserted responsibility for the attacks.

The emails, obtained by Reuters from government sources not connected with U.S. spy agencies or the State Department and who requested anonymity, specifically mention that the Libyan group called Ansar al-Sharia had asserted responsibility for the attacks.

This is your definitive fact? At least I was intellectually honest enough to include "May have" in my statements.Don't groups like Ansar al-Sharia typically shout from the rooftops when they pull off something big like this?

You asked a question, I provided the answer. I didn't make any statement; I just quoted Reuters.

I am not saying it wasn't a planned terrorist attack by a known terrorist organization but I am questioning whether or not it is a Fact as you stated so confidently.

Fact 2: The event was not spontaneous. Was preplanned, was an intentional attack by a known terrorist group and was not a protest.

Fact 3: There was clarity around fact 2 while the attack was going on

The evidence at the time supports the notion that there was a ton of conflicting information coming in during the attack and that there was no consensus in the weeks that followed. It was an incredibly chaotic event and pushing the notion that the government should be all seeing and all knowing and then screaming "SCANDAL!!!" when it is demonstrated that in reality that they are not is horribly disingenuous. My god Bush is responsible for thousands of American deaths based, and tens of thousand innocent Iraqi deaths (not to mention the maimings) based on horrible intelligence information about Iraq. This is not a "BUSH SUCKS" statement rather it is a statement about the fact that our intelligence system is not perfect.

Accept it and move on.

A protest usually features people shouting slogans, maybe with banners and crowds of people. If you look at the timeline that Jamny posted earlier, it shows that the people in Washington were in phone contact with the people at the embassy. The people at the embassy were telling the people in Washington that everything was quiet right up until the attack. Beth Jones from the State Department said during the attack

"“When [the Libyan Ambassador] said his government suspected that former Qaddafi regime elements carried out the attacks, I told him the group that conducted the attacks—Ansar Al Sharia—is affiliated with Islamic extremists,”

There is no ambiguity, confusion or fog of war in that statement.

Libya's President stated

"The idea that this criminal and cowardly act was a spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous,"

That's our ally talking

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Which terrorist organization claimed responsibility for the attack?

Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.

The emails, obtained by Reuters from government sources not connected with U.S. spy agencies or the State Department and who requested anonymity, specifically mention that the Libyan group called Ansar al-Sharia had asserted responsibility for the attacks.

The brief emails also show how U.S. diplomats described the attack, even as it was still under way, to Washington.

U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the Benghazi assault, which President Barack Obama and other U.S. officials ultimately acknowledged was a "terrorist" attack carried out by militants with suspected links to al Qaeda affiliates or sympathizers.

...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/24/us-usa-benghazi-emails-idUSBRE89N02C20121024

A: Ansar al-Sharia.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

It wasn't a gotcha. I didn't slip his name in. I've been specifically talking about Khattala and his reasons for the attack from the beginning. Some unnamed Libyans heard from Khattala that the video was the reason (or a big reason). When did we learn that info? Just prior to his arrest or in the hours before or after the attack?

Nobody in the administration said they had that specific information days after the attack. It's from a NYT story published June 17, 2014.

OK, great. So right now the Khattala arrest is a separate story from the supposed scandal.

One has nothing to do with the other at this point. Yet people will continue to use any little detail to high-five each other and claim some kind of victory.

Huh?

The recent information about Khattala's motives collaborates what the administration said at the time. Nice try though.

Because of unnamed Libyans that are saying that they heard the video was Khattala's reason for the attack?

That's all it takes?

They heard from Khattala himself on the night of the attacks Khattala [allegedly] helped invoke.

In several hours of interviews since the attack, Mr. Abu Khattala was happy to profess his admiration for Osama bin Laden and other leaders of Al Qaeda. He insisted that American foreign policy alone was to blame for the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. But he remained a distant admirer of Mr. Bin Laden’s organization, having spent most of his adult life in and out of jail for his extremism under Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi.

As the attack in Benghazi was unfolding a few hours later, Mr. Abu Khattala told fellow Islamist fighters and others that the assault was retaliation for the same insulting video, according to people who heard him.

In an interview a few days later, he pointedly declined to say whether an offensive online video might indeed warrant the destruction of the diplomatic mission or the killing of the ambassador. “From a religious point of view, it is hard to say whether it is good or bad,” he said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/18/world/middleeast/apprehension-of-ahmed-abu-khattala-may-begin-to-answer-questions-on-assault.html?hp&_r=4

Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.

The emails, obtained by Reuters from government sources not connected with U.S. spy agencies or the State Department and who requested anonymity, specifically mention that the Libyan group called Ansar al-Sharia had asserted responsibility for the attacks.

The brief emails also show how U.S. diplomats described the attack, even as it was still under way, to Washington.

U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the Benghazi assault, which President Barack Obama and other U.S. officials ultimately acknowledged was a "terrorist" attack carried out by militants with suspected links to al Qaeda affiliates or sympathizers.

...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/24/us-usa-benghazi-emails-idUSBRE89N02C20121024

So let's see we have this right:

• a guy who professed his admiration for Osama bin Laden and other leaders of Al Qaeda.
• who insisted that American foreign policy alone was to blame for the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
• who spent most of his adult life in and out of jail for his extremism
• A guy who when personally asked said about Basile's movie, “From a religious point of view, it is hard to say whether it is good or bad,”
• and who goes and joins up with an attack by a known extremist militia / terrorist group, which had seen the US as its enemy well before the movie was ever made
• where for weeks or months before the embassy and the State Department had been discussing the imminent likelihood of terror/militia attacks

This guy, and this group, needed a movie - a movie which he himself said, meh may or may not be bad - to motivate them to attack the US embassy.

Is that about right?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Mat, when I wrote that, I thought that may be the response, but that's ok. Yeah I think Obama defenders are as hyper-obssessed about making this a "conspiracy" discussion as his opponents.

What do you think of the president's comments about the movie? Would you not describe these comments as "obsessive" and completely off base from a liberal viewpoint?

• "a crude and disgusting video"

Do you personally think it's disgusting? Why?

• "I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity"

Really.

• "It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well"

Why is this movie an insult to America?

• "We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them."

Where does he get this?

• "I know there are some who ask why we don’t just ban such a video"

Who in America, again?

• "Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs."

(The movie was "blasphemy"? To whom? Which sacred beliefs?)

• "Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views, even views that we profoundly disagree with."

(Who in America profoundly disagrees with the movie?)

• "hateful speech"

(Is it?)

• "There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents."

(The name of the movie is "Innocence of Muslims". What's funny is that Egyptian muslims have been killing Egyptian Christians.)

• "In this modern world with modern technologies, for us to respond in that way to hateful speech empowers any individual who engages in such speech to create chaos around the world."

(Basile created "chaos"? You agree with that?)

• "We do not expect other nations to agree with us on every issue, nor do we assume that the violence of the past weeks or the hateful speech by some individuals represent the views of the overwhelming majority of Muslims, any more than the views of the people who produced this video represents those of Americans."

I don't think most Americans think the koran is "real". Neither does Basile.

• "The future must not belong to those who target Coptic Christians in Egypt -- it must be claimed by those in Tahrir Square who chanted, “Muslims, Christians, we are one.”

Did this actually happen?

• "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam."

Who "slandered" whom? Basile slandered Mohammed? And we're saying Mohammed is an actual "prophet"? Most Americans don't believe any of that.>>> Obsession begets obsession.

Yes, I agree with all of those statements made by Obama. And I'm an atheist. Just because I don't believe in Islam or Christianity or Hinduism doesn't mean that I think intentionally over the top videos designed to offend and inflame are admirable.

I think you're being intentionally obtuse here. The idea that the video isn't blasphemous is silly. As is the idea that this video did not spur chaos in multiple places around the world.

its irrelevant if the video is blasphemous, for two reasonsne: Blasphemy is legally protected speech in America due to this thing called the 1st Amendment.

two: Benghazi was never about "the video". Never. The faster you come to accept that truth, the better.

No one, not me nor the comments Saints posted from Obama, are suggesting that blasphemous comments aren't protected speech. Obama even alludes to that protection with the "people wonder why this isn't banned" comment.

It's obvious that Benghazi was about far more than the video. It's also obvious to anyone with a brain that the video wasn't some conspiracy created by the administration for political purposes. And that's been the issue the past two years from guys on your side. Can we finally put that stupidity to bed and move on?

I have to say this cracks me up.

We frequently read here how religion and its books are a bunch of fairy tales, how we shouldn't be fighting to stop a bunch of people who are fighting amongst themselves over their various interpretations, and yet here you are saying the Basile movie was blasphemy? You personally think that saying that Mohammed was absolutely full of hooey is blashpemy? That's what you personally believe?

And why do you believe this if you haven't seen the movie (you haven't, right?)? And what business does the Presidents of the USA have deciding and saying what is blashemy? I would really like to hear a good, strong liberal explanation of this.

Obama goes before the world at the UN and in discussing an attack on a US embassy by a militia/terror group on the anniversary of the September 11th attacks and he makes the movie the centerpiece of what he is saying.

And by the way notice how often he claims to speak for the American people in those comments. Most Americans (IMO) do not share those opinions about the movie and never did.

I'm happy to move on to discussing the substance of the video, as soon as you admit that this entire "scandal" has been a farce and that Susan Rice was unjustly criticized.

See gunz, it was Rice herself who brought the "offensive" quality of teh movie up:

But our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous -- not a premeditated -- response to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.

We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to -- or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo. And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons, weapons that as you know in -- in the wake of the revolution in Libya are -- are quite common and accessible. And it then evolved from there.

Nobody not even the administration is saying the attack:

• spontaneous
• not premeditated
• was a protest
• started by a small number of people

What they are trying to shoehorn now is that there were terrorists who were spurred on by the movie, even though they had been wildly hateful of the US for many years before.

Probably the only thing the administration has stood by is Obama's speech to the UN and Rice's statement that the movie was "very offensive" and all the other stuff the president said, almost justifying what the terrorists did, just saying that hey they went about it the wrong way.

And the movie, what is "very offensive" about it considering that about 90% of the internet and youtube inflames these idiots? In Lahore, Pakistan, drawing in public is banned. Drawing. Or kite flying, also banned. This movie did not suddenly send them over the edge. It's ludicrous.

As for your challenge, I'm reminded of this scene from Team America.

 

[Stinger Ray]

It wasn't a gotcha. I didn't slip his name in. I've been specifically talking about Khattala and his reasons for the attack from the beginning. Some unnamed Libyans heard from Khattala that the video was the reason (or a big reason). When did we learn that info? Just prior to his arrest or in the hours before or after the attack?

Nobody in the administration said they had that specific information days after the attack. It's from a NYT story published June 17, 2014.

OK, great. So right now the Khattala arrest is a separate story from the supposed scandal.One has nothing to do with the other at this point. Yet people will continue to use any little detail to high-five each other and claim some kind of victory.

Huh?

The recent information about Khattala's motives collaborates what the administration said at the time. Nice try though.

Because of unnamed Libyans that are saying that they heard the video was Khattala's reason for the attack?That's all it takes?

They heard from Khattala himself on the night of the attacks Khattala [allegedly] helped invoke.

In several hours of interviews since the attack, Mr. Abu Khattala was happy to profess his admiration for Osama bin Laden and other leaders of Al Qaeda. He insisted that American foreign policy alone was to blame for the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. But he remained a distant admirer of Mr. Bin Laden’s organization, having spent most of his adult life in and out of jail for his extremism under Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi.

As the attack in Benghazi was unfolding a few hours later, Mr. Abu Khattala told fellow Islamist fighters and others that the assault was retaliation for the same insulting video, according to people who heard him.

In an interview a few days later, he pointedly declined to say whether an offensive online video might indeed warrant the destruction of the diplomatic mission or the killing of the ambassador. “From a religious point of view, it is hard to say whether it is good or bad,” he said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/18/world/middleeast/apprehension-of-ahmed-abu-khattala-may-begin-to-answer-questions-on-assault.html?hp&_r=4

Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.

The emails, obtained by Reuters from government sources not connected with U.S. spy agencies or the State Department and who requested anonymity, specifically mention that the Libyan group called Ansar al-Sharia had asserted responsibility for the attacks.

The brief emails also show how U.S. diplomats described the attack, even as it was still under way, to Washington.

U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the Benghazi assault, which President Barack Obama and other U.S. officials ultimately acknowledged was a "terrorist" attack carried out by militants with suspected links to al Qaeda affiliates or sympathizers.

...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/24/us-usa-benghazi-emails-idUSBRE89N02C20121024

So let's see we have this right:

• a guy who professed his admiration for Osama bin Laden and other leaders of Al Qaeda.
• who insisted that American foreign policy alone was to blame for the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
• who spent most of his adult life in and out of jail for his extremism
• A guy who when personally asked said about Basile's movie, “From a religious point of view, it is hard to say whether it is good or bad,”
• and who goes and joins up with an attack by a known extremist militia / terrorist group, which had seen the US as its enemy well before the movie was ever made.

This guy, and this group, needed a movie - a movie which he himself said, meh may or may not be bad - to motivate them to attack the US embassy.Is that about right?

Don't forget about all the communication the embassy had with the State Department prior to the attacks regarding concerns for their safety.

 

[cstu]

I don't see how any of that affects the timeline that I posted earlier. The administration didn't want to call it a terrorist attack, blamed it on the video and took too long to admit it was a terrorist attack. So what?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I don't see how any of that affects the timeline that I posted earlier. The administration didn't want to call it a terrorist attack, blamed it on the video and took too long to admit it was a terrorist attack. So what?

I think we won't stop hearing about this until Hillary says something this succinct.

 

[Hang 10]

http://nypost.com/2014/06/22/clinton-bristled-at-benghazi-deception-book/

In his new book, “Blood Feud,” journalist Edward Klein gets inside the dysfunctional, jealous relationship between Bill and Hillary Clinton and Barack and Michelle Obama. Here, he explains what happened the night of the Benghazi attack.
By 10 p.m. on Sept. 11, 2012, when Hillary Clinton received a call from President Obama, she was one of the most thoroughly briefed officials in Washington on the unfolding disaster in Benghazi, Libya.

She knew that Ambassador Christopher Stevens and a communications operator were dead, and that the attackers had launched a well-coordinated mortar assault on the CIA annex, which would cost the lives of two more Americans. She had no doubt that a terrorist attack had been launched against America on the anniversary of 9/11.

However, when Hillary picked up the phone and heard Obama’s voice, she learned the president had other ideas in mind. With less than two months before Election Day, he was still boasting that he had al Qaeda on the run. If the truth about Benghazi became known, it would blow that argument out of the water.

“Hillary was stunned when she heard the president talk about the Benghazi attack,” one of her top legal advisers said in an interview. “Obama wanted her to say that the attack had been a spontaneous demonstration triggered by an obscure video on the Internet that demeaned the Prophet Mohammed.”

Modal Trigger
This adviser continued: “Hillary told Obama, ‘Mr. President, that story isn’t credible. Among other things, it ignores the fact that the attack occurred on 9/11.’ But the president was adamant. He said, ‘Hillary, I need you to put out a State Department release as soon as possible.’”

After her conversation with the president, Hillary called Bill Clinton, who was at his penthouse apartment in the William J. Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock, and told him what Obama wanted her to do.

“I’m sick about it,” she said, according to the legal adviser, who was filled in on the conversation.

“That story won’t hold up,” Bill said.

“I know,” Hillary said. “I told the president that.”

“It’s an impossible story,” Bill said. “I can’t believe the president is claiming it wasn’t terrorism. Then again, maybe I can. It looks like Obama isn’t going to allow anyone to say that terrorism has occurred on his watch.”

Hillary’s legal adviser provided further detail:

“During their phone call, Bill started playing with various doomsday scenarios, up to and including the idea that Hillary consider resigning as secretary of state over the issue. But both he and Hillary quickly agreed that resigning wasn’t a realistic option. If her resignation hurt Obama’s chances of winning re-election, her fellow Democrats would never forgive her. Hillary was already thinking of running for president in 2016, and her political future, as well as Obama’s, hung in the balance.”

Modal Trigger

Obama had put Hillary in a corner, and she and Bill didn’t see a way out. And so, shortly after 10 o’clock on the night of September 11, she released an official statement that blamed the Benghazi attack on an “inflammatory posted on the Internet.”

The Benghazi Deception was in full swing.

“Blood Feud: The Clintons vs. the Obamas” by Edward Klein is out this week from Regnery Publishing.

Sounds about right.

 

[timschochet]

Wow, that legal advisor really had the scoop!

 

[Chaka]

Which terrorist organization claimed responsibility for the attack?

Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.

The emails, obtained by Reuters from government sources not connected with U.S. spy agencies or the State Department and who requested anonymity, specifically mention that the Libyan group called Ansar al-Sharia had asserted responsibility for the attacks.

The brief emails also show how U.S. diplomats described the attack, even as it was still under way, to Washington.

U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the Benghazi assault, which President Barack Obama and other U.S. officials ultimately acknowledged was a "terrorist" attack carried out by militants with suspected links to al Qaeda affiliates or sympathizers.

...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/24/us-usa-benghazi-emails-idUSBRE89N02C20121024

A: Ansar al-Sharia.

1) It appears that is not Ansar al-Sharia out of Yemen who is on our terrorist watch list it is an entirely different organization not on our watch list.

2) If I came to you with a citation from an anonymous source outside both the intelligence and state department that said it happened because of the video, how do you think you (or Ham Rove!) would respond?

 

[Chaka]

Okay scandaliers what are you looking for if your theories are, in fact, correct (something that is not supported at the moment)?

Do you honestly give two ##### about justice for the death of four Americans or are you just trying to paint Hillary with the brush of scandal to submarine her chance at the Oval Office?

 

[Chaka]

The best way to help the Republicans to reclaim the White House would be for them to stop alienating pretty much every non-white and/or non-christian in America. Because what you are trying to do is petty horse#### that reeks of desperation and I sincerely doubt it will work, which is a true shame.

 

[Josie Maran]

So this whole thing is about the administration saying the attack happened because of the video rather than it being a coordinated attack?

 

[Chaka]

So this whole thing is about the administration saying the attack happened because of the video rather than it being a coordinated attack?

The whole thing is about creating opposition to anything Obama tries to do during the rest of his term (as if that hasn't been the plan since 2008) and smearing Hillary in advance of 2016.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

So this whole thing is about the administration saying the attack happened because of the video rather than it being a coordinated attack?

It's a movie, not a video. I guess it being on youtube turns it into a "video."

There are theories which are: 1. conspiracy vs 2. incompetence vs 3. the administration had it right from the get-go.

And ultimately the question is did a handful of people spontaneously show up to protest this movie (the administration's original claim) or was this an attack by a militia or terror group on the 11th anniversary of 9/11/01 that was totally premeditated.

I think there is some vagueness and miscommunication going on in terms of whether the militia/attackers were aware of the video or motivated by or none of that. I think what's clear at this point to all is that there was never any small group of protesters who spontaneously started this thing.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Which terrorist organization claimed responsibility for the attack?

Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.

The emails, obtained by Reuters from government sources not connected with U.S. spy agencies or the State Department and who requested anonymity, specifically mention that the Libyan group called Ansar al-Sharia had asserted responsibility for the attacks.

The brief emails also show how U.S. diplomats described the attack, even as it was still under way, to Washington.

U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the Benghazi assault, which President Barack Obama and other U.S. officials ultimately acknowledged was a "terrorist" attack carried out by militants with suspected links to al Qaeda affiliates or sympathizers.

...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/24/us-usa-benghazi-emails-idUSBRE89N02C20121024

A: Ansar al-Sharia.

1) It appears that is not Ansar al-Sharia out of Yemen who is on our terrorist watch list it is an entirely different organization not on our watch list.

2) If I came to you with a citation from an anonymous source outside both the intelligence and state department that said it happened because of the video, how do you think you (or Ham Rove!) would respond?

I don't think I was aware of No. 1, but if so good point. Basically ansar al-sharia certainly means something that could be adopted by anyone in any place. However what is clear is that there had been a militia/terror group by that name in Benghazi for some time before the attacks.

On no. 2, that's Reuters. They looked at the emails, maybe the source was anonymous but I take it they trusted the emails themselves. I don't want to get into a source/link battle, but from what I recall the released WH emails, the two NYT stories, the Senate report and Hillary's own book confirmed that the earliest report was that it was an attack by Ansar Al-Sharia. - In the WH's defense they may have turned to the AP or CNN, who were surmising that the movie was behind the attacks like in Caro, for their information, but that's kind of my point. The WH took a theme they believed in or wanted to and ran with that over actual intelligence reports from their own administration. It was like they were totally disconnected from what their own assets on the ground were telling them. I don't think that has to be a conspiracy or even is, I just think it's plumb incompetent.

As I have said this is the same group that thought their healthcare website was ready to roll. I'm not dragging that in as a controversial issue, it's just an actual example of how completely removed from reality this administration has been at at times.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Which terrorist organization claimed responsibility for the attack?

Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.

The emails, obtained by Reuters from government sources not connected with U.S. spy agencies or the State Department and who requested anonymity, specifically mention that the Libyan group called Ansar al-Sharia had asserted responsibility for the attacks.

The brief emails also show how U.S. diplomats described the attack, even as it was still under way, to Washington.

U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the Benghazi assault, which President Barack Obama and other U.S. officials ultimately acknowledged was a "terrorist" attack carried out by militants with suspected links to al Qaeda affiliates or sympathizers.

...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/24/us-usa-benghazi-emails-idUSBRE89N02C20121024

A: Ansar al-Sharia.

1) It appears that is not Ansar al-Sharia out of Yemen who is on our terrorist watch list it is an entirely different organization not on our watch list.2) If I came to you with a citation from an anonymous source outside both the intelligence and state department that said it happened because of the video, how do you think you (or Ham Rove!) would respond?

I don't think I was aware of No. 1, but if so good point. Basically ansar al-sharia certainly means something that could be adopted by anyone in any place. However what is clear is that there had been a militia/terror group by that name in Benghazi for some time before the attacks.

On no. 2, that's Reuters. They looked at the emails, maybe the source was anonymous but I take it they trusted the emails themselves. I don't want to get into a source/link battle, but from what I recall the released WH emails, the two NYT stories, the Senate report and Hillary's own book confirmed that the earliest report was that it was an attack by Ansar Al-Sharia. - In the WH's defense they may have turned to the AP or CNN, who were surmising that the movie was behind the attacks like in Caro, for their information, but that's kind of my point. The WH took a theme they believed in or wanted to and ran with that over actual intelligence reports from their own administration. It was like they were totally disconnected from what their own assets on the ground were telling them. I don't think that has to be a conspiracy or even is, I just think it's plumb incompetent.

As I have said this is the same group that thought their healthcare website was ready to roll. I'm not dragging that in as a controversial issue, it's just an actual example of how completely removed from reality this administration has been at at times.

Why do you keep saying that there was no intelligence suggesting that the movie played a role?

 

[tommyGunZ]

So this whole thing is about the administration saying the attack happened because of the video rather than it being a coordinated attack?

It's a movie, not a video. I guess it being on youtube turns it into a "video."

There are theories which are: 1. conspiracy vs 2. incompetence vs 3. the administration had it right from the get-go.

And ultimately the question is did a handful of people spontaneously show up to protest this movie (the administration's original claim) or was this an attack by a militia or terror group on the 11th anniversary of 9/11/01 that was totally premeditated.

I think there is some vagueness and miscommunication going on in terms of whether the militia/attackers were aware of the video or motivated by or none of that. I think what's clear at this point to all is that there was never any small group of protesters who spontaneously started this thing.

So now that the conspiracy theory about the administration creating the video theme ship has sailed, the new outrage is "spontaneous" vs. "planned"?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

So this whole thing is about the administration saying the attack happened because of the video rather than it being a coordinated attack?

It's a movie, not a video. I guess it being on youtube turns it into a "video."

There are theories which are: 1. conspiracy vs 2. incompetence vs 3. the administration had it right from the get-go.

And ultimately the question is did a handful of people spontaneously show up to protest this movie (the administration's original claim) or was this an attack by a militia or terror group on the 11th anniversary of 9/11/01 that was totally premeditated.

I think there is some vagueness and miscommunication going on in terms of whether the militia/attackers were aware of the video or motivated by or none of that. I think what's clear at this point to all is that there was never any small group of protesters who spontaneously started this thing.

So now that the conspiracy theory about the administration creating the video theme ship has sailed, the new outrage is "spontaneous" vs. "planned"?

I don't know about that, I think conservatives and Republicans may still be looking for a conspiracy, not sure. I don't how you prove any conspiracy against anyone in this day and age, and I've felt for a while that this administration has been incompetent enough in other areas that it was never necessary to resort to claims of conspiracy.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Which terrorist organization claimed responsibility for the attack?

Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.

The emails, obtained by Reuters from government sources not connected with U.S. spy agencies or the State Department and who requested anonymity, specifically mention that the Libyan group called Ansar al-Sharia had asserted responsibility for the attacks.

The brief emails also show how U.S. diplomats described the attack, even as it was still under way, to Washington.

U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the Benghazi assault, which President Barack Obama and other U.S. officials ultimately acknowledged was a "terrorist" attack carried out by militants with suspected links to al Qaeda affiliates or sympathizers.

...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/24/us-usa-benghazi-emails-idUSBRE89N02C20121024

A: Ansar al-Sharia.

1) It appears that is not Ansar al-Sharia out of Yemen who is on our terrorist watch list it is an entirely different organization not on our watch list.2) If I came to you with a citation from an anonymous source outside both the intelligence and state department that said it happened because of the video, how do you think you (or Ham Rove!) would respond?

I don't think I was aware of No. 1, but if so good point. Basically ansar al-sharia certainly means something that could be adopted by anyone in any place. However what is clear is that there had been a militia/terror group by that name in Benghazi for some time before the attacks.

On no. 2, that's Reuters. They looked at the emails, maybe the source was anonymous but I take it they trusted the emails themselves. I don't want to get into a source/link battle, but from what I recall the released WH emails, the two NYT stories, the Senate report and Hillary's own book confirmed that the earliest report was that it was an attack by Ansar Al-Sharia. - In the WH's defense they may have turned to the AP or CNN, who were surmising that the movie was behind the attacks like in Caro, for their information, but that's kind of my point. The WH took a theme they believed in or wanted to and ran with that over actual intelligence reports from their own administration. It was like they were totally disconnected from what their own assets on the ground were telling them. I don't think that has to be a conspiracy or even is, I just think it's plumb incompetent.

As I have said this is the same group that thought their healthcare website was ready to roll. I'm not dragging that in as a controversial issue, it's just an actual example of how completely removed from reality this administration has been at at times.

Why do you keep saying that there was no intelligence suggesting that the movie played a role?

I guess we've seen a lot in this thread. I'm thinking of two emails that were released - one was dated 9/11 from the State department that says it was a militia/terror attack. Hillary's book (which I looked at) bears that out first thing before she goes off on other tangents. The other one was the email from the NSA guy Rhoades which does mention the video but which is framed at the start under the heading of the President's political goals. The other thing I am thinking of is the Senate report. They all confirm that the earliest reports were that it was a militia attack with no reference to the video. The NSA email in which Rhodes preps Rice is the one exception and again it is political stating, under "Goal", "[T]o reinforce the President and Administration’s strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges.” To me the Rhodes email is utterly political. If you have another source for the 'movie as cause for a spontaneous protest' argument let me know.

 

[Josie Maran]

So this whole thing is about the administration saying the attack happened because of the video rather than it being a coordinated attack?

It's a movie, not a video. I guess it being on youtube turns it into a "video."

There are theories which are: 1. conspiracy vs 2. incompetence vs 3. the administration had it right from the get-go.

And ultimately the question is did a handful of people spontaneously show up to protest this movie (the administration's original claim) or was this an attack by a militia or terror group on the 11th anniversary of 9/11/01 that was totally premeditated.

I think there is some vagueness and miscommunication going on in terms of whether the militia/attackers were aware of the video or motivated by or none of that. I think what's clear at this point to all is that there was never any small group of protesters who spontaneously started this thing.

So I guess my followup question wold be why anyone gives a flying ####. If it was spontaneous, planned, or some combination thereof, what's the difference?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

So this whole thing is about the administration saying the attack happened because of the video rather than it being a coordinated attack?

It's a movie, not a video. I guess it being on youtube turns it into a "video."

There are theories which are: 1. conspiracy vs 2. incompetence vs 3. the administration had it right from the get-go.

And ultimately the question is did a handful of people spontaneously show up to protest this movie (the administration's original claim) or was this an attack by a militia or terror group on the 11th anniversary of 9/11/01 that was totally premeditated.

I think there is some vagueness and miscommunication going on in terms of whether the militia/attackers were aware of the video or motivated by or none of that. I think what's clear at this point to all is that there was never any small group of protesters who spontaneously started this thing.

So I guess my followup question wold be why anyone gives a flying ####. If it was spontaneous, planned, or some combination thereof, what's the difference?

Because Mitt Romney would have won if everyone knew it was a terrorist attack, obv.

 

[tommyboy]

Just one more in a long string of administration lies

 

[Todd Andrews]

I dont care.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

So this whole thing is about the administration saying the attack happened because of the video rather than it being a coordinated attack?

It's a movie, not a video. I guess it being on youtube turns it into a "video."

There are theories which are: 1. conspiracy vs 2. incompetence vs 3. the administration had it right from the get-go.

And ultimately the question is did a handful of people spontaneously show up to protest this movie (the administration's original claim) or was this an attack by a militia or terror group on the 11th anniversary of 9/11/01 that was totally premeditated.

I think there is some vagueness and miscommunication going on in terms of whether the militia/attackers were aware of the video or motivated by or none of that. I think what's clear at this point to all is that there was never any small group of protesters who spontaneously started this thing.

So I guess my followup question wold be why anyone gives a flying ####. If it was spontaneous, planned, or some combination thereof, what's the difference?

That's what Hillary said. Some do, some don't. As to why, there are the people who died there, there's just plain getting historical fact right, there's caring about transparency in government, the US's policy towards terrorism in the world, and the drama of the Demos shouting 'conspiracy hoax' and the GOP shouting 'conspiracy" back and forth at each other. Personally people who don't follow politics and world affairs are probably a lot happier, so there's a good argument for doing that.

 

[cstu]

So I guess my followup question wold be why anyone gives a flying ####. If it was spontaneous, planned, or some combination thereof, what's the difference?

That's what Hillary said. Some do, some don't. As to why, there are the people who died there, there's just plain getting historical fact right, there's caring about transparency in government, the US's policy towards terrorism in the world, and the drama of the Demos shouting 'conspiracy hoax' and the GOP shouting 'conspiracy" back and forth at each other. Personally people who don't follow politics and world affairs are probably a lot happier, so there's a good argument for doing that.

What if Hillary had called it a terrorist attack initially and it turned out to be spontaneous caused by the video? I think the administration made the correct decision to not call it a terrorist attack until all the facts were in.

 

[Politician Spock]

So I guess my followup question wold be why anyone gives a flying ####. If it was spontaneous, planned, or some combination thereof, what's the difference?

That's what Hillary said. Some do, some don't. As to why, there are the people who died there, there's just plain getting historical fact right, there's caring about transparency in government, the US's policy towards terrorism in the world, and the drama of the Demos shouting 'conspiracy hoax' and the GOP shouting 'conspiracy" back and forth at each other. Personally people who don't follow politics and world affairs are probably a lot happier, so there's a good argument for doing that.

What if Hillary had called it a terrorist attack initially and it turned out to be spontaneous caused on the video? I think the administration made the correct decision to not call it a terrorist attack until all the facts were in.

I think the issue is congress wasn't getting the facts from the administration. It was getting the facts from the media, and those facts didn't line up with the story the administration was sticking to. Granted the administration chaged their story after the facts became undisputed, but there was still this weird WTF situation. Conspiracy? Proably not. Incompetency? Probably.

 

[Chaka]

Which terrorist organization claimed responsibility for the attack?

Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.

The emails, obtained by Reuters from government sources not connected with U.S. spy agencies or the State Department and who requested anonymity, specifically mention that the Libyan group called Ansar al-Sharia had asserted responsibility for the attacks.

The brief emails also show how U.S. diplomats described the attack, even as it was still under way, to Washington.

U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the Benghazi assault, which President Barack Obama and other U.S. officials ultimately acknowledged was a "terrorist" attack carried out by militants with suspected links to al Qaeda affiliates or sympathizers.

...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/24/us-usa-benghazi-emails-idUSBRE89N02C20121024

A: Ansar al-Sharia.

1) It appears that is not Ansar al-Sharia out of Yemen who is on our terrorist watch list it is an entirely different organization not on our watch list.

2) If I came to you with a citation from an anonymous source outside both the intelligence and state department that said it happened because of the video, how do you think you (or Ham Rove!) would respond?

I don't think I was aware of No. 1, but if so good point. Basically ansar al-sharia certainly means something that could be adopted by anyone in any place. However what is clear is that there had been a militia/terror group by that name in Benghazi for some time before the attacks.

On no. 2, that's Reuters. They looked at the emails, maybe the source was anonymous but I take it they trusted the emails themselves. I don't want to get into a source/link battle, but from what I recall the released WH emails, the two NYT stories, the Senate report and Hillary's own book confirmed that the earliest report was that it was an attack by Ansar Al-Sharia. - In the WH's defense they may have turned to the AP or CNN, who were surmising that the movie was behind the attacks like in Caro, for their information, but that's kind of my point. The WH took a theme they believed in or wanted to and ran with that over actual intelligence reports from their own administration. It was like they were totally disconnected from what their own assets on the ground were telling them. I don't think that has to be a conspiracy or even is, I just think it's plumb incompetent.

As I have said this is the same group that thought their healthcare website was ready to roll. I'm not dragging that in as a controversial issue, it's just an actual example of how completely removed from reality this administration has been at at times.

I don't want to get into a source/link battle either but I think the general point I posted in question #2 is still valid. Most of the scandaliers would not accept such a vague source with anything more than an .

 

[Chaka]

So this whole thing is about the administration saying the attack happened because of the video rather than it being a coordinated attack?

It's a movie, not a video. I guess it being on youtube turns it into a "video."

There are theories which are: 1. conspiracy vs 2. incompetence vs 3. the administration had it right from the get-go.

And ultimately the question is did a handful of people spontaneously show up to protest this movie (the administration's original claim) or was this an attack by a militia or terror group on the 11th anniversary of 9/11/01 that was totally premeditated.

I think there is some vagueness and miscommunication going on in terms of whether the militia/attackers were aware of the video or motivated by or none of that. I think what's clear at this point to all is that there was never any small group of protesters who spontaneously started this thing.

So now that the conspiracy theory about the administration creating the video theme ship has sailed, the new outrage is "spontaneous" vs. "planned"?

I don't know about that, I think conservatives and Republicans may still be looking for a conspiracy, not sure. I don't how you prove any conspiracy against anyone in this day and age, and I've felt for a while that this administration has been incompetent enough in other areas that it was never necessary to resort to claims of conspiracy.

People in this thread are still trying to promote conspiracies. What was the most recent one? That the administration and Khatalla are in cahoots regarding his story now?

You seem like one of the sane ones Saints, what do you hope to get as your endgame from this whole mess?

And if the truth is that the video was the precipitating event then what?

 

[Stinger Ray]

So this whole thing is about the administration saying the attack happened because of the video rather than it being a coordinated attack?

It's a movie, not a video. I guess it being on youtube turns it into a "video."

There are theories which are: 1. conspiracy vs 2. incompetence vs 3. the administration had it right from the get-go.

And ultimately the question is did a handful of people spontaneously show up to protest this movie (the administration's original claim) or was this an attack by a militia or terror group on the 11th anniversary of 9/11/01 that was totally premeditated.

I think there is some vagueness and miscommunication going on in terms of whether the militia/attackers were aware of the video or motivated by or none of that. I think what's clear at this point to all is that there was never any small group of protesters who spontaneously started this thing.

So now that the conspiracy theory about the administration creating the video theme ship has sailed, the new outrage is "spontaneous" vs. "planned"?

I don't know about that, I think conservatives and Republicans may still be looking for a conspiracy, not sure. I don't how you prove any conspiracy against anyone in this day and age, and I've felt for a while that this administration has been incompetent enough in other areas that it was never necessary to resort to claims of conspiracy.

People in this thread are still trying to promote conspiracies. What was the most recent one? That the administration and Khatalla are in cahoots regarding his story now?You seem like one of the sane ones Saints, what do you hope to get as your endgame from this whole mess?

And if the truth is that the video was the precipitating event then what?

Who are all the people promoting conspiracies in this thread?

 

[Chaka]

So this whole thing is about the administration saying the attack happened because of the video rather than it being a coordinated attack?

It's a movie, not a video. I guess it being on youtube turns it into a "video."

There are theories which are: 1. conspiracy vs 2. incompetence vs 3. the administration had it right from the get-go.

And ultimately the question is did a handful of people spontaneously show up to protest this movie (the administration's original claim) or was this an attack by a militia or terror group on the 11th anniversary of 9/11/01 that was totally premeditated.

I think there is some vagueness and miscommunication going on in terms of whether the militia/attackers were aware of the video or motivated by or none of that. I think what's clear at this point to all is that there was never any small group of protesters who spontaneously started this thing.

So I guess my followup question wold be why anyone gives a flying ####. If it was spontaneous, planned, or some combination thereof, what's the difference?

That's what Hillary said. Some do, some don't. As to why, there are the people who died there, there's just plain getting historical fact right, there's caring about transparency in government, the US's policy towards terrorism in the world, and the drama of the Demos shouting 'conspiracy hoax' and the GOP shouting 'conspiracy" back and forth at each other. Personally people who don't follow politics and world affairs are probably a lot happier, so there's a good argument for doing that.

Sadly I think very few people truly care that Americans died at this point. We've grown numb, TYVM Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

[Chaka]

So this whole thing is about the administration saying the attack happened because of the video rather than it being a coordinated attack?

It's a movie, not a video. I guess it being on youtube turns it into a "video."

There are theories which are: 1. conspiracy vs 2. incompetence vs 3. the administration had it right from the get-go.

And ultimately the question is did a handful of people spontaneously show up to protest this movie (the administration's original claim) or was this an attack by a militia or terror group on the 11th anniversary of 9/11/01 that was totally premeditated.

I think there is some vagueness and miscommunication going on in terms of whether the militia/attackers were aware of the video or motivated by or none of that. I think what's clear at this point to all is that there was never any small group of protesters who spontaneously started this thing.

So now that the conspiracy theory about the administration creating the video theme ship has sailed, the new outrage is "spontaneous" vs. "planned"?

I don't know about that, I think conservatives and Republicans may still be looking for a conspiracy, not sure. I don't how you prove any conspiracy against anyone in this day and age, and I've felt for a while that this administration has been incompetent enough in other areas that it was never necessary to resort to claims of conspiracy.

People in this thread are still trying to promote conspiracies. What was the most recent one? That the administration and Khatalla are in cahoots regarding his story now?You seem like one of the sane ones Saints, what do you hope to get as your endgame from this whole mess?

And if the truth is that the video was the precipitating event then what?

Who are all the people promoting conspiracies in this thread?

I don't want to incorrectly attribute it but two or three pages ago someone suggested that the administration was working with Khatalla (or whatever his name is) to get his story of the events to gel with theirs.

 

[Politician Spock]

Sadly I think very few people truly care that Americans died at this point. We've grown numb, TYVM Iraq and Afghanistan.

I think this is true. People in American think the whole Mediteranean area is where people die needlessly, and where gyros and hummus come from.

 

[Stinger Ray]

So this whole thing is about the administration saying the attack happened because of the video rather than it being a coordinated attack?

It's a movie, not a video. I guess it being on youtube turns it into a "video."

There are theories which are: 1. conspiracy vs 2. incompetence vs 3. the administration had it right from the get-go.

And ultimately the question is did a handful of people spontaneously show up to protest this movie (the administration's original claim) or was this an attack by a militia or terror group on the 11th anniversary of 9/11/01 that was totally premeditated.

I think there is some vagueness and miscommunication going on in terms of whether the militia/attackers were aware of the video or motivated by or none of that. I think what's clear at this point to all is that there was never any small group of protesters who spontaneously started this thing.

So now that the conspiracy theory about the administration creating the video theme ship has sailed, the new outrage is "spontaneous" vs. "planned"?

I don't know about that, I think conservatives and Republicans may still be looking for a conspiracy, not sure. I don't how you prove any conspiracy against anyone in this day and age, and I've felt for a while that this administration has been incompetent enough in other areas that it was never necessary to resort to claims of conspiracy.

People in this thread are still trying to promote conspiracies. What was the most recent one? That the administration and Khatalla are in cahoots regarding his story now?You seem like one of the sane ones Saints, what do you hope to get as your endgame from this whole mess?

And if the truth is that the video was the precipitating event then what?

Who are all the people promoting conspiracies in this thread?

I don't want to incorrectly attribute it but two or three pages ago someone suggested that the administration was working with Khatalla (or whatever his name is) to get his story of the events to gel with theirs.

One person is not "people".