An open challenge

[Quantum Windbag]

This is for everyone who thinks that the administration did the right thing in lying to us about Benghazi because they did not want the terrorists to know we were on to them. I will explain all the reasons why that is stupid, and want someone to come in and present the reason it is smart. Then we can argue the positions and see who makes the most sense.

Why it is stupid.

• Reports clearly showed that the attack was organized.
• They had weapons that most people do not own, much less carry when they are thinking about protesting videos.
• They were driving trucks that were painted with the logo of a local militia/terror group.
• People who are worried about getting caught are more likely to make a mistake.
• It is possible to admit you know things without getting into specifics.
• Police are often in the same position, and routinely admit to knowing some things, but not others.
• Police have even been know to lie about knowing more than they do to make suspects more nervous.
• My experience with criminals is they always think the police know about them.
• This can be demonstrated by the fact that police often end up in chases when they are pulling people over for a busted tail light.

this will do for now, I can think of others, but this gives you the drift of where I am going. Feel free to provide reasons why it is better to pretend to be stupid and ignorant rather than smart and well informed.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Take it up with the CIA, they're the ones who made the call.

I'm not going to try to "defend" anything, because I don't claim to have all the information. Neither do you.

Trying to armchair quarterback international intelligence decisions is pretty much the definition of useless.

 

[Plasmaball]

I simply don't care.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Take it up with the CIA, they're the ones who made the call.

I'm not going to try to "defend" anything, because I don't claim to have all the information. Neither do you.

Trying to armchair quarterback international intelligence decisions is pretty much the definition of useless.

No defense from you, got it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I simply don't care.

Yet you responded to my thread. I wonder why.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well I have given this considerable thought and have read everything, pro and con, that I can find on it. And I have been left with one conclusion re defense of the White House and State Department:

I can't defend them for any choice they made in the whole tragic matter.

 

[Plasmaball]

I simply don't care.

Yet you responded to my thread. I wonder why.

boredom...

 

[Trajan]

Take it up with the CIA, they're the ones who made the call.

I'm not going to try to "defend" anything, because I don't claim to have all the information. Neither do you.

Trying to armchair quarterback international intelligence decisions is pretty much the definition of useless.

Made what call? Exactly

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Take it up with the CIA, they're the ones who made the call.

I'm not going to try to "defend" anything, because I don't claim to have all the information. Neither do you.

Trying to armchair quarterback international intelligence decisions is pretty much the definition of useless.

Made what call? Exactly

The call to remove references to al-Qaeda from the talking points.

 

[Ravi]

This is all so silly. The people freaking out are upset that Obama didn't go on tv and describe who, what, when, where and why. The people freaking out keep forgetting that Obama said the next day that it was terrorism related.

Not that this silly semantic argument matters in the least.

We all know none of you questioned invading the wrong country after 9/11 or held Bush accountable for it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Not a single defense of the decision that uses any kind of argument or evidence, we are just supposed to trust the government because they are smarter than us.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This is all so silly. The people freaking out are upset that Obama didn't go on tv and describe who, what, when, where and why. The people freaking out keep forgetting that Obama said the next day that it was terrorism related.

Not that this silly semantic argument matters in the least.

We all know none of you questioned invading the wrong country after 9/11 or held Bush accountable for it.

Afghanistan was the wrong country to invade? Why does Obama keep arguing that it was the right war?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This is all so silly. The people freaking out are upset that Obama didn't go on tv and describe who, what, when, where and why. The people freaking out keep forgetting that Obama said the next day that it was terrorism related.

Not that this silly semantic argument matters in the least.

We all know none of you questioned invading the wrong country after 9/11 or held Bush accountable for it.

…and partisan.

 

[Trajan]

Take it up with the CIA, they're the ones who made the call.

I'm not going to try to "defend" anything, because I don't claim to have all the information. Neither do you.

Trying to armchair quarterback international intelligence decisions is pretty much the definition of useless.

Made what call? Exactly

The call to remove references to al-Qaeda from the talking points.

He said that?


Here simply put are the questions-

-Why, if HE removed them, did he, since we know he did include that in the original report to start with?

- why was extremist ok and terrorist wasn't? Who made that decision? Petreaus obviously didn't.....

-The president claimed he called Benghazi a terrorist attack, in his rose garden breifing, the nextvday, so, why did he continue to frame the attack as a protest based on the video for the next 12 up to and including his UN speech?

- why did Hillary make the same proclamations, more than once in different venues?

- why did CBS hold out the edited portion of his 60 Minutes interview, showing Obama refusing to label the event a terrorist act? And of course why if he already called it one earlier in the rose garden did he refuse to just say so to steve croft?

 

[Warrior102]

The whole thing stinks to high heaven.
Hopefully this assclown Obama Barry, whatever the fuck his name is, will be impeached soonest and we can witness the "leadership" (cough) of Joe "Braindead" Biden for the duration.
Thanks for winning Obama. Four more years of GREAT Goddamned material.

 

[Trajan]

This is all so silly. The people freaking out are upset that Obama didn't go on tv and describe who, what, when, where and why. The people freaking out keep forgetting that Obama said the next day that it was terrorism related.

Not that this silly semantic argument matters in the least.

We all know none of you questioned invading the wrong country after 9/11 or held Bush accountable for it.

No, you Apparently are not seeing it, because he has contradicted himself, see my last post.

 

[Trajan]

This is all so silly. The people freaking out are upset that Obama didn't go on tv and describe who, what, when, where and why. The people freaking out keep forgetting that Obama said the next day that it was terrorism related.

Not that this silly semantic argument matters in the least.

We all know none of you questioned invading the wrong country after 9/11 or held Bush accountable for it.

…and partisan.

That's not helpful, it's all partisan, right?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Made what call? Exactly

The call to remove references to al-Qaeda from the talking points.

He said that?


Here simply put are the questions-

-Why, if HE removed them, did he, since we know he did include that in the original report to start with?

From the AP:

The recently resigned spy chief explained that references to terrorist groups suspected of carrying out the violence were removed from the public explanation of what caused the attack so as not to tip off the groups that the U.S. intelligence community was on their trail, according to lawmakers who attended the private briefings.

- why was extremist ok and terrorist wasn't? Who made that decision? Petreaus obviously didn't.....

I don't think that "decision" was made at all.

-The president claimed he called Benghazi a terrorist attack, in his rose garden breifing, the nextvday, so, why did he continue to frame the attack as a protest based on the video for the next 12 up to and including his UN speech?

"Terrorist attack" and "protest of the video" are not mutually exclusive exclusive events.

- why did Hillary make the same proclamations, more than once in different venues?

Same answer as above.

- why did CBS hold out the edited portion of his 60 Minutes interview, showing Obama refusing to label the event a terrorist act? And of course why if he already called it one earlier in the rose garden did he refuse to just say so to steve croft?

Link?

More importantly, I don't understand the fascination with the semantics coming from the right. Who cares whether or not Obama called it a "terrorist act" or not? Would the ambassador have survived if Obama had said al-Qaeda did it?

How does that change anything?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This is all so silly. The people freaking out are upset that Obama didn't go on tv and describe who, what, when, where and why. The people freaking out keep forgetting that Obama said the next day that it was terrorism related.

Not that this silly semantic argument matters in the least.

We all know none of you questioned invading the wrong country after 9/11 or held Bush accountable for it.

…and partisan.

Yet no one, including you, has actually defended the decision. The best anyone has done is attack me as a partisan for wondering what happened.

Why is that?

 

[Trajan]

The call to remove references to al-Qaeda from the talking points.

He said that?


Here simply put are the questions-

-Why, if HE removed them, did he, since we know he did include that in the original report to start with?

From the AP:




I don't think that "decision" was made at all.


"Terrorist attack" and "protest of the video" are not mutually exclusive exclusive events.

- why did Hillary make the same proclamations, more than once in different venues?

Same answer as above.

- why did CBS hold out the edited portion of his 60 Minutes interview, showing Obama refusing to label the event a terrorist act? And of course why if he already called it one earlier in the rose garden did he refuse to just say so to steve croft?

Link?

More importantly, I don't understand the fascination with the semantics coming from the right. Who cares whether or not Obama called it a "terrorist act" or not? Would the ambassador have survived if Obama had said al-Qaeda did it?

How does that change anything?

From the AP:

The recently resigned spy chief explained that references to terrorist groups suspected of carrying out the violence were removed from the public explanation of what caused the attack so as not to tip off the groups that the U.S. intelligence community was on their trail, according to lawmakers who attended the private briefings.


I don't think that "decision" was made at all.

Uhm, you didn't answer the question, WHO did, he did? it doesn't say that he redacted them...if so, WHY did he remove them when he had originally inserted them?


Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Acting CIA Director Mike Morell, said they did not know who changed the talking points. He said they went out to multiple departments, including the State Department, National Security Council, Justice Department and White House.

Read more: Intel officials unable to say who changed CIA talking points on Libya, lawmaker says | Fox News

"Terrorist attack" and "protest of the video" are not mutually exclusive exclusive events.

so the attack was a by product of the video? mutually exclusive exclusive, come on, and and you are asking me about semantics?

Link? here ya go-

CBS transcript: Obama wouldn't call Benghazi terrorism

Kroft: Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word terrorism in connection with the Libya attack. Do you believe that this was a terrorist attack?

Obama: Well it's too early to know exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans.

CBS transcript: Obama wouldn't call Benghazi terrorism

Obama suspects Libya attack targeted Americans - 60 Minutes - CBS News


Obama said, he called Benghazi a terrorist attack, did he not? "read the transcript Candy"....