An open challenge

[saveliberty]

The left repectfully asks that you don't ask them direct questions. If you do, they will start asking for definitions and refer to dissimiliar historical references.

 

[freedombecki]

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?

Maybe the whole premise of your thread is wrong.
In that case, there's nothing to defend.

If the whole premise of the thread is wrong, I haven't seen a single credible comment provided by anybody to make a case that it is wrong. I've seen some, and he himself, say that Obama called it a terrorist attack the day after the event, which even the moderator of the second debate who tried valiantly to defend him, has to admit that he did not. And that begs the question of why several days later, in an address to the United Nations, he went on and on and on about an offensive video without one reference to a terrorist attack on our consulate.

I've seen some defend Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice for going on national TV multiple times as giving the 'unclassified version of facts." Really? It is okay to go on national television, stir up further riots by citing an offensive video again and again and again days, even more than a week after even the administration admits they were informed that it was a terrorist attack by the CIA and others? And yet some still put blind trust in these people and accept everything they say as gospel.

I've seen some say it is much ado about nothing and nevermind the multiple Congressional hearings and never mind what General Petraeus said. He didn't really mean it.

The thing I wonder is how we became a country with so many people willing to ignore or blow off questions and concerns and who will blindly defend an Administration no matter what they say, no matter what they propose, no matter what they do.

It's because the free Obama phones come with yo choice of cool skins.

 

[Foxfyre]

All this idiocy from a false Fox news report.

we don't need Fox, Question 1- did obama say that Benghazi, the attack on the consulate-annex was a terrorist attack in his Rose garden briefing, yes, or no.

Just a wee bit of a correction there. We actually do need Fox since they are the ONLY major news organization who is willing to report all the news, even that unfavorable to the current Administration. If they had not hung in there like terriers on this story, it almost certainly would have been neatly buried and forgotten by Obama's surrogate media.

I can appreciate how annoying, irritating, and for some even painful it is to hear those who are deeply admired and adored criticized. None of us enjoy it when our heroes stumble and/or fall from grace. I felt that way when Jim Traficant (D) went to prison. I felt that way when Randy Cunningham (R) went to prison. But however much I admire the best qualities of both gentlemen, I cannot defend what they did and will not.

I long for an America that will dig itself out of the partisan fog and start looking at these things objectively and honestly and be willing to hold those in high office accountable regardless of their party affiliation. The Benghazi scandal is not something that should ever be acceptable to be swept under the rug. Four Americans are dead; dozens others injured. And we have a leadership who for whatever reason attempted to lie to us about that and they've been caught in the lie.

They cannot be allowed to do that with impunity or we will never ever be able to trust anything our government tells us again.

 

[Trajan]

All this idiocy from a false Fox news report.

we don't need Fox, Question 1- did obama say that Benghazi, the attack on the consulate-annex was a terrorist attack in his Rose garden briefing, yes, or no.

Just a wee bit of a correction there. We actually do need Fox since they are the ONLY major news organization who is willing to report all the news, even that unfavorable to the current Administration. If they had not hung in there like terriers on this story, it almost certainly would have been neatly buried and forgotten by Obama's surrogate media.

I can appreciate how annoying, irritating, and for some even painful it is to hear those who are deeply admired and adored criticized. None of us enjoy it when our heroes stumble and/or fall from grace. I felt that way when Jim Traficant (D) went to prison. I felt that way when Randy Cunningham (R) went to prison. But however much I admire the best qualities of both gentlemen, I cannot defend what they did and will not.

I long for an America that will dig itself out of the partisan fog and start looking at these things objectively and honestly and be willing to hold those in high office accountable regardless of their party affiliation. The Benghazi scandal is not something that should ever be acceptable to be swept under the rug. Four Americans are dead; dozens others injured. And we have a leadership who for whatever reason attempted to lie to us about that and they've been caught in the lie.

They cannot be allowed to do that with impunity or we will never ever be able to trust anything our government tells us again.

I hear what you are saying, my question was a device, to try and get at the root of the disdain for an explanation that makes sense.

Yes Fox and in fact CBS and David Ignatius at wapo have done yeoman work, but of course the 'its a fox conspiracy' seems to be the only excuse for ignoring it I guess.


I say we don't need any of them, only in that, at this point in time we can make draw unpalatable but indisputable conclusions.


like;

IF there is an issue with calling it terrorism as proof as to why it was redacted from Petraeus report, then why did Obama ( with Candy Crowleys help) go to the trouble of highlighting his saying that he had said, in his rose garden speech on Sept. 12, the Benghazi attack WAS an act of terrorism in the second presidential debate (Oct. 16)?

That night , Sunday sept 12, Obama in an interview for 60 Minutes and would not let Steve Kroft pin him down and refused to call Benghazi a terrorist attack. ( which we didn't find out till 36 hours before the election btw)

Yet a full 5 days later, the report that mentions such, and of which no one sees to know who edited and took out any mention of AQ or terrorism, was used by Rice to make a vociferous and repeated ( 5 shows all of Sunday ) defense of the theory that the video was the cause of a spontaneous attack on the consulate and annex.

And, for another weeks there after the attack, on a multitude of shows, the view, Letterman and at the UN, again the video was again, repeatedly, made the scapegoat.

These are facts of public record now.

The terrorist angle would not play well and he knew it, when cornered he took an out and then doubled back down on it and yes, the media let this glaring contraction slide. First it wasn't a terrorist attack, then yes it was, then no it wasn't, now, now yes it was....


Oh and imho, any talk of pulling those references becasue they didn't want to tip off the folks that pulled off the attack is pure poppycock.

These people are fanatical but they are not stupid, in May we found Osama Bin laden after looking for him for how long?

We beat our chests as to how we never gave up and kept digging, what, they just thought that becasue the WH did not call their act terrorism they were off the hook? or no one would be looking?And that the CIA which had what is now discovered to be a robust presence in Libya, would not know that it was an attack by a terrorist group? Thats just to fantastic to believe, really.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

You're not entitled to classified information. That's why they have classifications of information.

 

[Valerie]

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?

You don't see how it is politically advantageous to downplay the event especially a month before an election on the cusp of the debates to boot, not calling it a Terrorist act?

so let me reverse this; what harm would have been had he called it a terrorist attack as to any 'investigation; etc etc....your position can't be that in a place with a huge CIA footprint that the T's in Libya who carried this out would believe that not hearing it called a terrorist act would provide them some relief, as if they got away with it? These folks may be extremists bit they are not stupid, clearly.

That's why this whole frenzy over these word semantics is so stupid, because the event just was what it was...The murder of Americans and the destruction of our embassy...It never mattered what to call it until partisans pounced and acted as if it mattered, the very next day no less...

There was no lie about the results of the violence that occurred that day..it was an active investigation of a violent crime scene, an unfolding news story where information was being spread and repeated very quickly, information got mixed up from violent events across the globe at other embassies that day where outrage was being expressed toward the US in general, obviously because it was the anniversary of 9/11 which is obviously about more than just some video...and yes there were reports of spontaneous uprisings over some video including in Libya and the president spoke of them too, why shouldn't he?


It's not like anyone really believes blood thirsty jihadist wouldn't find any other excuse to focus their rage anyway, but that video and others like it are true precipitating factors to terror and we are currently in the midst of a diplomatic effort over there, so we simply acknowledge that fact as we gathered other facts and reacted to the events in whole. Not because we wanted to pretend to the terrorists we weren't "on to them". They blew up our effing embassy and killed our guys it was pretty obvious we were going to be all over them henceforth regardless.

Despite all the partisan parsing, the President and the Secretary of State both made strong, honest and diplomatic statements in the days following this terror event. No one claimed it wasn't terror.


When people like QW ask why did they do it that way, why did they lie? I say, I don't see it that way at all, and I don't accept your premise that there was a lie...

 

[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.

You're not entitled to classified information. That's why they have classifications of information.

I am not entitled to information that anyone with an IQ above room temperature can figure out for himself?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

You don't see how it is politically advantageous to downplay the event especially a month before an election on the cusp of the debates to boot, not calling it a Terrorist act?

so let me reverse this; what harm would have been had he called it a terrorist attack as to any 'investigation; etc etc....your position can't be that in a place with a huge CIA footprint that the T's in Libya who carried this out would believe that not hearing it called a terrorist act would provide them some relief, as if they got away with it? These folks may be extremists bit they are not stupid, clearly.

That's why this whole frenzy over these word semantics is so stupid, because the event just was what it was...The murder of Americans and the destruction of our embassy...It never mattered what to call it until partisans pounced and acted as if it mattered, the very next day no less...

There was no lie about the results of the violence that occurred that day..it was an active investigation of a violent crime scene, an unfolding news story where information was being spread and repeated very quickly, information got mixed up from violent events across the globe at other embassies that day where outrage was being expressed toward the US in general, obviously because it was the anniversary of 9/11 which is obviously about more than just some video...and yes there were reports of spontaneous uprisings over some video including in Libya and the president spoke of them too, why shouldn't he?


It's not like anyone really believes blood thirsty jihadist wouldn't find any other excuse to focus their rage anyway, but that video and others like it are true precipitating factors to terror and we are currently in the midst of a diplomatic effort over there, so we simply acknowledge that fact as we gathered other facts and reacted to the events in whole. Not because we wanted to pretend to the terrorists we weren't "on to them". They blew up our effing embassy and killed our guys it was pretty obvious we were going to be all over them henceforth regardless.

Despite all the partisan parsing, the President and the Secretary of State both made strong, honest and diplomatic statements in the days following this terror event. No one claimed it wasn't terror.


When people like QW ask why did they do it that way, why did they lie? I say, I don't see it that way at all, and I don't accept your premise that there was a lie...

People like me?

Tell me something, if they admitted it was terrorism from the beginning why did Rice go on the Sunday morning talk shows and make the point that it wasn't?

 

[Valerie]

You don't see how it is politically advantageous to downplay the event especially a month before an election on the cusp of the debates to boot, not calling it a Terrorist act?

so let me reverse this; what harm would have been had he called it a terrorist attack as to any 'investigation; etc etc....your position can't be that in a place with a huge CIA footprint that the T's in Libya who carried this out would believe that not hearing it called a terrorist act would provide them some relief, as if they got away with it? These folks may be extremists bit they are not stupid, clearly.

That's why this whole frenzy over these word semantics is so stupid, because the event just was what it was...The murder of Americans and the destruction of our embassy...It never mattered what to call it until partisans pounced and acted as if it mattered, the very next day no less...

There was no lie about the results of the violence that occurred that day..it was an active investigation of a violent crime scene, an unfolding news story where information was being spread and repeated very quickly, information got mixed up from violent events across the globe at other embassies that day where outrage was being expressed toward the US in general, obviously because it was the anniversary of 9/11 which is obviously about more than just some video...and yes there were reports of spontaneous uprisings over some video including in Libya and the president spoke of them too, why shouldn't he?


It's not like anyone really believes blood thirsty jihadist wouldn't find any other excuse to focus their rage anyway, but that video and others like it are true precipitating factors to terror and we are currently in the midst of a diplomatic effort over there, so we simply acknowledge that fact as we gathered other facts and reacted to the events in whole. Not because we wanted to pretend to the terrorists we weren't "on to them". They blew up our effing embassy and killed our guys it was pretty obvious we were going to be all over them henceforth regardless.

Despite all the partisan parsing, the President and the Secretary of State both made strong, honest and diplomatic statements in the days following this terror event. No one claimed it wasn't terror.


When people like QW ask why did they do it that way, why did they lie? I say, I don't see it that way at all, and I don't accept your premise that there was a lie...

People like me?

Tell me something, if they admitted it was terrorism from the beginning why did Rice go on the Sunday morning talk shows and make the point that it wasn't?

You can not show any lie where any official claimed it was not an act of terror. Claiming that an event was related to something or perhaps precipitated by something, does not mean the event is not also characterized, or characterizable, as an act of terror at the same time. Go ahead and post the big lie where anyone claimed it was not an act of terror.


I said "people like you" because you are the OP.

 

[Valerie]

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.

Yep. Partisans pounced and repeated LIE LIE LIE..when really they had no clue of all the facts involved, and only saw what they wanted to see from the public statements that followed as the days unfolded just prior to an election...




^ I think there's a word for that...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's why this whole frenzy over these word semantics is so stupid, because the event just was what it was...The murder of Americans and the destruction of our embassy...It never mattered what to call it until partisans pounced and acted as if it mattered, the very next day no less...

There was no lie about the results of the violence that occurred that day..it was an active investigation of a violent crime scene, an unfolding news story where information was being spread and repeated very quickly, information got mixed up from violent events across the globe at other embassies that day where outrage was being expressed toward the US in general, obviously because it was the anniversary of 9/11 which is obviously about more than just some video...and yes there were reports of spontaneous uprisings over some video including in Libya and the president spoke of them too, why shouldn't he?


It's not like anyone really believes blood thirsty jihadist wouldn't find any other excuse to focus their rage anyway, but that video and others like it are true precipitating factors to terror and we are currently in the midst of a diplomatic effort over there, so we simply acknowledge that fact as we gathered other facts and reacted to the events in whole. Not because we wanted to pretend to the terrorists we weren't "on to them". They blew up our effing embassy and killed our guys it was pretty obvious we were going to be all over them henceforth regardless.

Despite all the partisan parsing, the President and the Secretary of State both made strong, honest and diplomatic statements in the days following this terror event. No one claimed it wasn't terror.


When people like QW ask why did they do it that way, why did they lie? I say, I don't see it that way at all, and I don't accept your premise that there was a lie...

People like me?

Tell me something, if they admitted it was terrorism from the beginning why did Rice go on the Sunday morning talk shows and make the point that it wasn't?

You can not show any lie where any official claimed it was not an act of terror. Claiming that an event was related to something or perhaps precipitated by something, does not mean the event is not also characterized, or characterizable, as an act of terror at the same time. Go ahead and post the big lie where anyone claimed it was not an act of terror.


I said "people like you" because you are the OP.

I started the thread because people like you keep insisting that something happened that did not happen. rice went on national TV and openly lied when she said that there was no evidence that the attack was premeditated.

Ambassador Susan Rice: Libya Attack Not Premeditated - ABC News

Now that we have that cleared up, why don't you actually address the OP and defend the administration's actual arguments instead of trying to turn this into a debate about something else. Is it because what they did is indefensible?

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

I don't think it is right to let the families suffer and not let them in on what is going on.

I do believe that the "equivalent" of what the opponents of Obama say is "denial and downplaying of terrorism for political reasons" is what the Obama administration is saying is their strategy of "downplaying the terrorists" for the purpose of not giving them credit or attention to stir even more warmongering up. I do believe that is both sides of the same coin, saying basically the same thing in general, but one side spinning it negative and another side spinning it positive.

If the families who were excluded from knowing what is going on can accept and work with the administration, then for their issues I am fine if they are satisfied. If this is not acceptable to them, I respect that also.

Same with other people concerned.

And I would just ask opponents or supporters of Bush and Obama to treat both their military decisions with the same degree of accountability and oversight; if what Bush did to push war with Iraq on questionable grounds is not satisfactory, then please hold Obama to the same standards. If critics on both sides only go after people for political gain, it isn't taken seriously.

 

[emilynghiem]

Tell me something, if they admitted it was terrorism from the beginning why did Rice go on the Sunday morning talk shows and make the point that it wasn't?

Dear QW: Whether it was for selfish reasons, of avoiding something escalating out of control during a tight campaign and election schedule, or for strategy of buying time to investigate and not giving credit or attention in the media to terrorists and giving them what they want,

either way, they were downplaying it and masking the whole thing.
either way, they were not telling anything to the families or to the public.

They are going to say it was for strategic reasons.
Opposing critics are going to say it was for political convenience.

Either way those people are dead, did not receive help, and they died so
Obama and the rest of us could keep going forward with the elections we
have the privilege of participating in as voters, funders and media watchdogs.

Either way, I am grateful and humbled by their sacrifice, REGARDLESS
whatever the administration says or didn't say. I am thinking of those
brave servicemen and staff, and I am not going to belittle or distract from
their valor and exemplary commitment to duty by diverting attention through
these arguments where people may never agree. I think we can do
a better job of honoring those heroes by sticking to what we do agree on,
and helping each other to serve this country and not hang each other over failures.

Let's fix our own failures, and be bigger people, like those men had to be
under worse situations than we face now. If they can do the right thing
with that kind of pressure on the line, we can surely pull together,
and fix the problems with politics and economics, including the
faults that people may never admit to. We need to fix things anyway
even if they are too small to admit it. Let's be bigger and this will
expose by comparison who is not with the program, we don't have to worry,
it will be clear. People are not stupid, and the right people will get the credit they deserve.

Take care and THANK YOU for caring.
I respect the fact that you are conscientious about this.
I don't want to discourage you, but just encourage you to
direct your energy and attention to solving problems and
don't depend on anyone admitting their faults. We'd never
get anything done if we waited on that. Like the men who
didn't wait for help, but went beyond the call of duty to
save the lives of 30 other people. They didn't live to see the
credit they would get, as they did not do this for public acknowledgement.

Neither should be expect to see any public acknowledgement either.
That should not deter us from knowing and doing what is right.

Thanks again and I will keep America and all our
heroes in prayer that we pull together and become
a better nation after the aftermath of this messy election finishes
pulling out all our dirty laundry to be cleaned and hung to dry.

We will be better for all this process we are going through
to get our act together, independent of the things that can go wrong.

We can do better, and we will.
Thank you!

 

[Annie]

Tell me something, if they admitted it was terrorism from the beginning why did Rice go on the Sunday morning talk shows and make the point that it wasn't?

Dear QW: Whether it was for selfish reasons, of avoiding something escalating out of control during a tight campaign and election schedule, or for strategy of buying time to investigate and not giving credit or attention in the media to terrorists and giving them what they want,

either way, they were downplaying it and masking the whole thing.
either way, they were not telling anything to the families or to the public.

They are going to say it was for strategic reasons.
Opposing critics are going to say it was for political convenience.

Either way those people are dead, did not receive help, and they died so
Obama and the rest of us could keep going forward with the elections we
have the privilege of participating in as voters, funders and media watchdogs.

Either way, I am grateful and humbled by their sacrifice, REGARDLESS
whatever the administration says or didn't say. I am thinking of those
brave servicemen and staff, and I am not going to belittle or distract from
their valor and exemplary commitment to duty by diverting attention through
these arguments where people may never agree. I think we can do
a better job of honoring those heroes by sticking to what we do agree on,
and helping each other to serve this country and not hang each other over failures.

Let's fix our own failures, and be bigger people, like those men had to be
under worse situations than we face now. If they can do the right thing
with that kind of pressure on the line, we can surely pull together,
and fix the problems with politics and economics, including the
faults that people may never admit to. We need to fix things anyway
even if they are too small to admit it. Let's be bigger and this will
expose by comparison who is not with the program, we don't have to worry,
it will be clear. People are not stupid, and the right people will get the credit they deserve.

Take care and THANK YOU for caring.
I respect the fact that you are conscientious about this.
I don't want to discourage you, but just encourage you to
direct your energy and attention to solving problems and
don't depend on anyone admitting their faults. We'd never
get anything done if we waited on that. Like the men who
didn't wait for help, but went beyond the call of duty to
save the lives of 30 other people. They didn't live to see the
credit they would get, as they did not do this for public acknowledgement.

Neither should be expect to see any public acknowledgement either.
That should not deter us from knowing and doing what is right.

Thanks again and I will keep America and all our
heroes in prayer that we pull together and become
a better nation after the aftermath of this messy election finishes
pulling out all our dirty laundry to be cleaned and hung to dry.

We will be better for all this process we are going through
to get our act together, independent of the things that can go wrong.

We can do better, and we will.
Thank you!

Just, Wow. You really are this demented? Egads, I can remember when Jillian would have said, 'You don't speak for me', but not now. You do, speak for the left.

Astounding.

 

[Sallow]

This whole thing boils down to one thing.

You folks want to undo the election.

You could give a shit folks died..just as most of you could care less New Yorkers died as a result of the 9/11/2001 attacks.

It's pretty disgusting.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This whole thing boils down to one thing.

You folks want to undo the election.

You could give a shit folks died..just as most of you could care less New Yorkers died as a result of the 9/11/2001 attacks.

It's pretty disgusting.

Gee, if only we had asked about this before the election.

Wait, I did, and you pretended you didn't care.

 

[Ravi]

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?

You don't see how it is politically advantageous to downplay the event especially a month before an election on the cusp of the debates to boot, not calling it a Terrorist act?

so let me reverse this; what harm would have been had he called it a terrorist attack as to any 'investigation; etc etc....your position can't be that in a place with a huge CIA footprint that the T's in Libya who carried this out would believe that not hearing it called a terrorist act would provide them some relief, as if they got away with it? These folks may be extremists bit they are not stupid, clearly.

That's why this whole frenzy over these word semantics is so stupid, because the event just was what it was...The murder of Americans and the destruction of our embassy...It never mattered what to call it until partisans pounced and acted as if it mattered, the very next day no less...

There was no lie about the results of the violence that occurred that day..it was an active investigation of a violent crime scene, an unfolding news story where information was being spread and repeated very quickly, information got mixed up from violent events across the globe at other embassies that day where outrage was being expressed toward the US in general, obviously because it was the anniversary of 9/11 which is obviously about more than just some video...and yes there were reports of spontaneous uprisings over some video including in Libya and the president spoke of them too, why shouldn't he?


It's not like anyone really believes blood thirsty jihadist wouldn't find any other excuse to focus their rage anyway, but that video and others like it are true precipitating factors to terror and we are currently in the midst of a diplomatic effort over there, so we simply acknowledge that fact as we gathered other facts and reacted to the events in whole. Not because we wanted to pretend to the terrorists we weren't "on to them". They blew up our effing embassy and killed our guys it was pretty obvious we were going to be all over them henceforth regardless.

Despite all the partisan parsing, the President and the Secretary of State both made strong, honest and diplomatic statements in the days following this terror event. No one claimed it wasn't terror.


When people like QW ask why did they do it that way, why did they lie? I say, I don't see it that way at all, and I don't accept your premise that there was a lie...

^ The voice of reason.

All this was known and discussed before the election. The American people don't care about semantics. The Republicans are being shameful sore losers.

 

[jillian]

You don't see how it is politically advantageous to downplay the event especially a month before an election on the cusp of the debates to boot, not calling it a Terrorist act?

so let me reverse this; what harm would have been had he called it a terrorist attack as to any 'investigation; etc etc....your position can't be that in a place with a huge CIA footprint that the T's in Libya who carried this out would believe that not hearing it called a terrorist act would provide them some relief, as if they got away with it? These folks may be extremists bit they are not stupid, clearly.

That's why this whole frenzy over these word semantics is so stupid, because the event just was what it was...The murder of Americans and the destruction of our embassy...It never mattered what to call it until partisans pounced and acted as if it mattered, the very next day no less...

There was no lie about the results of the violence that occurred that day..it was an active investigation of a violent crime scene, an unfolding news story where information was being spread and repeated very quickly, information got mixed up from violent events across the globe at other embassies that day where outrage was being expressed toward the US in general, obviously because it was the anniversary of 9/11 which is obviously about more than just some video...and yes there were reports of spontaneous uprisings over some video including in Libya and the president spoke of them too, why shouldn't he?


It's not like anyone really believes blood thirsty jihadist wouldn't find any other excuse to focus their rage anyway, but that video and others like it are true precipitating factors to terror and we are currently in the midst of a diplomatic effort over there, so we simply acknowledge that fact as we gathered other facts and reacted to the events in whole. Not because we wanted to pretend to the terrorists we weren't "on to them". They blew up our effing embassy and killed our guys it was pretty obvious we were going to be all over them henceforth regardless.

Despite all the partisan parsing, the President and the Secretary of State both made strong, honest and diplomatic statements in the days following this terror event. No one claimed it wasn't terror.


When people like QW ask why did they do it that way, why did they lie? I say, I don't see it that way at all, and I don't accept your premise that there was a lie...

^ The voice of reason.

All this was known and discussed before the election. The American people don't care about semantics. The Republicans are being shameful sore losers.

the american people are also clearly tired of the boys who cried wolf.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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.

There are approximately 28 gazillion threads on this subject in other forums. Why start another thread here and then use the inflammatory language - "lying", "stupid" - that others cannot reply to?

Why pick a fight in this forum? In essence, you have called others 'stupid liars' if they disagree with you while making it impossible for them to respond to that.

Just curious as to why you would do that.

Thanks.

 

[Valerie]

People like me?

Tell me something, if they admitted it was terrorism from the beginning why did Rice go on the Sunday morning talk shows and make the point that it wasn't?

You can not show any lie where any official claimed it was not an act of terror. Claiming that an event was related to something or perhaps precipitated by something, does not mean the event is not also characterized, or characterizable, as an act of terror at the same time. Go ahead and post the big lie where anyone claimed it was not an act of terror.


I said "people like you" because you are the OP.

I started the thread because people like you keep insisting that something happened that did not happen. rice went on national TV and openly lied when she said that there was no evidence that the attack was premeditated.

Ambassador Susan Rice: Libya Attack Not Premeditated - ABC News

Now that we have that cleared up, why don't you actually address the OP and defend the administration's actual arguments instead of trying to turn this into a debate about something else. Is it because what they did is indefensible?

I have addressed your OP head-on and I challenged it's premise. You just took another HUGE leap right there, but I'm not surprised you can't even acknowledge the obvious gap in your line of thinking, and the fact that you can not produce an actual lie right here and now...

Again, not knowing whether or how spontaneous the event was, does not constitute characterizing whether or not it was an act of terror. In fact, no official claimed it was not an act of terror, and there was no actual lie except by those confused partisans who repeated the dishonest narrative that there was a lie. Now you want to claim the US Ambassador to the UN's comments were A LIE, but they were not...

Sep 16, 2012



U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice said “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,” Rice told me this morning on “This Week.”

“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,” Rice said, referring to protests in Egypt Tuesday over a film that depicts the Prophet Muhammad as a fraud. Protesters in Cairo breached the walls of the U.S. Embassy, tearing apart an American flag.

“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,” Rice said. “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… And it then evolved from there.”

Ambassador Christopher Stevens, along with three other Americans, were killed in Libya following the assault on the American consulate in Benghazi, on the 11th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks. Rice said the FBI is examining the attack, saying their investigation “will tell us with certainty what transpired.”



But Rice said there was a “substantial security presence” at the consulate in Benghazi, noting that two of the four Americans killed there were providing security.

“We certainly are aware that Libya is a place where there have been increasingly some violent incidents,” Rice said. “The security personnel that the State Department thought were required were in place… It obviously didn’t prove sufficient to the – the nature of the attack and sufficient in that – in that moment.”

Ambassador Susan Rice: Libya Attack Not Premeditated - ABC News