courseofhistory
Rookie
- Aug 7, 2012
- 1,230
- 179
- 0
- Banned
- #41
What's the scandal, again?
I ask because it's SOP for law enforcement to withhold official judgment on a suspicious death even as they investigate it as a possible homicide right from the beginning.
So too with the attack on our consulate. What possible good could it do to come out publicly and declare it a terrorist attack (and possibly attribute it to whom, exactly?) without the evidence to support that contention? The US Gov't would have egg on it's face, internationally, if it made that claim and it later turned out to not be true.
And if you don't believe that, recall all the fall out from our declaration prior to the Iraq War that Saddam actually had WMDs and we knew exactly where they were, thereby justifying our 'preemptive war.' In the war against Islamic extremism, the US is not served well by throwing around unsubstantiated accusations that we may later have to retract. Let al Qaeda make those kinds of mistakes. That hurts THEIR credibility in the Muslim world. We don't need our credibility any more tarnished than it has been by a series of screw ups from the Iraq War intelligence fiasco to Abu Ghraib.
Not when you hold to the story 2 weeks later. That's all that needs to be said.
I don't see that 2 weeks represents some kind of number that passed the point of credibility in some way. If the administration was trying to conceal something, why not continue saying that it wasn't a terrorist attack? Certainly they must understand that reversing course on the determination that it was terrorism (as opposed to a spontaneous attack) was going to be exploited by the Republicans, especially in the final stage of the election. So, what did the administration have to gain by doing so other than to set the record straight after more facts came to light? Keep in mind that the investigation is taking place overseas in a place where English is not the first language. And my guess is that the US is likely very dependent on Libyan personnel and expertise. It's not as if we can crack the whip with them. We needed/need their help, and we're playing on their turf.
Many people have no clue what is invovlved in intelligence gathering! I suppose they think Obama picks up the phone and calls the Libyan president and the leader of some terrorist group (there are so many he'd be on the phone for weeks) and asks them what happened and who did this? Laughable!
Intelligence takes time and as much verification as possible and when disinformation is added to the mix of only snippets of intercepted calls and reports, it makes it extremely difficult. But many republicans seem to be one track thinkers like Romney so I guess that explains their devotion to him. They and he have this very simplified idea of things and it is only that way and can't be at variance.