An open challenge

[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.

"People like me"? I have deliberately refrained from going on about this topic after my initial reaction to the dishonest narrative, I asserted we need to STOP trying to parse ongoing US diplomatic efforts. The media frenzy happened because partisans were using this terrible event to play politics. You guys are the ones claiming something happened that did not happen - "a lie" - and I'm just calling you on it and saying no, that did not happen that way.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Let's see...the day ofter the attack the administration stated the attack was terrorists.

Rather than listening to the blather form a video that may, or may not be, edited, lets find out what the White House says Obama said.

There was nothing about it being terrorism in the opening paragraphs.

Good morning. Every day, all across the world, American diplomats and civilians work tirelessly to advance the interests and values of our nation. Often, they are away from their families. Sometimes, they brave great danger. Yesterday, four of these extraordinary Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Benghazi. Among those killed was our Ambassador, Chris Stevens, as well as Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith. We are still notifying the families of the others who were killed. And today, the American people stand united in holding the families of the four Americans in our thoughts and in our prayers.
The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack. We're working with the government of Libya to secure our diplomats. I've also directed my administration to increase our security at diplomatic posts around the world. And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.

When, exactly, did Obama mention terrorism? Interestingly enough, it was after he talked about how he had spent the day before visiting Arlington and Walter Reed.

Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. We mourned with the families who were lost on that day. I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed. And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.
As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.
No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.

Remarks by the President on the Deaths of U.S. Embassy Staff in Libya | The White House

Care to explain how you jump from him talking about an event 11 years ago to one the day before? If he had given the same speech at a funeral for a soldier who died in Afghanistan would you have thought he was calling his death an act of terrorism?

So given that the basic premise your challenge is based on:

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'd say you don't know what the fuck you're talking about and therefore your entire argument lacks credibility.

Interesting that you feel the need to come in here and turn a challenge to defend the administration into a personal attack on me. Is there a reason for that? Is it possible that you cannot actually debate?

Additionally, you failed to note that the REPUBLICANS voted to reduce spending on embassies twice

For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department's worldwide security protection program -- well below the $2.15  billion requested by the Obama administration.

House Republicans cut the administration's request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012. (Negotiations with the Democrat-controlled Senate restored about $88 million of the administration's request.) Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans' proposed cuts to her department would be "detrimental to America's national security" -- a charge Republicans rejected.

What is it about you right wingers?

You have selective memory problems.

I also failed to mention that it rained in San Francisco this week. The reason for that is actually pretty simple, they are both irreverent to the story the administration handed out after the attacks.

 

[Trajan]

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...

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...

Are you saying that definitions of events don't matter or count?

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.

So, obama did call the Benghazi attack terrorism?

Please view the Steve kroft edited 60 minutes segment, I posted it for docisin a few pages back, I don't hear him saying that, in fact he demurred when kroft asked him straight up.......

No one said it wasn't terrorism?

So we then we are to assume it was? How far do we take that? Don't you thinks it's dangerous for the yardstick to be we must assume any attacks of similar nature are all Terrorist attacks? If we have another issue where in there really is a spontaneous act that results in deaths , do we call it a terrorist attack or an assault by militants, because ther differences in that language/definitions, they are not one and the same, would you agree with that.?

 

[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.

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.

I wanted to give all the people, like you, an opportunity to actually defend the actions of the administration without being called names.

Strangely enough, only one person took me up on it, and he ended up calling me names.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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...

Let me point out the flaw in your argument.

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.”

This is an outright lie.

No one ever believed that there was any type of protest outside the consulate/diplomatic facility in Benghazi. The Ambassador was outside the front gate of the facility at approximately 8:30 pm local time saying goodbye to a diplomat from Turkey, the attack started at 9:42 pm. If there had been a protest, even a small one, someone would have noticed it and taken precautions.

“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.

I will give her this one, even if I am not 100% sure it is true.

“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.”

The "individual clusters" of extremists arrived in pickups with that clearly identified them as part of a local militia group that has ties to Al-Qaeda. This was clearly a lie, and is exactly what I am asking about. Do you think they did the right thing in pretending to be idiots instead of pretending to know more than they did.

Keep in mind that the entire world knows we have drones that fly around spying on people, and they believe we have spy satellites that can see in the dark and take pictures of what people are reading from space. It would have been pretty easy to lie about there having been a drone in the area that saw the pickups, and not endanger anyone on the ground. Also keep in mind that, by the time Rice was making these statements the survivors of the attack were back in the US, and it is entirely possible they could have seen the trucks.

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.”

The all powerful FBI will eventually figure everything out, even though it will take another two weeks for them to get to Benghazi.

Sorry, that was snarky, and irrelevant.

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.

Another lie, but not actually germane to the thread.

“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

We now know, and I believe we knew at the time, that Stephens, along with the security people actually on the ground in Benghazi, disagreed with that assessment. I would like to know who thought they knew more than the people on the ground, but, once again, that is irrelevant to the thread.

Now that we have established that I am not basing my question on your interpretation of what Fox News has been saying, and that you have not actually addressed my OP, or defended the lies of the administration in any way, shape, or form, do you, or do you not, wish to actually address my OP and defend the lies?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

"People like me"? I have deliberately refrained from going on about this topic after my initial reaction to the dishonest narrative, I asserted we need to STOP trying to parse ongoing US diplomatic efforts. The media frenzy happened because partisans were using this terrible event to play politics. You guys are the ones claiming something happened that did not happen - "a lie" - and I'm just calling you on it and saying no, that did not happen that way.

You keep insisting that they told the truth from the beginning, and that no one ever denied it was a terrorist attack. I expect that from idiots on the left, but you should know better. Would you like me to link to all the posts on this board where the usual suspects attacked me for calling it terrorism, and actually provided links to various sources in an attempt to prove me wrong?

 

[Trajan]

Petraeus tells lawmakers CIA always saw Benghazi as terrorism
By Jeremy Herb and Jordy Yager - 11/16/12

Former CIA Director David Petraeus told lawmakers at a closed-door briefing Friday the agency believed the assault on the U.S. Consulate in Libya was a terrorist attack from the beginning.

Democrats and Republicans were at odds, however, over how Petraeus’s testimony helped explain the administration’s shifting story on the attack.



Petraeus tells lawmakers CIA always saw Benghazi as terrorism - The Hill's DEFCON Hill

note he said terrorism/terrorists, not militia, militants, extremists, para military, insurgents etc. all of which have different definitions in their applications, most especially in the context we now live under and with.


Look, I am not surprised they used another description that would not cast the same pall over the event as say if it were a spontaneous event carried out by protestors, militants or extremists......