Benghazi
-
You can't be serious about that act of terror business. That's willful blindness.
And yes, watched the debate, and you've summed that up all wrong too.
ROMNEY: I -- I think interesting the president just said something which -- which is that on the day after the attack he went into the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror.
OBAMA: That's what I said.
ROMNEY: You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack, it was an act of terror.
It was not a spontaneous demonstration, is that what you're saying?
OBAMA: Please proceed governor.
ROMNEY: I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.
OBAMA: Get the transcript.
CROWLEY: It -- it -- it -- he did in fact, sir. So let me -- let me call it an act of terror...
OBAMA: Can you say that a little louder, Candy?
CROWLEY: He -- he did call it an act of terror. It did as well take -- it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You are correct about that.
ROMNEY: This -- the administration -- the administration indicated this was a reaction to a video and was a spontaneous reaction.
CROWLEY: It did.
I need to work.
-
Romney got caught up in the Rose Garden word play also. An "act of terror" could be committed by a spontaneous crowd. "Act of terror" in no way, shape or form means specifically Muslim extremists. Now of course they do commit acts of terror, but not all "acts of terror" are committed by them. Burning down the city of LA, looting and beating people is certainly an "act of terror". Although I recall that 1992 incident being committed by a spontaneous crowd, not a planned attack by an organized extremist group.
-
Oh, brother. You've taken me all the way down the rabbit hole with you. I want out.
-
Also, if your concerns really are what they say - making sure this doesn't happen again, holding people accountable, etc. - there's a pretty comprehensive report that was done by a team led by Admiral Mullen about the failures at the State Department before, during, and after the attack.
Wouldn't you prefer that to a Darrell Issa hearing? did that not suffice for you?
-
Also, if your concerns really are what they say - making sure this doesn't happen again, holding people accountable, etc. - there's a pretty comprehensive report that was done by a team led by Admiral Mullen about the failures at the State Department before, during, and after the attack.
Wouldn't you prefer that to a Darrell Issa hearing? did that not suffice for you?
Also, if your concerns really are what they say - making sure this doesn't happen again, holding people accountable, etc. - there's a pretty comprehensive report that was done by a team led by Admiral Mullen about the failures at the State Department before, during, and after the attack.
Wouldn't you prefer that to a Darrell Issa hearing? did that not suffice for you?
Was this the same team that couldn't ask questions to Hicks without state department lawyers present? Or that denied the request of one of the other whistleblowers to be interviewed? The reason the whistleblowers had to come forward was because the first investigation failed at getting the truth from the people who knew it best.
And I would say you dug yourself into the hole you are in when you tried passing the general phrase "act of terror" as a specific reference to a Muslim extremist organization.
-
My God, man. I feel like I'm talking to a Truther about 9/11. "The fire would not have reached 900 degrees in that amount of time and therefore it would not have reached the burning point of steel."
You have lots particular things you wish to would have happened and precise wording that you wish had been used and the exact point in time you expect they should have been employed. This is your metric for scandal and I find it bizarre. -
My God, man. I feel like I'm talking to a Truther about 9/11. "The fire would not have reached 900 degrees in that amount of time and therefore it would not have reached the burning point of steel."
You have lots particular things you wish to would have happened and precise wording that you wish had been used and the exact point in time you expect they should have been employed. This is your metric for scandal and I find it bizarre.My God, man. I feel like I'm talking to a Truther about 9/11. "The fire would not have reached 900 degrees in that amount of time and therefore it would not have reached the burning point of steel."
You have lots particular things you wish to would have happened and precise wording that you wish had been used and the exact point in time you expect they should have been employed. This is your metric for scandal and I find it bizarre.
At this point it's clear that you read what you want to see and not what I typed. I have not called it a scandal, just a screw up. I have yet to say anyone purposely hid information or did anything with malice.
I just pointed out that Obama didn't call the attack a plot by terrorists. He said that "acts of terror" are bad. I don't care how he would have said it, just that he call it a plot by extremists and not a spontaneous riot because of a video. You thought the general phrase "act of terror" was a direct mention of Muslim extremists and I pointed out it's not. Killing 4 people is an "act of terror" if it was a planned by a group or spontaneously happened among random angry protestors.
-
Obama and Hillary tried to cover up the facts because of the election. It's pretty obvious to most except Heck I guess. The failure to follow up on the attack and find out who is responsible is worse. The mother of the ex-Navy Seal who was DSS and killed was on CNN today telling how the Obama Admin did nothing except make promises they didn't keep on keeping her informed of what was going on. This Admin is really weak and falling apart.
-
My God, man. I feel like I'm talking to a Truther about 9/11. "The fire would not have reached 900 degrees in that amount of time and therefore it would not have reached the burning point of steel."
You have lots particular things you wish to would have happened and precise wording that you wish had been used and the exact point in time you expect they should have been employed. This is your metric for scandal and I find it bizarre.
At this point it's clear that you read what you want to see and not what I typed. I have not called it a scandal, just a screw up. I have yet to say anyone purposely hid information or did anything with malice.
I just pointed out that Obama didn't call the attack a plot by terrorists. He said that "acts of terror" are bad. I don't care how he would have said it, just that he call it a plot by extremists and not a spontaneous riot because of a video. You thought the general phrase "act of terror" was a direct mention of Muslim extremists and I pointed out it's not. Killing 4 people is an "act of terror" if it was a planned by a group or spontaneously happened among random angry protestors.
At this point it's clear that you read what you want to see and not what I typed. I have not called it a scandal, just a screw up. I have yet to say anyone purposely hid information or did anything with malice.
I just pointed out that Obama didn't call the attack a plot by terrorists. He said that "acts of terror" are bad. I don't care how he would have said it, just that he call it a plot by extremists and not a spontaneous riot because of a video. You thought the general phrase "act of terror" was a direct mention of Muslim extremists and I pointed out it's not. Killing 4 people is an "act of terror" if it was a planned by a group or spontaneously happened among random angry protestors.
And even if we grant you this semantic point - which i don't, but whatever - this matters why?
-
Also, let's get your basic complaint: why was it an unGodly and politically motivated act of misdirection to suggest that the attack was opportunistic and grew out of the videos? Because that's what some of the intelligence suggested.
Again, this is one of the the headscratchers. The idea that he had to say this was terrorism on __ day! Which is, as you've told us, the day your specific people said they knew it had to be terrorism, and disregarding anyone else who said otherwise.
-
actually I don't think that it was terrorism given the definition we've most often used. It was an attack, an attack on our Embassy planned out and executed.
but neither was it a protest that got out of hand over some stupid YouTube video that nobody heard of until rice told us.
and frankly this investigation or this effort to get to the bottom of what happened to make sure it never happens again...
there may be a grain of truth to that but mostly people want to keep it in the Publix mind a little longer. Even though the horse is out of the barn.
all they really needed to do was run out the clock until the election and that was accomplished.
WSS
-
At this point it's clear that you read what you want to see and not what I typed. I have not called it a scandal, just a screw up. I have yet to say anyone purposely hid information or did anything with malice.
I just pointed out that Obama didn't call the attack a plot by terrorists. He said that "acts of terror" are bad. I don't care how he would have said it, just that he call it a plot by extremists and not a spontaneous riot because of a video. You thought the general phrase "act of terror" was a direct mention of Muslim extremists and I pointed out it's not. Killing 4 people is an "act of terror" if it was a planned by a group or spontaneously happened among random angry protestors.
And even if we grant you this semantic point - which i don't, but whatever - this matters why?
And even if we grant you this semantic point - which i don't, but whatever - this matters why?
It's not semantics. You claimed he correctly pointed out is was an organized attack which he didn't. Unless "act of terror" isn't a general phrase but specifically refers to Muslim extremists. Which it doesn't.
No one knew "my guy" (the whistleblowers) claimed it was an attack because they weren't even asked about it. It's not a problem that they thought the protests could have been part of it after it first happened. It's a problem that people who were there and willing to tell what happened were ignored. Because they were ignored totally wrong info was stated as fact. You make it sound like I'm criticizing people for thinking the protests could have some how been a part of it. I'm not. I'm criticizing them for putting out the wrong info because witnesses were ignored.
I'm not criticizing anyone for not knowing everything day 1. I'm criticizing them for telling Rice to tell everyone a video was to blame when they didn't know that for sure. What I'm actually doing and what you are accusing me of are 2 different things.
-
Now he has to point out it was an "organized" attack? I can't keep up with all of the made up rules you have for discussing terrorist attacks.
As for, "I'm criticizing them for telling Rice to tell everyone a video was to blame when they didn't know that for sure."
But that's not what happened. So stop doing that. They were giving their best sense of the information at the time. No one knew anything for sure. They hadn't completed the investigation yet. Nor did Rice definitively say how the attack occurred. You think they could have settled it by talking to the right people more. Maybe so. I still don't know which semantic detail has you so upset, or why you think it's such a big deal that we didn't know the exact details for another few days.
-
There Was a Stand Down Order
-
However, the burning question remains: Who, with the appropriate authority, actually gave the stand down order? And why?
-
Baloney, Heck. Spin it all day, every way. But Obamao clearly knew it was terrorism the day after.
A week later, he was saying it was because of the video. Protests because of the video.
There were no protests. This president flat out lied a week later, and Rice and Clinton went full forward with
the lie.
The benefit is, to portray their "diplomacy" as much a success as they would like Americans to believe - that they
are sooooo successful. Like they were sooooo successful in "saving the auto industry". Except Ford didn't need help.
Successful as to how they "saved" all Americans from higher medical insurance premiums and got all uninsured to be insured.
It's desperate cover for a president who has become the opposite of what he was portrayed as, and has failed America as a result.
And running and spinning and changing the subject is beneath you, I would think. Steve catches you at it all the time. But you did
say that Obamao said Benghazi was terrorism a day later. And I showed you he said it was just a reaction to the video a week later.
And you ran and spun again.
-
THERE WAS A STAND DOWN ORDER
Though some the details are still fuzzy, someone issued a stand down order that prevented Special Forces from traveling to Benghazi to intervene after the attack.
Hicks, the former deputy chief of mission for the U.S. in Libya and the highest ranking official in the country at the time of the Benghazi attacks, testified that either AFRICOMM or SOCAFRICA issued the stand down order, though he didn’t have a name or where the command originated.
Hicks said Lt. Col. Gibson, a Special Operations Command (SOC) Africa commander, was “furious” after receiving the stand down order. “Lt. Col. Gibson was furious. I had told him to go bring our people home. That’s what he wanted to do,” he said.
-
actually I don't think that it was terrorism given the definition we've most often used. It was an attack, an attack on our Embassy planned out and executed.
but neither was it a protest that got out of hand over some stupid YouTube video that nobody heard of until rice told us.
and frankly this investigation or this effort to get to the bottom of what happened to make sure it never happens again...
there may be a grain of truth to that but mostly people want to keep it in the Publix mind a little longer. Even though the horse is out of the barn.
all they really needed to do was run out the clock until the election and that was accomplished.
WSS
but neither was it a protest that got out of hand over some stupid YouTube video that nobody heard of until rice told us.
This is so horribly inaccurate. How can you be so inaccurate? This happened in September of last year. The protests were all over the globe. The news covered them extensively. We talked about the video in here. That all predated Rice going on the Sunday shows.
Nobody ever heard of it? You mean the one that made international news and caused protests all over the world?
Oh, that video.
-
Wait.. Our "strategy" to go after the groups or factions responsible for Benghazi was not to shout "come out come out wherever you are!!" as we went looking for them?
And this "strategy" being the impetus for changing the official dialogue thus concealing who we felt was responsible?
Holy fuck. I need some Tylenol.
-
Anybody remember this scene from "Clear and Present Danger"??
Felix Cortez: [referring to Jack Ryan] Whatever this man has told you is a lie. He LIES for a living!
Ernesto Escobedo: He is in the Intelligence business.
Felix Cortez: Exactly.
Ernesto Escobedo: YOU'RE in the Intelligence business!
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login