Benghazi
-
I think you've answered my question, and it's that you're really invested in this being a conspiracy to mislead America, when it really was an interagency decision to not say anything definitive until all the facts were in, and to not tip off the groups who did it while we tracked them. You've completed ignored all of this evidence because it doesn't fit into your narrative, presumably so that you can keep your narrative.
You're perfectly free to be upset that certain people in the chain weren't asked or told certain things, but the fact that they weren't asked or told certain things does not strike me as a huge scandal, or even odd. Neither does the fact that they sent out Susan Rice to say basically, "We think this is how it happened, but we don't know yet" is a huge attempt to mislead and dammit, we need answers! That is the headscratcher, yes.
I find the whole episode entirely typical, much like any unfolding situation where the information isn't immediately clear. You're assuming that it was immediately clear because certain people said it was, while completely ignoring all of the other people who said that it wasn't clear. That's the only way you can say things like "Any evidence of a terrorist attack was ignored in favor of blaming a video." That's not what happened, and doesn't square with the reality the decision-makers were faced with at the time.
What's more, you still want to find out who in the CIA screwed up when what you're upset about is that not everyone immediately held the position you wanted them to hold, which is that it was a terrorist attack. The fact that some of the information they gathered suggested that it had something to do with the video, and that information was considered, is apparently what's bothering you. This is also a headscratcher.
Even more, you're upset that the intelligence community then made a judgment call about what to tell the public so they would maximize their chances of finding those responsible. Again, a headscratcher. This happens all the time.
In short, you're upset because everyone didn't immediately hold the opinion that this was a terrorist attack. Only in retroactive world does this make a lick of sense. You're trying to make this a willful attempt to mislead when it clearly isn't.
It's somewhat akin to demanding that the administration immediately call the Boston Marathon bombings Islamic terrorism the moment they discovered that the bombers were of Chechen origin. That ended up being the case, and that was some of the initial information they had, but they don't go out and say it definitively until they know, as there's a lot of information coming in at once.
I still have yet to say it was conspiracy or a scandal. I've portrayed it as a massive failure that has bot been fully investigated. Maybe your assuming the administration isn't being the transparent group they promised because they have something to hide. I'm not accusing that. I simply see the problems that caused this to happen. I believe the problems should be fixed. You don't see it as a big deal. What if those two SEALS stayed put like they were ordered, and 30 people (mostly if not all Americans) were still being held hostage by terrorists? Would you think it would be more important then? Because the one and only thing that kept those people from being killed or taken hostage were the 2 SEALS.
Rice didn't say we aren't sure but there are many possibilities. She flat out said it was the video. Obama didn't call it a terrorist attack for at least 2 full weeks. You try to make it seem like they claimed they weren't sure. They were dead sure it was a video. Your quotes that you try to buffer with the word "basically" are flat out wrong.
So because people who weren't there didn't know what happened and people who were there knew what happened, it's okay for the administration to have no idea what happened? The people who knew what happened weren't asked. Hicks wasn't asked by Clinton what happened. One of the other 2 guys offered to be interviewed and was declined. It wasn't a 50/50 split among people there who claimed it was a video. Everyone there knew it was an attack. I'm not ignoring people who said it wasn't clear. I'm saying they were in no position to fully know what happen. The people who were in position and did fully know were ignored. The people who provided evidence - in fact proof- it was a terrorist attack were ignored. Those who claimed with no real evidence at all that a video was responsible for a full scale mortar attack got their story picked up by the administration. Hence, "Any evidence of a terrorist attack was ignored in favor of blaming a video."
Obama never called it an act of terror in the rose garden. Read the transcript. He said that acts of terror will not be tolerated, but it was in no way directed at Benghazi. And when he had more opportunities in the following days to directly call it terrorism in the following days, he didn't.
Again, maybe you will get it this time. The evidence it was because of a video never really made sense and didn't come from anyone who would actually know. The people who did actually know were ignored.
Again, I've said this probably 6 times, but I'm not saying there was an intentional action to mislead. I'm saying what came out was flat out wrong and the reasons why it was completely wrong clear. It should not have happened. The only way to fix a problem is to hold the people who are responsible fully responsible.
Obama never called it an act of terror in the rose garden. Read the transcript. He said that acts of terror will not be tolerated, but it was in no way directed at Benghazi. And when he had more opportunities in the following days to directly call it terrorism in the following days, he didn't.
I've got to get to work here, but ...you're kidding on this, right? You can't be serious.
A statement about Benghazi given in the Rose Garden describing the attack and saying "these acts of terror will not stand" is not referring to the attack he's holding the press conference about in the first place?
Wow. I hadn't heard that attempted before. Even in here. And these guys are nuts.
PS - Are you a Ron Paul fan?
-
Obama never called it an act of terror in the rose garden. Read the transcript. He said that acts of terror will not be tolerated, but it was in no way directed at Benghazi. And when he had more opportunities in the following days to directly call it terrorism in the following days, he didn't.
I've got to get to work here, but ...you're kidding on this, right? You can't be serious.
A statement about Benghazi given in the Rose Garden describing the attack and saying "these acts of terror will not stand" is not referring to the attack he's holding the press conference about in the first place?
Wow. I hadn't heard that attempted before. Even in here. And these guys are nuts.
PS - Are you a Ron Paul fan?
I've got to get to work here, but ...you're kidding on this, right? You can't be serious.
A statement about Benghazi given in the Rose Garden describing the attack and saying "these acts of terror will not stand" is not referring to the attack he's holding the press conference about in the first place?
Wow. I hadn't heard that attempted before. Even in here. And these guys are nuts.
PS - Are you a Ron Paul fan?
Not a Paul fan. that's why I'm an independent. Even Candy Crawly pointed out during the debate Obama used the phrase "act of terror", but not exactly saying it about Benghazi. Apparently you didn't watch that debate. Wearing a scary mask on Halloween and scaring a little kid is an "act of terror". Although "act of terror" has no legal definition that means Al Queda terrorists committed the terror. Any violent crime is an "act of terror". It was careful word play by Obama that didn't actually state Muslim terrorists did anything. An angry crowd of video watchers can commit an "act of terror" the same way an organized Muslim extremist group can.
Blaming it on the video when it was a terrorist attack isn't even the main problem. The fact that the rescue team in Tripoli was told to stand down is much more of an issue then Rice's BS.
-
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.
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