Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 05-03-2014, 07:24 PM
Donald Rump Donald Rump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 832
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xema View Post
How about: that the White House had evidence that the attack in Benghazi was a consequence of the Internet video.
The Republican notion that it was obvious from day one that the attack was preplanned and unrelated to what had occurred in Cairo (which certainly WAS about the video) is massively overstated.

Both Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya reported that there were protests over the video in Benghazi.

It's worth reading what Newt Gingrich had to say about the attacks at the time:

CNN Anchor John Berman asks if Gingrich has proof of there being a connection between demonstrations and attacks in Egypt and Libya. Gingrich replies, “…. Anybody who’s ever studied terrorism will tell you, there’s almost certainly a link. This is a lot like the Danish cartoon outrage a few years ago…. We are faced with enemies who want to defeat the United States and impose their radical views…. How can the US government apologize for a film no one has seen, which is what the Embassy in Cairo did yesterday…. It’s not just about an event in Libya. It’s about a longer war, part of which we were being reminded of yesterday on 9/11.”

And Marco Rubio described the events in Cairo and Benghazi as senseless mob violence (see p 78 of the recent email dump - Rubio's original statement has apparently been scrubbed from the internet).
  #102  
Old 05-03-2014, 07:51 PM
Ruken Ruken is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 6,767
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terr View Post
1. It is very simple to search emails for the word "Benghazi". Any email system allows you to do that.
2. Congress subpoenaed any communication connected to the Benghazi events. That email would have showed up in the search. It would take deliberate action for it to be excluded.
Well we now know that someone in this thread has never helped an organization respond to a FOIA before.
  #103  
Old 05-03-2014, 08:47 PM
Xema Xema is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 12,011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donald Rump View Post
Benghazi is not the only or even the central topic.
How would it not be the central topic, 5 days after 4 people were killed in an attack?
  #104  
Old 05-03-2014, 08:52 PM
Xema Xema is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 12,011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
Nothing you posted suggest we knew that any one group in particular was responsible...
Knowing involves having incontrovertible evidence that denies any other possibility.
There is strong evidence this was a pre-planned attack. There is virtually no evidence that the explanation advanced by the WH - demonstration against a video that got out of hand - accurately explained what happened.

So we don't need to know exactly who was involved to understand that the WH was working to present a false narrative.
  #105  
Old 05-03-2014, 08:58 PM
Xema Xema is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 12,011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donald Rump View Post
It's worth reading what Newt Gingrich had to say about the attacks at the time
I'm reluctant to accept Newt G. as any sort of expert on this subject - he comes across as a random politician mouthing off. If you know of any reason this view is inaccurate, I'd be happy to listen to it.
  #106  
Old 05-03-2014, 09:07 PM
Donald Rump Donald Rump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 832
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xema View Post
How would it not be the central topic, 5 days after 4 people were killed in an attack?
dude how should I know? Presumably the promos (again, page 17 of the PDF containing the. Rhodes email) reflect what the producers of those shows wanted to talk about. Take it up with them. I'm sorry if the facts here don't conform to your narrative.

Example:

"Fox News Sunday

Anti-US protests are spreading across the Arab world days after a deadly attack on the consulate in Libya. What should the US involvement be in the trouble region? Chris Wallace discusses the disruption with Susan Rice, the US ambassador to the UN."
  #107  
Old 05-03-2014, 09:39 PM
Donald Rump Donald Rump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 832
[QUOTE=Xema;17346227] There is virtually no evidence that the explanation advanced by the WH - demonstration against a video that got out of hand - accurately explained what happened.QUOTE]

You weaken your argument by overstating this point.

From the AP:

"There was no sign of a spontaneous protest against an American-made movie denigrating Islam's Prophet Muhammad. But a lawyer passing by the scene said he saw the militants gathering around 20 youths from nearby to chant against the film. Within an hour or so, the assault began, guns blazing as the militants blasted into the compound."

Totally consistent with Susan Rice's account - folks showed up to replicate the sort of challenge to America that was occurring in Cairo, which was hijacked by heavily armed extremists.

Reuters correspondent Hadeel al-Shalchi, based in Benghazi, via NPR on 9/13/12:

"In Benghazi at the consulate, the consulate is now not secure at all, like, you can walk in and out of it. And people all day yesterday were doing that. They would come, sort of take a stroll inside the grounds, you know, take pictures and little videos of the damage.

The majority of those people said two things. They said, first of all, why did the United States allow something like this movie to happen? Because at the end of the day, almost everybody here believes that it was a reaction to the movie that - and they believe that the United States had a responsibility to stop the production or..."

You also weaken your argument by continually repeating, falsely, that the talking points blamed the video. The talking points said that the attack was spontaneously inspired by the protests in Cairo. Was there evidence to that effect? I don't know, but the CIA's best guess at the time was that there was a connection. This was never at issue in the State/CIA wrangling over talking points that was discussed upthread. So why aren't you going after the CIA for saying they believed the attacks were inspired by Cairo, instead of going after the administration?
  #108  
Old 05-03-2014, 10:03 PM
Donald Rump Donald Rump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 832
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xema View Post
I'm reluctant to accept Newt G. as any sort of expert on this subject - he comes across as a random politician mouthing off. If you know of any reason this view is inaccurate, I'd be happy to listen to it.
No, he's not an expert - that's not the point. You have presented the issue as if no one without political skin in the game could have thought for a second that Benghazi had anything to do with Cairo. But before "Benghazi" had become a concerted Republican strategy to hammer the president, Newt Gingrich speaking off the cuff in a basically non-partisan way said, yeah, obviously the two are probably connected. Marco Rubio made a similar assessment.
  #109  
Old 05-03-2014, 10:04 PM
jayjay jayjay is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Central Pennsylvania
Posts: 37,004
I don't even bother anymore. Republicans are nuts and the people on this message board who are still beating the dead Benghazi horse are nuts, too.
  #110  
Old 05-03-2014, 10:06 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,034
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xema View Post
How would it not be the central topic, 5 days after 4 people were killed in an attack?
Because it's clear that the actual central topic is a partisan witch hunt against Obama.

You'll notice that some conservative Republicans, such as Buck McKeon, the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, thinks that Mr. Issa and the Benghazi Truthers are not to be listened to.
  #111  
Old 05-03-2014, 11:07 PM
Magiver Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 27,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donald Rump View Post
You refuse to read what Susan Rice actually said.

"But 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. 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.

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. 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, weapons that as you know in -- in the wake of the revolution in Libya are -- are quite common and accessible. And it then evolved from there."

Where does she say that there was a protest in Benghazi? She characterized it as there being "folks who came to the embassy to replicate a challenge" to America. That's too mendacious for you?
What do you think she means by saying they were replicating the protests in Cairo? She states the events in Cairo was a protest and the events in Benghazi replicated Cairo.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Donald Rump View Post
By the way, Susan Rice explicitly points out that heavy weaponry got into the hands of extremists precisely thanks to the revolution that OBAMA ENCOURAGED. If they were trying to deflect blame here, they sure weren't doing a good job.

Moreover, her statement is 100% consistent with the original CIA talking point, namely,

"We believe based on currently available information that the attacks in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex."
and her statement is 100% inconsistent with the reports of the people who were there under attack.

There was no reason to send Susan Rice out in front of TV cameras. She didn't just stumble in front of a reporter and make a mis-statement. She was tasked with the job and coached with what to say. It's in direct opposition to what occurred. It was deliberately spun for public consumption. The administration then dragged it's heals on releasing information.
  #112  
Old 05-03-2014, 11:58 PM
Donald Rump Donald Rump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 832
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
What do you think she means by saying they were replicating the protests in Cairo? She states the events in Cairo was a protest and the events in Benghazi replicated Cairo.

and her statement is 100% inconsistent with the reports of the people who were there under attack.
What do I think she means, by Zeus? She's plainly saying that protesters had just overrun our embassy in Cairo and raised a jihadist black flag above it, and that the administration's belief--conditional on more information coming to light, presumably within the next few days--was that this success being blared over TVs in Benghazi inspired individuals to show up to replicate "that sort of challenge," whatever that means; and subsequently heavily armed extremists launched a large-scale attack.

By the way, don't you think it's odd, if the intention all along was to blame the video, that the talking points themselves don't even contain any reference to the video itself?

Quote:
The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US diplomatic post in Benghazi and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.

This assessment may change as additional information is collected and analyzed and as currently available information continues to be evaluated.

The investigation is on-going, and the US Government is working with Libyan authorities to bring to justice those responsible for the deaths of US citizens.
As for the reports of the people who were under attack, can you explain how people taking mortar fire from over 1/4 a mile away are supposed to have detailed insight into the motives of the people firing said mortars?
  #113  
Old 05-04-2014, 12:25 AM
Magiver Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 27,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donald Rump View Post
What do I think she means, by Zeus? She's plainly saying that protesters had just overrun our embassy in Cairo and raised a jihadist black flag above it, and that the administration's belief--conditional on more information coming to light, presumably within the next few days--was that this success being blared over TVs in Benghazi inspired individuals to show up to replicate "that sort of challenge," whatever that means; and subsequently heavily armed extremists launched a large-scale attack.
yes..... and the embassy said they were under attack. Not under protest. She didn't just wander into a TV studio, she was fed a lie and sent out to present it to the public.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Donald Rump View Post
By the way, don't you think it's odd, if the intention all along was to blame the video, that the talking points themselves don't even contain any reference to the video itself?
No, it's not odd at all. They blamed the protests on the video. The implication is that is spun out of control. No such event happened at Benghazi. It was an attack from the very beginning.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Donald Rump View Post
As for the reports of the people who were under attack, can you explain how people taking mortar fire from over 1/4 a mile away are supposed to have detailed insight into the motives of the people firing said mortars?
Yes, the insight is that they're under attack and it's not a protest.
  #114  
Old 05-04-2014, 12:35 AM
Donald Rump Donald Rump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 832
Let's be honest here, Benghazi scandal-allegers. By the standard of "cover up" operative here, the only thing that would have spared the administration at the outset from being accused of a "cover up" is if Susan Rice had gone on those Sunday shows and said something along the following lines:

Quote:
Beginning on September 11 (2012) and still ongoing as of today, a number of protests at US diplomatic facilities have occurred globally in reaction to the Innocence of Muslims video, beginning in Egypt and including Yemen, Sudan, Tunisia, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Niger, the Philippines, and Turkey.

Also on September 11, shortly after our embassy in Cairo was overrun by protesters, an attack was launched in Benghazi by armed extremists. However, despite the concurrent protests going on in the 10 countries I mentioned, including in nearby Cairo, our best assessment is that the timing of the attack in Benghazi was coincidental and unrelated in any way to the video or to the other protests.

Our assessment, however counterintuitive on its face, is based on a) the fact that we haven't yet investigated the attack and b) that we dismiss any contemporaneous reporting by outlets like Al-Arabiya that says there was a video protest in Benghazi.


Isn't that what she would have HAD to say, in order to avoid triggering this whole controversy? Because in my book, all she said was we believe the attacks in Benghazi fit into the broader context of these protests; but we're not really sure; it may or may not have been preplanned; it may have been al-Qaeda, or al-Sharia, or both, or a different group yet unnamed; but the investigation is ongoing. I just find it mystifying that a statement so anodyne and ultimately noncommittal can strike anyone as scandalous or even objectionable.
  #115  
Old 05-04-2014, 12:43 AM
Donald Rump Donald Rump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 832
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
Yes, the insight is that they're under attack and it's not a protest.
No one said they were attacked by protesters. Susan Rice said they were attacked by heavily armed extremists.

No one except the attackers themselves could have known, at the time of the attack, whether the attackers also happened to be pissed about the video. Unless the people at the consulate were cabling back home, "Mayday, mayday - under heavy attack and THEY'RE DEFINITELY NOT PISSED ABOUT THE VIDEO!!!" then I don't see how "her statement is 100% inconsistent with the reports of the people who were there under attack," as you put it.
  #116  
Old 05-04-2014, 12:58 AM
Magiver Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 27,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donald Rump View Post
No one said they were attacked by protesters. Susan Rice said they were attacked by heavily armed extremists.
she said it was a protest like in Cairo. Which was over the movie. It wasn't an accident she said this.
She was prepped and sent forth to repeat it for public consumption. The WH went out of it's way to do this. It was orchestrated.
  #117  
Old 05-04-2014, 01:42 AM
Lobohan's Avatar
Lobohan Lobohan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leffan's Ire
Posts: 13,371
It was talking points, given by the experts.

You're flailing around and insisting that whatever you see is outrageous. It's nonsense.

Also, please don't bring up jet fighters.
  #118  
Old 05-04-2014, 01:45 AM
Lobohan's Avatar
Lobohan Lobohan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leffan's Ire
Posts: 13,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donald Rump View Post
As for the reports of the people who were under attack, can you explain how people taking mortar fire from over 1/4 a mile away are supposed to have detailed insight into the motives of the people firing said mortars?
"Listen to the cadence of the shells... This is the dispassionate tempo of hired mercenaries, not the staccato rage of the Jihadi."
  #119  
Old 05-04-2014, 01:53 AM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead Fiddle Peghead is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 3,617
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xema View Post
How is it "cautious" to put forward an explanation (reaction to internet video) for which no actual evidence had - or has ever - emerged?
And yet another report that refutes this: the New York Times reported on Sept. 12, 2012 exactly that kind of evidence.

Quote:
Fighters involved in the assault, which was spearheaded by an Islamist brigade formed during last year’s uprising against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, said in interviews during the battle that they were moved to attack the mission by anger over a 14-minute, American-made video that depicted the Prophet Muhammad, Islam’s founder, as a villainous, homosexual and child-molesting buffoon.
How anyone can read this, take note that the story came out the very next day after the attacks, and further note that what Susan Rice said on the Sunday talks shows agrees with it very nicely, and still think there was some attempt by the White House to throw up a smokescreen to cover up what they really knew happended, is beyond me.
  #120  
Old 05-04-2014, 02:48 AM
Magiver Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 27,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lobohan View Post
It was talking points, given by the experts.
It was talking points fed to her for the sole purpose of getting out in front of cameras the next day.
  #121  
Old 05-04-2014, 02:54 AM
Magiver Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 27,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
And yet another report that refutes this: the New York Times reported on Sept. 12, 2012 exactly that kind of evidence.
and they were quoting the information put out by US officials. What's your point?
  #122  
Old 05-04-2014, 02:57 AM
Lobohan's Avatar
Lobohan Lobohan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leffan's Ire
Posts: 13,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
It was talking points fed to her for the sole purpose of getting out in front of cameras the next day.
The fact that you think this is sinister shows you have no perspective at all. You need Dems to be evil, so you're twisting everything the administration does as evil.

It's absurd.
  #123  
Old 05-04-2014, 04:37 AM
Magiver Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 27,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lobohan View Post
The fact that you think this is sinister shows you have no perspective at all. You need Dems to be evil, so you're twisting everything the administration does as evil.

It's absurd.
the fact that you think there's a legitimate reason to knowingly feed false information to news medias and then delay releasing information to Congressional investigations is mind boggling.
  #124  
Old 05-04-2014, 05:07 AM
TonySinclair TonySinclair is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
As Hillary Clinton said, who cares why it was attacked? The salient event is that it was attacked, and there's still zero evidence to suggest that there was a realistic way to prevent the attack
As any Fox News viewer could tell you, you are spinning her quote completely out of context. What she really meant was, "Who cares if four brave American patriots died? Especially since people that brave and selfless were almost certainly Republicans?"
  #125  
Old 05-04-2014, 05:17 AM
TonySinclair TonySinclair is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
the fact that you think there's a legitimate reason to knowingly feed false information to news medias and then delay releasing information to Congressional investigations is mind boggling.
Can you link to some posts of yours where you were this exercised about 9-11?

I don't mean the thousands of deaths, and I don't mean the intelligence warnings that Bush ignored.

I mean the fact that Bush repeatedly said that al Qaeda attacked us on 9-11 because they hate our freedom, and he continued to say it, even after a very inside source (OBL) said that the main reasons were our military bases in Saudi Arabia, and our perceived support of Israel.

Why was Bush lying to the American people about the motivation for the attack? And when is Issa going to investigate his coverup?

Last edited by TonySinclair; 05-04-2014 at 05:17 AM.
  #126  
Old 05-04-2014, 06:01 AM
Little_Pig Little_Pig is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Mountain View Ca.
Posts: 3,382
Well, this is interesting.
  #127  
Old 05-04-2014, 07:34 AM
Ravenman Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,034
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
the fact that you think there's a legitimate reason to knowingly feed false information to news medias and then delay releasing information to Congressional investigations is mind boggling.
If Rice was so intent on fooling everyone, why did the CIA talking points from the initial draft reference a protest? And why was she so careful to say "based on the information we have at the moment?" It wasn't like she (or the CIA) ever said their information was conclusive.

And may I seriously ask, why don't you share this level of outrage about WMD in Iraq?
  #128  
Old 05-04-2014, 09:40 AM
Ruken Ruken is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 6,767
If their had been a large protest, I don't see how that makes Obama look better.

Last edited by Ruken; 05-04-2014 at 09:40 AM.
  #129  
Old 05-04-2014, 09:59 AM
TonySinclair TonySinclair is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruken View Post
If their had been a large protest, I don't see how that makes Obama look better.
It doesn't, of course. And the Issa/Boehner/Hannity types know it doesn't. All they care about is throwing mud at Hillary Clinton, whom they assume will be the Democratic nominee in two years.

It's kind of amazing that the party controlling the House of the greatest country in the world depends on the ignorance and stupidity of the voters, but that's the strategy they seem to have adopted.
  #130  
Old 05-04-2014, 10:17 AM
Ruken Ruken is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 6,767
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonySinclair View Post
It doesn't, of course. And the Issa/Boehner/Hannity types know it doesn't. All they care about is throwing mud at Hillary Clinton, whom they assume will be the Democratic nominee in two years.
I guess. I didn't vote for Obama this round, and there's plenty of legitimate beef against Dems, Clinton included. This just isn't it. "DON'T HELP" I want to shout.

Ah here we go:
People who make such poorly thought-out arguments that they do their "side" a disservice
  #131  
Old 05-04-2014, 10:45 AM
ThisUsernameIsForbidden ThisUsernameIsForbidden is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 816
Do we have any evidence that officials knew of a terrorist attack and did nothing? That would be the supposed issue that is being covered up. Further, what would be the motivation for such lack of action, or was it sheer incompetence?

I haven't read through all of the posts here, because much of it seems to look for fault in another poster's technicalities and then posit that as proof of something, but from what I've read there is no evidence of a cover up.
  #132  
Old 05-04-2014, 11:26 AM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead Fiddle Peghead is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 3,617
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
and they were quoting the information put out by US officials. What's your point?
Here is another quote from that same article:

Quote:
Interviewed at the scene on Tuesday night, many attackers and those who backed them said they were determined to defend their faith from the video’s insults.
Exactly how would officials have put this out, for example? The only way I can think of is literally calling up the New York Times reporters and telling them to print false information.

Anyway. Right after the attack, with no way of knowing the full details of the attack and how easy (or difficult) it would be to determine exactly what happended, or how long for that matter, "American and European officials"* collude to obscure and hide the truth, the full truth of which they don't yet even know. Who in the administration could know at that point how easily it would be to refute their phony stories? It all makes no sense.

As to my point, it is simply that at the time there was ample evidence of the videos being a major factor in the attacks, and therefore there was no reason for the White House to lie about anything. Yes, it makes sense that they would brief Susan Rice as extensively as possible to put the best face on things, but that is not a conspiracy.

*Sources from the article.

Last edited by Fiddle Peghead; 05-04-2014 at 11:29 AM. Reason: typo
  #133  
Old 05-04-2014, 02:23 PM
Xema Xema is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 12,011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donald Rump View Post
She's plainly saying that protesters had just overrun our embassy in Cairo and raised a jihadist black flag above it, and that the administration's belief--conditional on more information coming to light, presumably within the next few days--was that this success being blared over TVs in Benghazi inspired individuals to show up to replicate "that sort of challenge,"
The trouble with this is that the additional information had already come to light, several days before she spoke. And it showed that what happened in Benghazi was not a protest at all - it was a pre-planned, military-style attack with serious weapons, that in no way replicated the Cairo demonstrations.


Quote:
As for the reports of the people who were under attack, can you explain how people taking mortar fire from over 1/4 a mile away are supposed to have detailed insight into the motives of the people firing said mortars?
The detailed nature of their motives is not especially relevant. (Almost certainly, each and every one of the attackers would have been deeply angry at the internet video.)

But their actions are highly relevant. No one was engaged in "protest" (protesters don't typically carry RPGs - there is no evidence that any Cairo protester did). They conducted a well-armed, coordinated attack, the character of which was known to the White House shortly after it began.

IOW, at the time Rice was speaking, the WH was in possession of information that showed what they later acknowledged: that her statements seriously mischaracterized event in Benghazi.
  #134  
Old 05-04-2014, 02:32 PM
Procrustus Procrustus is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. ¥
Posts: 11,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xema View Post
The trouble with this is that the additional information had already come to light, several days before she spoke. And it showed that what happened in Benghazi was not a protest at all - it was a pre-planned, military-style attack with serious weapons, that in no way replicated the Cairo demonstrations.



The detailed nature of their motives is not especially relevant. (Almost certainly, each and every one of the attackers would have been deeply angry at the internet video.)

But their actions are highly relevant. No one was engaged in "protest" (protesters don't typically carry RPGs - there is no evidence that any Cairo protester did). They conducted a well-armed, coordinated attack, the character of which was known to the White House shortly after it began.

IOW, at the time Rice was speaking, the WH was in possession of information that showed what they later acknowledged: that her statements seriously mischaracterized event in Benghazi.
why does this matter? The motives of the attackers are "not especially relevant" but the White House is to be condemned for not precisely identifying the attackers motives? I see, but I grow weary.
  #135  
Old 05-04-2014, 02:48 PM
Donald Rump Donald Rump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 832
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThisUsernameIsForbidden View Post
Do we have any evidence that officials knew of a terrorist attack and did nothing? That would be the supposed issue that is being covered up. Further, what would be the motivation for such lack of action, or was it sheer incompetence?
It's worth breaking down the Benghazi controversy into four related but distinct accusations that have been leveled at the administration:

1. They failed to heed warnings of the risk for terrorist attacks in Benghazi and failed to detect and foil the attack on 9/11/12 in particular.
2. They failed to provide adequate security to the consulate in Benghazi prior to the attack.
3. They failed to produce an adequate military response while the attack was ongoing.
4. They mischaracterized the attack as a protest, precisely to preempt accusation #1.

(Of course, blaming protesters for the violence as opposed to well-organized terrorists would make the administration MORE vulnerable to accusations #2 and #3, since allowing your embassador to be killed by a mob signals very ineffectual security indeed. This point is lost on Benghazi conspiracy theorists.)

While all four of these accusations have been made, none so more energetically than #4. Why? Well, let's see:

Accusation #3 has found its most forceful expression in the "stand down" order controversy. While the "Obama watched them die" theme lives on in right-wing media, it's been debunked by the house Armed Services committee. More broadly, credible experts like Bob Gates--not shy to criticize te president--have endorsed the difficult decisions made by the military leadership that night.

Accusation #2 does not really serve Republican interests, due to the embarrassing fact that the Republican House passed significant cuts to funding for the security of diplomatic facilities in recent years.

Accusation #1 has never really gotten much traction, presumably because--and this answers your question--of a lack of evidence that the attack was in fact preplanned in all its specifics. Republicans who think Bush should get a pass for the "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the US" cannot coherently criticize Obama here except in the generic sense of there not being enough security at tr consulate--ie, which reduces to accusation #2.

Indeed, the fact that accusation #1 doesn't have a lot of potency very strongly undermines the idea that Obama had a motive to lie.

Which brings us to the one charge that has become central to the controversy, accusation #4. Despite the total lack of evidence of a cover-up, this charge has proven fertile ground for Republicans looking to keep the administration on te defensive. In order to do so, they have grossly misrepresented what Susan Rice said ("she blamed protesters" when in fact she blamed "heavily armed extremists" and explicitly called it an "attack" and not a protest) and by grossly distorting the overall context ("no evidence whatsoever of a link to other protests," when in fact on the ground reporting at the time talked about protesters and literally the entire Muslim world was aflame on that very day over the video, and even partisans like Newt Gingrich initially assumed a connection).

In short, the "scandal" begins and ends with a gross misreading of what Susan Rice said and selective amnesia towards the broader context that day. These are both regrettably easy to foist onto anti-Obama partisans whose interpretation of events is guided by motivated reasoning rather than a dispassionate review of the facts. But that's also why this issue, outside the right-wing bubble, is the journalistic equivalent of a brain dead patient: notionally still alive, but functionally long-since dead.
  #136  
Old 05-04-2014, 02:54 PM
Donald Rump Donald Rump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 832
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xema View Post
The trouble with this is that the additional information had already come to light, several days before she spoke. And it showed that what happened in Benghazi was not a protest at all - it was a pre-planned, military-style attack with serious weapons, that in no way replicated the Cairo demonstrations.



The detailed nature of their motives is not especially relevant. (Almost certainly, each and every one of the attackers would have been deeply angry at the internet video.)

But their actions are highly relevant. No one was engaged in "protest" (protesters don't typically carry RPGs - there is no evidence that any Cairo protester did). They conducted a well-armed, coordinated attack, the character of which was known to the White House shortly after it began.

IOW, at the time Rice was speaking, the WH was in possession of information that showed what they later acknowledged: that her statements seriously mischaracterized event in Benghazi.
Can you please state and explain your quibble with her characterization of the events as an "attack" by "heavily armed extremists" and how that contradicts what you say the WH knew as of 9/17?
  #137  
Old 05-04-2014, 03:10 PM
Donald Rump Donald Rump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 832
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xema View Post
The trouble with this is that the additional information had already come to light, several days before she spoke. And it showed that what happened in Benghazi was not a protest at all - it was a pre-planned, military-style attack with serious weapons
Also, you seem to be conflating "pre-planned" with "attack involving serious weapons?" As has been pointed out ad nauseam, Susan Rice explicitly said "heavily armed extremists" armed with the sort of weaponry that was floating around in the wake of the revolution her boss encouraged. So no cover up there.

What does preplanned mean in this context? If the local Al-Sharia leader hatched the idea during his morning shit that day, does that make it preplanned? If the extremists thought, "we should really attack the consulate one of these days," is that preplanned? Of course it was planned in the trivial sense that I plan to hit "submit reply" in a minute, but what did we actually know about the extent of preplanning on 9/17 that wasn't pure conjecture as of then? Bob Schieffer asked her if the attack was planned months in advance. She said, not to their present knowledge but they would investigate further. What evidence to you have that this was a lie, by God?
  #138  
Old 05-04-2014, 03:48 PM
furt furt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: College Park, MD
Posts: 9,285
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donald Rump View Post
THAT would be a smoking gun and would change my mind.
Then you might as well say you are not prepared to believe any political scandal, ever.

Nobody in a position of power is ever going to be that stupid. Watergate, Iran-Contra, etc.: none were as clear-cut as your standard calls for. Hell, most drug dealers are smart enough to say things like "did you take care of that situation for me?" in the interests of plausible deniability.

I mean, be pollyanna if you want to, but you've just announced that this thread is pointless, because no evidence that can plausibly be found will convince you.
  #139  
Old 05-04-2014, 04:02 PM
Happy Fun Ball Happy Fun Ball is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The down hill slope
Posts: 3,138
One thing that strikes me about all the Benghazi conspiracy theorists (for lack of a better term - not saying there isn't anything there) is their dismay that Obama did not cooperate with congressional investigations the way he should. Like this means anything. Why the hell is this a surprise, anyway? Remember Clinton and Kenneth Starr? Hell, Bush didn't cooperate with them either, on anything. Don't you guys remember that? The poisonous witch hunt that was Monica gate pretty much guarantees that Presidents will not cooperate with congress for a generation. Yeesh.
  #140  
Old 05-04-2014, 04:03 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo Snowboarder Bo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 24,535
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
and they were quoting the information put out by US officials. What's your point?
Are you unable to fucking read? Try it again, with the important part helpfully bolded:
Quote:
Fighters involved in the assault, which was spearheaded by an Islamist brigade formed during last year’s uprising against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, said in interviews during the battle that they were moved to attack the mission by anger over a 14-minute, American-made video that depicted the Prophet Muhammad, Islam’s founder, as a villainous, homosexual and child-molesting buffoon.
Are you now saying that the fighters involved in the assault were US gov't officials?

Last edited by Snowboarder Bo; 05-04-2014 at 04:04 PM.
  #141  
Old 05-04-2014, 04:05 PM
Trinopus Trinopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 22,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonySinclair View Post
. . . the fact that Bush repeatedly said that al Qaeda attacked us on 9-11 because they hate our freedom, and he continued to say it, even after a very inside source (OBL) said that the main reasons were our military bases in Saudi Arabia, and our perceived support of Israel.

Why was Bush lying to the American people about the motivation for the attack? And when is Issa going to investigate his coverup?
Beautiful! Absolutely spot on, a perfect parallel. The Benghazi bashers are exactly that preposterous.
  #142  
Old 05-04-2014, 04:11 PM
jayjay jayjay is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Central Pennsylvania
Posts: 37,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by furt View Post
I mean, be pollyanna if you want to, but you've just announced that this thread is pointless, because no evidence that can plausibly be found will convince you.
Well, this thread IS pointless, as is any thread on Benghazi, because the whole thing is the veriest fantasy of the right wing. It's been over a year, countless Congressional hearings, millions of dollars wasted, and nobody fucking cares about what Issa and his ilk are saying except Issa, his ilk, Fox News and the brainless Teabaggers. This is a huge nothingburger to everyone else. It always has been.

I'm not saying "Forget those dead people...who cares about them?" But bad things happen in dangerous occupations, which every Foreign Service employee KNOWS and accepts. Everyone who actually has any security responsibility in that region has said that nothing was done WRONG, according to the then-current protocols. Those protocols have been rewritten and modified since then to take the kind of attack that happened at Benghazi into account.

The whole thing is political grandstanding for the entertainment of people who should've been Soylent Greened for complete braindeath long before this.
  #143  
Old 05-04-2014, 04:33 PM
Donald Rump Donald Rump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 832
Quote:
Originally Posted by furt View Post
Then you might as well say you are not prepared to believe any political scandal, ever.
Come again? Bridget Anne Kelly's email saying "Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee" is smoking-gun evidence of a scandal. Not necessarily a Chris Christie scandal, sure, but certainly a Bridge Anne Kelly scandal.

Bill Clinton's semen splayed all over Monica Lewinsky's dress contrary to his denial of a sexual relationship is evidence of a Bill Clinton scandal.

Yes, such evidence is rare, especially evidence incontrovertibly implicating the president himself. And, indeed, bona fide presidential scandals are thus relatively rare. The burden of proof is thus pretty high--certainly higher than what has been produced in the alleged "Obama scandals." But you can't say that my standard is unreasonably high. In fact, I can't think of a principled, defensible alternative. Can you?
  #144  
Old 05-04-2014, 06:14 PM
furt furt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: College Park, MD
Posts: 9,285
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donald Rump View Post
In fact, I can't think of a principled, defensible alternative. Can you?
Sure. "When I believe it."

We're not erecting a legal system, we're talking about the court of public opinion here.
  #145  
Old 05-04-2014, 06:30 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,230
Quote:
Originally Posted by furt View Post
Sure. "When I believe it."

We're not erecting a legal system, we're talking about the court of public opinion here.
Sounds more like the court of the opinion of Yogi Berra. What I foresee is a good chunk of the American people thinking that there was a cover-up, but also an even larger number that will think how useless this is and wondering why it is important to reveal even more about of how the security of our embassies and overseas locations is done.

Because that was the impression I got after Issa and others tried early to get "to the bottom of this" and they revealed several secrets just in the attempt at making anything stick.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 05-04-2014 at 06:30 PM.
  #146  
Old 05-04-2014, 06:33 PM
UltraVires UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,505
Scenario #1: A planned terrorist attack on our consulate killed the Ambassador on the anniversary of the September 11 attacks because we didn't have beefed up security on that date in Libya (not Paris or London, but fucking Libya) really making the executive branch looking like a bunch of dumbasses..or

Scenario #2: A spontaneous response to a racist video on Youtube that nobody could have seen coming.

Which scenario is more or less likely to make the President look bad? I don't know if there was a coverup, but this denial of the reason first put out about the attack being related to the video in simply 1984-esque. The entire administration, including the President, cited the video as the reason for the attack.
  #147  
Old 05-04-2014, 06:42 PM
Lamar Mundane Lamar Mundane is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 8,932
Scenario #3: Obamacare is successful, the IRS "scandal" proved to be a bunch of crap, and Fox News and talk radio cannot live without something to scare old white men, so they reanimate another phony "scandal" that they had given up on a couple of months ago.
  #148  
Old 05-04-2014, 06:47 PM
jayjay jayjay is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Central Pennsylvania
Posts: 37,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamar Mundane View Post
Scenario #3: Obamacare is successful, the IRS "scandal" proved to be a bunch of crap, and Fox News and talk radio cannot live without something to scare old white men, so they reanimate another phony "scandal" that they had given up on a couple of months ago.
With the added bonus of being able to use it to tar the assumed Democratic presidential candidate for 2016.
  #149  
Old 05-04-2014, 06:50 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,230
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtgain View Post
Scenario #1: A planned terrorist attack on our consulate killed the Ambassador on the anniversary of the September 11 attacks because we didn't have beefed up security on that date in Libya (not Paris or London, but fucking Libya) really making the executive branch looking like a bunch of dumbasses..or

Scenario #2: A spontaneous response to a racist video on Youtube that nobody could have seen coming.

Which scenario is more or less likely to make the President look bad? I don't know if there was a coverup, but this denial of the reason first put out about the attack being related to the video in simply 1984-esque. The entire administration, including the President, cited the video as the reason for the attack.
The evidence I have seen tell us that both scenarios are not exclusive. Now what?

The point here for me is that this investigation will not solve anything and it is really following the play book used by the climate science deniers in climate gate: obtain a mess of emails from the targeted group, quote with very little context, organize investigations based on those cherry picked emails to unsettle and disrupt the target. Profit!

For me, like with the scientists in the climate gate faux scandal, there is the confidence that there are other reasons than science why we have these modern digital fishing expeditions. Now I and many know how silly these accusations of a cover-up are, but like with climate gate there is a chunk of people that are ready and eager to consume more misleading information.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 05-04-2014 at 06:50 PM.
  #150  
Old 05-04-2014, 06:52 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 31,886
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtgain View Post
Which scenario is more or less likely to make the President look bad? I don't know if there was a coverup, but this denial of the reason first put out about the attack being related to the video in simply 1984-esque. The entire administration, including the President, cited the video as the reason for the attack.
It's reasonable to believe that, at the time, that was the explanation the administration was leaning towards, based on conflicting information from various sources (and there's no evidence that the administration knew for sure, at the time, that the protests to the video were not involved) -- though they qualified every statement they made with 'we don't know yet and need to wait for further investigation' or similar.

Basically, it's not a big deal that the administration said 'we think it's explanation A but don't know for sure and it's premature to make a definitive conclusion' in the immediate aftermath, when no investigation had come close to concluding anything. The Republicans are trying to make a big deal out of it for political reasons, but there's no actual interest in finding actual facts -- only in harming the President and former Secretary of State.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:32 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017