Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #251  
Old 05-06-2014, 08:48 PM
elbowj elbowj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by furt View Post
I'm just gonna put this out there since I don't think anyone has mentioned it: it's one thing for Rice to come on like three days after the incident and be wrong. Okay, maybe things were still muddled.

But a full week went by and Hillary was promising the families of the dead they were going to get ... not AQ, not terrorists ... the guy who made the video. And another week went by and Obama was in the UN still saying "there is no video that justifies attacking an embassy," long after he should have known the video really had nothing to do with it. THAT is a lot more problematic.


I don't think Clinton or Obama was being deliberately misleading; I think the most likely scenario is that someone below them did figure it out eventually and opted to stick with the video story, and kept feeding it to them. One of Obama's worst traits is that he is unwilling to throw his subordinates to the wolves. That may arguably be a good trait on a personal level, but it's hampered his presidency IMO.
Unlike a great number of his critics, Obama understood that there was no embassy in Benghazi.
  #252  
Old 05-06-2014, 08:51 PM
TonySinclair TonySinclair is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,686
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donald Rump View Post
Our embassy /was/ attacked over the video - in Cairo. Was Obama explicitly referring to Benghazi at the UN?
Of course not, and the Hannity types know it, but they continue to say he was. In other words, they are the ones who are lying.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/white...embly-20120925
Emphasis added to aid the reading challenged.

" In every country, there are those who find different religious beliefs threatening; in every culture, those who love freedom for themselves must ask how much they are willing to tolerate freedom for others.

That is what we saw play out the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity. It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well – for as the city outside these walls makes clear, we are a country that has welcomed people of every race and religion. We are home to Muslims who worship across our country. We not only respect the freedom of religion – we have laws that protect individuals from being harmed because of how they look or what they believe. We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them.

I know there are some who ask why we don’t just ban such a video. The answer is enshrined in our laws: our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech. Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs. Moreover, as President of our country, and Commander-in-Chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day, and I will always defend their right to do so. Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views – even views that we disagree with.

We do so not because we support hateful speech, but because our Founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views, and practice their own faith, may be threatened. We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can become a tool to silence critics, or oppress minorities. We do so because given the power of faith in our lives, and the passion that religious differences can inflame, the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech – the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect.

I know that not all countries in this body share this understanding of the protection of free speech. Yet in 2012, at a time when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views around the world with the click of a button, the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete. The question, then, is how we respond. And on this we must agree: there is no speech that justifies mindless violence.

There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There is no video that justifies an attack on an Embassy. There is no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan.

More broadly, the events of the last two weeks speak to the need for all of us to address honestly the tensions between the West and an Arab World moving to democracy. Just as we cannot solve every problem in the world, the United States has not, and will not, seek to dictate the outcome of democratic transitions abroad, and we do not expect other nations to agree with us on every issue. Nor do we assume that the violence of the past weeks, or the hateful speech by some individuals, represents the views of the overwhelming majority of Muslims– any more than the views of the people who produced this video represent those of Americans.

However, I do believe that it is the obligation of all leaders, in all countries, to speak out forcefully against violence and extremism. It is time to marginalize those who – even when not resorting to violence – use hatred of America, or the West, or Israel as a central principle of politics. For that only gives cover, and sometimes makes excuses, for those who resort to violence."

I think that I've quoted the part that contains every reference to a video. And there were only a couple of very generic reference to protests; the most specific one mentioned Tunisia, not Libya. He mentioned Benghazi several times, but only in tributes to Chris Stevens.

I couldn't find anything that implied a direct connection with either the video, or protests in general, to the attack in Benghazi. furt, or anyone else, is welcome to read the whole thing and show me what I missed.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/white...embly-20120925
  #253  
Old 05-07-2014, 07:28 AM
magellan01 magellan01 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 16,559
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Amen. I can see this scenario playing out in my mind:

Obama: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is a scum-sucking piece of crap. He killed innocent men, women and children in a depraved and disgusting way, which makes him a total waste of human skin. I look forward to his soul being tortured for eternity, burning in fire hotter than 10,000 suns; condemned to feel the concentrated anguish of all the peace-loving peoples of the world, whom he made his enemy, through his insipid career of hate and violence.

Benghazi Truther Chorus: OMG Obama didn't call him a terrorist!!!
You know, there is something worth pointing out in this. The first paragraph merely indicts a man. It may paint a picture that KSM is the most vile human being on the planet, but it does nothing to point to the larger threat: Islamic Extremism. With your description of KSM, one could easily build the impression that "Okay, we got him. Problem over" But that's the opposite of helpful/ It is important to be able to identify the larger threat, not just an individual here and there. This is precisely the problem I and many people have with Obama. And identifying the threat as Islamic Extremism and Islamic Terrorism is one thing the Bush got exactly right. That's try even with Iraq being a mistake.
  #254  
Old 05-07-2014, 07:31 AM
magellan01 magellan01 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 16,559
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonySinclair View Post
I think I understand your rules:

1. Whenever Obama mentions terror, he is not talking about Benghazi.

2. Whenever Obama mentions protests, he is talking exclusively about Benghazi.
Evidently you can an "my rules" to the long list of other things you do not understand.
  #255  
Old 05-07-2014, 08:05 AM
TonySinclair TonySinclair is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,686
Quote:
Originally Posted by magellan01 View Post
You know, there is something worth pointing out in this. The first paragraph merely indicts a man. It may paint a picture that KSM is the most vile human being on the planet, but it does nothing to point to the larger threat: Islamic Extremism. With your description of KSM, one could easily build the impression that "Okay, we got him. Problem over" But that's the opposite of helpful/ It is important to be able to identify the larger threat, not just an individual here and there. This is precisely the problem I and many people have with Obama. And identifying the threat as Islamic Extremism and Islamic Terrorism is one thing the Bush got exactly right. That's try even with Iraq being a mistake.
So you think Obama was wrong when he said, "Ours is a war not against a religion, not against the Muslim faith. But ours is a war against individuals who absolutely hate what America stands for."

Or when he said,"We see in Islam a religion that traces its origins back to God's call on Abraham. We share your belief in God's justice, and your insistence on man's moral responsibility. We thank the many Muslim nations who stand with us against terror. Nations that are often victims of terror, themselves."

Or this: "Islam is a vibrant faith. Millions of our fellow citizens are Muslim. We respect the faith. We honor its traditions. Our enemy does not. Our enemy doesn't follow the great traditions of Islam. They've hijacked a great religion."

Or this: "Islam is a faith that brings comfort to people. It inspires them to lead lives based on honesty, and justice, and compassion."

And especially this: "All Americans must recognize that the face of terror is not the true faith -- face of Islam. Islam is a faith that brings comfort to a billion people around the world. It's a faith that has made brothers and sisters of every race. It's a faith based upon love, not hate."

And really especially this: "According to Muslim teachings, God first revealed His word in the Holy Qur'an to the prophet, Muhammad, during the month of Ramadan. That word has guided billions of believers across the centuries, and those believers built a culture of learning and literature and science. All the world continues to benefit from this faith and its achievements."

Fuck it, I'm getting tired. Read the rest here: http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archiv...dan/islam.html
  #256  
Old 05-07-2014, 08:42 AM
Ravenman Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 24,952
Quote:
Originally Posted by magellan01 View Post
You know, there is something worth pointing out in this. The first paragraph merely indicts a man. It may paint a picture that KSM is the most vile human being on the planet, but it does nothing to point to the larger threat: Islamic Extremism. With your description of KSM, one could easily build the impression that "Okay, we got him. Problem over" But that's the opposite of helpful/ It is important to be able to identify the larger threat, not just an individual here and there. This is precisely the problem I and many people have with Obama. And identifying the threat as Islamic Extremism and Islamic Terrorism is one thing the Bush got exactly right. That's try even with Iraq being a mistake.
What's that internet rule about extremism being indistinguishable from parody? Well, I'm invoking it.
  #257  
Old 05-07-2014, 08:53 AM
Debaser Debaser is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Yeat!
Posts: 6,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamar Mundane View Post
Where is your evidence that there was no protest?
Read the many cites that I posted in the linked thread from last year. It was widely reported within a couple weeks of the attack that it was a planned attack by a couple hundred militants. They had RPGs, and truck mounted mortars. It was organized and planned in advance. This isn't in dispute by anyone except the Obama administration for a few weeks after the attack (but eventually they admitted it) and apparently you still to this day.

That NYTimes quote you offered with no link says that some people spontaneously looted the compound after the attack. So what? It was still a planned attack, not a riot that led to one.

Quote:
A spontaneous protest and a planned attack are not mutually exclusive.
Yes. They are. They are actually an almost perfect definition of opposites.

Quote:
I have not seen any evidence that it was first, foremost, and only a planned attack.
Then you aren't paying attention. Even the Obama administration dropped this narrative a long time ago.

I guess this settles the issue of whether the administrations deliberate obfuscation was successful. We've got people that to this day still believe the lies.
  #258  
Old 05-07-2014, 08:53 AM
Jack Batty's Avatar
Jack Batty Jack Batty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: The Astral Plane.
Posts: 15,036
Quote:
Originally Posted by magellan01 View Post
You know, there is something worth pointing out in this. The first paragraph merely indicts a man. It may paint a picture that KSM is the most vile human being on the planet, but it does nothing to point to the larger threat: Islamic Extremism. With your description of KSM, one could easily build the impression that "Okay, we got him. Problem over" But that's the opposite of helpful/ It is important to be able to identify the larger threat, not just an individual here and there. This is precisely the problem I and many people have with Obama. And identifying the threat as Islamic Extremism and Islamic Terrorism is one thing the Bush got exactly right. That's try even with Iraq being a mistake.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
What's that internet rule about extremism being indistinguishable from parody? Well, I'm invoking it.
What if he made that speech under a big "Mission Accomplished" banner? That would sew up all the loose ends, wouldn't it?

Last edited by Jack Batty; 05-07-2014 at 08:54 AM.
  #259  
Old 05-07-2014, 09:15 AM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 48,354
Extremism in the defense of parody is no vice.

Last edited by ElvisL1ves; 05-07-2014 at 09:16 AM.
  #260  
Old 05-07-2014, 09:24 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,494
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
What's that internet rule about extremism being indistinguishable from parody? Well, I'm invoking it.
Poe's Law. That said, I'm not sure exactly how he's wrong. I mean, I don't think it's as important of a distinction politically, but in terms of accuracy... I don't think I can complain with the assessment.
  #261  
Old 05-07-2014, 09:56 AM
Lightnin' Lightnin' is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Apple Core
Posts: 7,395
The thing that baffles me is that the Republicans think anyone should care. Even if the Obama administration lied, fudged the truth, or misled about the attack to make for a smoother election, so fucking what?

"But it's a bad thing if the President lies about anything!" No, it really isn't. You see, there are degrees of lying. Even if the admin lied to sway the election, it doesn't compare at all to lying about aluminum tubes or WMDs. Those lies, you see, actually killed thousands of people.

Newsflash, Benghazi nuts- if this is the best you've got, you're pretty damn screwed.
  #262  
Old 05-07-2014, 10:26 AM
Debaser Debaser is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Yeat!
Posts: 6,091
I've already said that this is small potatoes in the grand scheme of things, and that the Republicans shouldn't put it front and center in the elections.

But I think it's appropriate to try and find out the truth. What did he know, and when did he know it? Just because it's not the worst lie ever told doesn't mean it should be ignored.
  #263  
Old 05-07-2014, 10:34 AM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo Snowboarder Bo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 24,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by magellan01 View Post
No, he didn't. Here is the only passage from the Rose Garden speech that mentions the word "terror" (bolding mine):



I included the previous two paragraphs to show that thePresident has shifted to the attacks of 9/11. When he did mention "terror" it was not directly related to the Benghazi incident.
The bolded part is patently false and attempts to ignore basic sentence construction and logic as well as the factual order of Mr. Obama's remarks.

His reference to Benghazi comes after the mention of 9/11, showing that thePresident has shifted to the attacks of the previous day. Thus the phrase "acts of terror" clearly and obviously refers to not just 9/11/01 but also the events of 9/11/12. Any other interpretation cannot be reasonably supported.
  #264  
Old 05-07-2014, 10:39 AM
Really Not All That Bright Really Not All That Bright is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 67,849
Quote:
Originally Posted by Debaser View Post
But I think it's appropriate to try and find out the truth. What did he know, and when did he know it? Just because it's not the worst lie ever told doesn't mean it should be ignored.
If anyone can come up with a plausible motive that the administration might have to lie - other than to avoid clueing in the terrorists about the course of the investigation - I might agree with you.
  #265  
Old 05-07-2014, 10:40 AM
Lightnin' Lightnin' is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Apple Core
Posts: 7,395
Quote:
Originally Posted by Debaser View Post
But I think it's appropriate to try and find out the truth. What did he know, and when did he know it? Just because it's not the worst lie ever told doesn't mean it should be ignored.
Why? Even if the allegations are true, would anything have played out differently? I contend that it should be ignored- because the cost of the investigations is already into the millions. There should be a point at which scandal-mining becomes too expensive.
  #266  
Old 05-07-2014, 10:53 AM
Debaser Debaser is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Yeat!
Posts: 6,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lightnin' View Post
Why? Even if the allegations are true, would anything have played out differently? I contend that it should be ignored- because the cost of the investigations is already into the millions. There should be a point at which scandal-mining becomes too expensive.
Can you expand on this?

When should we stop investigations of presidential administrations lying and doing cover ups? After a certain dollar amount has been spent? What amount? Only if something would "play out differently", whatever that means?

Do you think that administrations should be able to lie freely without being investigated? Do you think this even of Republican administrations?

I don't think anything should come of this, except some shame for the administration and a loss of confidence from the public because of the events and the cover up. I'm not saying we should impeach him or anything. If the administration was honest from the beginning this would already be forgotten. If you're upset about the spending on the investigation I would argue that's the fault of the administration, not those seeking to investigate.
  #267  
Old 05-07-2014, 10:57 AM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 48,354
Quote:
Originally Posted by Debaser View Post
When should we stop investigations of presidential administrations lying and doing cover ups?
When we realize nothing of the sort happened. A point which was reached long ago, btw.
  #268  
Old 05-07-2014, 10:59 AM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo Snowboarder Bo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 24,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Debaser View Post
Yes. They are. They are actually an almost perfect definition of opposites.
This is easily the dumbest thing you've yet written in this thread. The lack of comprehension exhibited in those 12 words is astounding.
  #269  
Old 05-07-2014, 11:08 AM
slash2k slash2k is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 2,144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamar Mundane
A spontaneous protest and a planned attack are not mutually exclusive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Debaser View Post
Yes. They are. They are actually an almost perfect definition of opposites.
"Opposites" and "mutually exclusive" don't mean the same thing. Those two terms are opposites, but they are not mutually exclusive, because both can happen at the same time in the same place.

In fact, that's precisely what earlier reports believed happened: the terrorists used the cover of a protest to launch their attack. They'd planned the 'how' but not the 'when'; a spontaneous protest similar to that in Cairo gave them the 'when.'

In fact, a version of that seems to be still very much in play: bad guys had surveilled and planned the attack, but used the video to whip up the fighters and get lots of other people to spontaneously join the assault and looting. That equals a planned attack and spontaneous fury at the same time and same place, hence NOT mutually exclusive.
  #270  
Old 05-07-2014, 11:09 AM
Debaser Debaser is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Yeat!
Posts: 6,091
So you agree with the statement:

"A spontaneous protest and a planned attack are not mutually exclusive."

You sure you know what all those words mean? You can look them up if you need to.
  #271  
Old 05-07-2014, 11:13 AM
Airbeck Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,328
Quote:
Originally Posted by Debaser View Post
So you agree with the statement:

"A spontaneous protest and a planned attack are not mutually exclusive."

You sure you know what all those words mean? You can look them up if you need to.
Do you know what the term "mutually exclusive" means? From your last two posts on the subject it is pretty clear that you do not. It does not mean the same thing as opposite. You are aware of that aren't you?
  #272  
Old 05-07-2014, 11:17 AM
Lightnin' Lightnin' is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Apple Core
Posts: 7,395
Quote:
Originally Posted by Debaser View Post
Can you expand on this?

When should we stop investigations of presidential administrations lying and doing cover ups? After a certain dollar amount has been spent? What amount? Only if something would "play out differently", whatever that means?

Do you think that administrations should be able to lie freely without being investigated? Do you think this even of Republican administrations?

I don't think anything should come of this, except some shame for the administration and a loss of confidence from the public because of the events and the cover up. I'm not saying we should impeach him or anything. If the administration was honest from the beginning this would already be forgotten. If you're upset about the spending on the investigation I would argue that's the fault of the administration, not those seeking to investigate.
So it's a bad thing is the Obama administration "lied" about the attack to score political points... but somehow not a bad thing if the GOP spends millions of dollars to do the same?

Again, even if the GOP's allegations prove to be true, nothing will change. Those people would still have died. The only difference is the Obama administration will look (marginally) bad. Is it worth the millions of taxpayer dollars that have already been spent?

If the truth is so important, what about the events which lead us to war? Should we be continually investigating what Bush did or didn't know, on the off-chance that he knew he was lying? Because compared to that, Benghazi is a blip.
  #273  
Old 05-07-2014, 11:18 AM
Debaser Debaser is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Yeat!
Posts: 6,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by slash2k View Post
"Opposites" and "mutually exclusive" don't mean the same thing. Those two terms are opposites, but they are not mutually exclusive, because both can happen at the same time in the same place.
This is silly. Every attack has some spontaneous elements to it. Using this absurd definition you could state that every attack in the history of warfare is spontaneous.

Quote:
In fact, that's precisely what earlier reports believed happened: the terrorists used the cover of a protest to launch their attack.
Early reports from the administration. Reports that have turned out to not be correct, since there wasn't a demonstration in Benghazi like there was at Cairo.

Quote:
In fact, a version of that seems to be still very much in play: bad guys had surveilled and planned the attack, but used the video to whip up the fighters and get lots of other people to spontaneously join the assault and looting.
Do you have a cite that anyone used the video to get people to spontaneously join in the fighting? People did loot after the attack. I'm sure this was spontaneous. But to say that the attack was a spontaneous riot rather than a planned attack is simply false. You need to really twist the meanings of words to the point of absurdity to make this case.
  #274  
Old 05-07-2014, 11:20 AM
Debaser Debaser is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Yeat!
Posts: 6,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lightnin' View Post
If the truth is so important, what about the events which lead us to war? Should we be continually investigating what Bush did or didn't know, on the off-chance that he knew he was lying? Because compared to that, Benghazi is a blip.
I've never argued that Bush shouldn't be investigated about something because I wanted to save money. Not that I can recall anyway. Do you have an example of me doing this, or did you just make this up?
  #275  
Old 05-07-2014, 11:22 AM
Really Not All That Bright Really Not All That Bright is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 67,849
Quote:
Originally Posted by Debaser View Post
This is silly. Every attack has some spontaneous elements to it. Using this absurd definition you could state that every attack in the history of warfare is spontaneous.
I'm pretty sure he is saying you can have a planned attack and a spontaneous riot/protest happening simultaneously.
  #276  
Old 05-07-2014, 11:50 AM
slash2k slash2k is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 2,144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Debaser View Post
This is silly. Every attack has some spontaneous elements to it. Using this absurd definition you could state that every attack in the history of warfare is spontaneous.
No. "Having spontaneous elements" isn't the same thing as "occurring simultaneously with a separate event with different origins."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Debaser View Post
Early reports from the administration. Reports that have turned out to not be correct, since there wasn't a demonstration in Benghazi like there was at Cairo.
Nope, early reports from *everybody.* See, e.g., Al Jazeera's initial report:

Quote:
An armed mob attacked and set fire to the consulate building during a protest against an amateur film deemed offensive to Islam's prophet, Muhammad, after similar protests in Egypt's capital.
This came from Al Jazeera's reporter in Benghazi, Suleiman El-Dressi. That same article reported on a British think-tank's assertion that it was a planned attack, but then went on talk about the movie and the attack in Cairo.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Debaser View Post
Do you have a cite that anyone used the video to get people to spontaneously join in the fighting? People did loot after the attack. I'm sure this was spontaneous. But to say that the attack was a spontaneous riot rather than a planned attack is simply false. You need to really twist the meanings of words to the point of absurdity to make this case.
Yes, actually, I do have cites. Some of them have already been given in this thread, but in case you missed it, see e.g. the AP's coverage:

Quote:
But a lawyer passing by the scene said he saw the militants gathering around 20 youths from nearby to chant against the film.
See also the New York Times:

Quote:
A Libyan journalist working for The New York Times was blocked from entering by the sentries outside, and he learned of the film from the fighters who stopped him. Other Libyan witnesses, too, said they received lectures from the attackers about the evil of the film and the virtue of defending the prophet.
  #277  
Old 05-07-2014, 11:51 AM
Debaser Debaser is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Yeat!
Posts: 6,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright View Post
I'm pretty sure he is saying you can have a planned attack and a spontaneous riot/protest happening simultaneously.
Yeah. The attack in Benghazi and the riot/protest in Cairo.



I'm sure some random people looted afterwards. Maybe some people spontaneously picked up guns and joined in the attack (we haven't seen a cite for this yet, but it's possible.)

But a few unplanned things in an organized attack don't stop it from being an organized attack. This was a couple hundred people who planned and showed up with heavy weapons and vehicles. They made an organized attack. It wasn't a riot or protest that spontaneously got violent. Attempts like that NYTimes article (which we've only seen a paragraph of, with no link to the whole article for context) to paint this as spontaneous because of small details like that just serves to provide an excuse to the administration's spin.
  #278  
Old 05-07-2014, 11:59 AM
Donald Rump Donald Rump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 832
Debaser, can you summarize the current state of our knowledge on the extent of planning that went into the attack? Because as far as I've seen, we still don't know anything about it being planned (much less, on 9/16/12), except insofar as an attack by "heavily armed extremists" may ipso facto reflect a degree of planning--in which case the attack being "planned" was implicit in Susan Rice's calling it an attack by heavily armed extremists as opposed to an attack by spontaneous protesters.

Last edited by Donald Rump; 05-07-2014 at 12:00 PM.
  #279  
Old 05-07-2014, 12:22 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 3,607
Hey Debaser, welcome to the club of people here who absolutely refuse to give any creedence to any quote whatsoever that even slightly suggests that the video may have played a role in the attack. Why can you not acknoweldge that these reports were made by the various media organizations because of evidence they had at the time?

Last edited by Fiddle Peghead; 05-07-2014 at 12:25 PM. Reason: typo
  #280  
Old 05-07-2014, 12:31 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo Snowboarder Bo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 24,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Debaser View Post
I'm sure some random people looted afterwards. Maybe some people spontaneously picked up guns and joined in the attack (we haven't seen a cite for this yet, but it's possible.)

But a few unplanned things in an organized attack don't stop it from being an organized attack. This was a couple hundred people who planned and showed up with heavy weapons and vehicles. They made an organized attack. It wasn't a riot or protest that spontaneously got violent. Attempts like that NYTimes article (which we've only seen a paragraph of, with no link to the whole article for context) to paint this as spontaneous because of small details like that just serves to provide an excuse to the administration's spin.
Here's a link to the NY Times article, A Deadly Mix in Benghazi by David D. Kirkpatrick.

Here's a relevant quote; please note the last sentence:
Quote:
Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault. The attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO’s extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.
  #281  
Old 05-07-2014, 12:37 PM
Debaser Debaser is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Yeat!
Posts: 6,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donald Rump View Post
Debaser, can you summarize the current state of our knowledge on the extent of planning that went into the attack?
I'll repost what I posted in the old thread back in Oct about a month after the attack:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Debaser View Post
Boston Globe Today

Quote:
During a congressional hearing last week, State Department officials said there was no video protest in Benghazi.

While Obama did call the attack an act of terror almost right away, for days afterward his administration also provided an account of events in Benghazi that proved false.

Lindsey Graham on the 15th of this month

Quote:
Graham, a Seneca Republican who is a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said on CBS’ “Face the Nation” that there never was a riot at the embassy, the attack lasted six hours or more, and the administration knew all of that within 24 hours.

“But the administration officials and Obama himself kept talking about an attack inspired by a video,” Graham said.
Romney, during the debate said it.

Quote:
And there was no demonstration involved. It was a terrorist attack and it took a long time for that to be told to the American people.
Obama didn't challenge this. It's not in dispute, except I guess to those of you who don't know.
So back then it was clear to a lot of people a month after the event that there was no demonstration. Romney knew it at the debate and said so. I'm not sure why people now a year later still don't know this. I blame polarization of the media. If you only get your news from left wing sources you probably never heard the truth.

Quote:
Because as far as I've seen, we still don't know anything about it being planned (much less, on 9/16/12), except insofar as an attack by "heavily armed extremists" may ipso facto reflect a degree of planning--in which case the attack being "planned" was implicit in Susan Rice's calling it an attack by heavily armed extremists as opposed to an attack by spontaneous protesters.
Yes, Rice was spinning away. She mentioned the "heavily armed extremists", which does indicate planning. But as the talking points email points out her message was definitely focused on the video and the demonstrations. Her story was basically that there was a demonstration which led to a riot which led to heavily armed people showing up and attacking. This wasn't true. The attack was planned and wasn't born from a demonstration.

Whether this was just the usual administration spin or crossed the threshold into lying is up to interpretation. For me, it crosses that line. They had a narrative that they needed to spin for the election and they let it get in the way of the truth.
  #282  
Old 05-07-2014, 12:56 PM
Donald Rump Donald Rump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 832
Quote:
Originally Posted by Debaser View Post
I'll repost what I posted in the old thread back in Oct about a month after the attack:

So back then it was clear to a lot of people a month after the event that there was no demonstration. Romney knew it at the debate and said so. I'm not sure why people now a year later still don't know this. I blame polarization of the media. If you only get your news from left wing sources you probably never heard the truth.
You can't be serious here. My question for you is, in light of on-the-ground reporting provided by the media reports cited on this page, why did Romney and Sen. Graham lie about the non-existence of a protest, and then continue to lie about it for weeks afterward??? I mean, the irony here is so deliciously savorable here I could practically skip my lunch over it. You're sitting here accusing the administration of lying for political purposes when the only evidence we have is that it was in fact his opponents who did so.

I asked you for evidence that the attack was preplanned, and your answer is a couple mendacious quotes from politicians on the other side of the aisle. Unbelievable.

As for the State Department officials who said there was no protest--some said there was one, some said not. I'm asking what basis you have for alleging that it was a lie, a bald-faced lie, to say that there was a protest.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Debaser View Post
Yes, Rice was spinning away. She mentioned the "heavily armed extremists", which does indicate planning. But as the talking points email points out her message was definitely focused on the video and the demonstrations. Her story was basically that there was a demonstration which led to a riot which led to heavily armed people showing up and attacking. This wasn't true. The attack was planned and wasn't born from a demonstration.
I don't know if my question was poorly phrased or if you're choosing not to answer. Let me try again. What evidence did we have on 9/16 indicating that the attack was planned (other than in whatever trivial sense is implicit in saying it was a heavily armed attack)? When Bob Schieffer asked Susan Rice point-blank, "Was this planned for months in advance?" what possible answer could she have honestly given at that time other than, "We don't believe so based on what we know, but maybe the investigation will turn something up," which is exactly what she said?
  #283  
Old 05-07-2014, 01:03 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 24,952
Quote:
Originally Posted by Debaser View Post
She mentioned the "heavily armed extremists", which does indicate planning.
I guess the presence of armed Tea Party types at the Cliven Bundy demonstration indicates planning for an attack on the US Government, then?
  #284  
Old 05-07-2014, 01:04 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 3,607
Bob Somerby at the Daily Howler is his usually insightful self on the lastest on Benghazi.

Quote:
Susan Rice said, again and again, that she was giving a preliminary account of what happened—that the investigation would continue. When an official keeps saying that the facts have not been established, Republicans and journalists shouldn’t pretend that she made the opposite claim.

Susan Rice didn’t say that a bunch of protestors staged the killing attack. Simply put, she didn’t say that on the Sunday programs for which she has been reviled. John McCain and others invented that claim. Our “journalists” began to recite.

Susan Rice didn’t deny that terrorists staged the attack. When Bob Schieffer directly asked if al Qaeda had staged the attack, she said that might be the case. She said it may have been “al Qaeda affiliates,” or even “al Qaeda itself.” This statement was instantly disappeared in service to McCain’s narrative.
I think it is safe to say that you could subsititute the names of certain people here for "Republicans and journalists" and "John McCain" in the quote, and have an accurate picture of where they are coming from. They are "pretending" and "reciting", refusing to acknowledge the evidence available at the time supported what Rice said.

Debaser, Magiver, care to respond?

Last edited by Fiddle Peghead; 05-07-2014 at 01:06 PM.
  #285  
Old 05-07-2014, 01:26 PM
Debaser Debaser is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Yeat!
Posts: 6,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donald Rump
Debaser, can you summarize the current state of our knowledge on the extent of planning that went into the attack? Because as far as I've seen, we still don't know anything about it being planned (much less, on 9/16/12)
I'll try this again. It amazes me that even now people feel so passionately about this but can't be bothered to get awareness of the basic facts about what happened.

Wikipedia has a good page on the attack. Let's start there.

First, the attack itself:

Quote:
Between 125 and 150 gunmen, "some wearing the Afghan-style tunics favored by Islamic militants," are reported to have participated in the assault. Some had their faces covered and wore flak jackets. Weapons they used during the attack included rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs), hand grenades, AK-47 and FN F2000 NATO assault rifles, diesel canisters, mortars, and heavy machine guns and artillery mounted on gun trucks.
Quote:
The assault began at nightfall, with the attackers sealing off streets leading to the main compound with gun trucks.
Quote:
About 9:40 pm (local time) large numbers of armed men shouting "Allāhu Akbar" descended on the compound from multiple directions. The attackers lobbed grenades over the wall and entered the compound under a barrage of automatic weapons fire and RPGs, backed by truck-mounted artillery and anti-aircraft machine guns.
Quote:
The attackers entered the main building and rattled the locked metal grille of the safe haven. They carried jerrycans of diesel fuel, spread the fuel over the floor and furniture, and set fires.
Quote:
Just after midnight, an attack on the CIA annex began, which included machine gun, rocket and mortar fire.
Quote:
"Benghazi: The Definitive Report" claims that just under 100 attackers were killed.
This doesn't sound planned to you? They lost 100 men out of 150, yet they still were fighting? That's dedication for a bunch of protesters. It's also an amazing group of protesters that had anti-aircraft guns and mortars.

They blocked off the streets and cleared the area before the attack. This takes planning.

They attacked from all directions all at once. This was planned. They brought gas to burn people out of the safe room. Planned.

Here's some more info from the wiki page:

Quote:
David Kirkpatrick of the New York Times reported that 20-year-old neighbor Mohamed Bishari witnessed the attack. According to Bishari, it was launched without warning or protest and was led by the Islamist militia Ansar al-Sharia
There was no protest. There was no spontaneous riot. It was an organized attack. Do you seriously dispute this?
  #286  
Old 05-07-2014, 01:42 PM
Lightnin' Lightnin' is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Apple Core
Posts: 7,395
Quote:
Originally Posted by Debaser View Post
I've never argued that Bush shouldn't be investigated about something because I wanted to save money. Not that I can recall anyway. Do you have an example of me doing this, or did you just make this up?
Do you have an example of me accusing you of doing so, or did you just make this up? 'Cause you see, that debating tactic don't fly 'round these parts.

But let's see it. Let's see you shout from the rooftops that Bush should be investigated for years as to whether he knew there were WMDs. Because if you want further investigation of Benghazi- despite the millions that have already been spent and the approximately 50 congressional hearings, briefings, and interviews we've seen so far- then surely the previous President's actions which directly led to the death of thousands would be even more pressing. Let's see you start threads on the subject. Let's see you argue incessantly that we simply don't know all of the veracity of Bush's beating of the war drums.

I'm sure, though, that you won't. Because it's not about the investigation, it's about the political grandstanding. Amirite?
  #287  
Old 05-07-2014, 01:44 PM
Donald Rump Donald Rump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 832
Quote:
Originally Posted by Debaser View Post
I'll try this again. It amazes me that even now people feel so passionately about this but can't be bothered to get awareness of the basic facts about what happened.

Wikipedia has a good page on the attack. Let's start there.

First, the attack itself:

This doesn't sound planned to you? They lost 100 men out of 150, yet they still were fighting? That's dedication for a bunch of protesters. It's also an amazing group of protesters that had anti-aircraft guns and mortars.

They blocked off the streets and cleared the area before the attack. This takes planning.

They attacked from all directions all at once. This was planned. They brought gas to burn people out of the safe room. Planned.

Here's some more info from the wiki page:


There was no protest. There was no spontaneous riot. It was an organized attack. Do you seriously dispute this?
Can we just establish something explicitly here?

Neither I nor anyone on this board says the attack was carried out by protesters, nor did Susan Rice ever say it.

Can you agree to that statement? If not, perhaps you can provide a link to a post on this thread or a direct quote from Susan Rice proving otherwise. Because in the world I live in, Susan Rice said it was heavily armed extremists. If you can't agree on this basic point then further discussion of this matter is probably futile because we might as well live in alternate realities.

Ok, so now that we're talking about attackers and not protesters, I'm asking you a separate question about the extent of planning by the attackers, and what was known about that planning by the attackers as of 9/16.

If you're saying that by definition, "heavily armed attack" = "planned," then, trivially, Susan Rice effectively said it was planned. Right? But I suspect that's not your beef with her. Your beef is that she refused to commit to the following proposition:

"Yes, Bob, it was clearly planned weeks or months in advance."

My simple--mind-numbingly simple--question for you is,

What was the evidence available to the WH on 9/16 that the attack was planned for weeks or months in advance?
  #288  
Old 05-07-2014, 01:45 PM
Procrustus Procrustus is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. ¥
Posts: 11,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by Debaser View Post


There was no protest. There was no spontaneous riot. It was an organized attack. Do you seriously dispute this?
What difference does it make?

And, I'm pretty sure the administration acknowledged this by calling it an attack by armed extremists.

I'm sorry, but you're not making your point clear.
  #289  
Old 05-07-2014, 01:48 PM
Debaser Debaser is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Yeat!
Posts: 6,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lightnin' View Post
Do you have an example of me accusing you of doing so, or did you just make this up? 'Cause you see, that debating tactic don't fly 'round these parts.

But let's see it. Let's see you shout from the rooftops that Bush should be investigated for years as to whether he knew there were WMDs. Because if you want further investigation of Benghazi- despite the millions that have already been spent and the approximately 50 congressional hearings, briefings, and interviews we've seen so far- then surely the previous President's actions which directly led to the death of thousands would be even more pressing. Let's see you start threads on the subject. Let's see you argue incessantly that we simply don't know all of the veracity of Bush's beating of the war drums.

I'm sure, though, that you won't. Because it's not about the investigation, it's about the political grandstanding. Amirite?

Great. You know what you just did? Now this thread is about Bush and Iraq.

Here's my answer: We don't need to spend millions and have dozens of hearings at this point do investigate the WMDs in Iraq. We know what happened already.

What would be the point?

Also, have you missed my repeated posts that I do agree that the Republicans should probably drop this before the elections and that I don't think it's that big of a deal?

My repeated posts here are more out frustration dealing with the people who still after all this time are in denial that a planned attack even occurred. That's simply amazing to me. This board is supposed to be about fighting ignorance, but that's just wallowing in it.
  #290  
Old 05-07-2014, 01:56 PM
Debaser Debaser is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Yeat!
Posts: 6,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donald Rump View Post
Can we just establish something explicitly here?

Neither I nor anyone on this board says the attack was carried out by protesters, nor did Susan Rice ever say it.
From the talking points memo:

Quote:
The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations 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. diplomatic post in Benghazi and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.
Susan Rice on the Sunday shows:

Quote:
Based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy—sparked by this hateful video. But soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that-- in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent." "We do not-- we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.""I think it's clear that there were extremist elements that joined in and escalated the violence. Whether they were al Qaeda affiliates, whether they were Libyan-based extremists or al Qaeda itself I think is one of the things we'll have to determine.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Donald Rump
My simple--mind-numbingly simple--question for you is,

What was the evidence available to the WH on 9/16 that the attack was planned for weeks or months in advance?
Your simple question has some moving goalposts, because it started as this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Donald Rump
Debaser, can you summarize the current state of our knowledge on the extent of planning that went into the attack?
I've answered your question twice, so I don't think a third time will help. Let me ask you a question:

You said "Because as far as I've seen, we still don't know anything about it being planned". Do you still stand by this? Was the attack planned or not?

Last edited by Debaser; 05-07-2014 at 01:57 PM.
  #291  
Old 05-07-2014, 02:02 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 48,354
Quote:
Originally Posted by Debaser View Post
We don't need to spend millions and have dozens of hearings at this point do investigate the WMDs in Iraq. We know what happened already.

What would be the point?
Great. Now apply the analogy.
  #292  
Old 05-07-2014, 02:30 PM
Donald Rump Donald Rump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 832
Quote:
The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations 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. diplomatic post in Benghazi and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.
You seem to think it somehow defies the laws of logic and/or physics that there was a brewing protest, and that Muhammad al-Jihadi and his buddies--who may or may not have also been pissed about the video, but probably were pissed because why would they of all people have the broadness of mind to be any less irate than the rest?--said, "you know what, as Sly Stone said there's a riot goin' on and it's time we go and give these Americans what for, once and for all."

Why do you suppose it's impossible that this is how it happened? I just don't understand where you're coming from on this one. I'm sorry.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Debaser View Post
From the talking points memo:
I've answered your question twice, so I don't think a third time will help. Let me ask you a question:

You said "Because as far as I've seen, we still don't know anything about it being planned". Do you still stand by this? Was the attack planned or not?
I don't mean to move goalposts. My earlier iteration of the question was obviously poorly worded. What I've been after all along, on this whole God forsaken thread, is to understand what basis we have for saying Susan Rice lied. Saying something that later turns out to be untrue is not lying. Saying something one knows to be untrue is lying. I want to know how Susan Rice was lying.

Your Wikipedia excerpts tell me about the nature of the attack. They don't tell me about the extent of long-term planning. If you're saying, an attack of this sort by definition requires weeks or months of planning, then I'll grant that's a valid argument (though I'm not sure how to assess whether that's true). But, again, if that's true then it was implicit in what Susan Rice said, and therefore she can't possibly be said to be lying.

So, I only see three possibilities here. Either:

1. It's trivially true that it was planned (because the attack was ipso facto evidence of planning) and hence there's no real controversy because Susan Rice didn't conceal the nature of the weaponry involved;
2. It was launched more or less without long-term planning (i.e., planned out sometime that very day); or
3. It was launched with long-term planning, contrary to what Susan Rice said.*

My question to you is, is (3) the case and how do we know it? Did Susan Rice know it on 9/16?

*Although, for the umpteenth time, she didn't categorically say it wasn't long-term planned. She said we don't know yet.
  #293  
Old 05-07-2014, 03:08 PM
Jack Batty's Avatar
Jack Batty Jack Batty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: The Astral Plane.
Posts: 15,036
Quote:
The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations 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. diplomatic post in Benghazi and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.
Well, shit. There's the problem right there. Republicans don't believe in evolution.
  #294  
Old 05-07-2014, 03:44 PM
TonySinclair TonySinclair is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,686
Quote:
Originally Posted by Debaser View Post
So you agree with the statement:

"A spontaneous protest and a planned attack are not mutually exclusive."

You sure you know what all those words mean? You can look them up if you need to.
You are being incredibly dense about this. Nobody is saying that some people came with signs to protest, and then magically changed their signs into RPGs and mortars. They are talking about two different sets of people. It is entirely possible to have different people with different goals at the same place on the same day. At the time Rice went on TV, there were conflicting reports, and the CIA assessment was that there were both protestors and attackers. Nobody alleged that they were the same people, or even associated with each other. If I were an attacker, the last thing I would want is protestors raising the alert level.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Debaser View Post
Quote:
David Kirkpatrick of the New York Times reported that 20-year-old neighbor Mohamed Bishari witnessed the attack. According to Bishari, it was launched without warning or protest and was led by the Islamist militia Ansar al-Sharia
There was no protest. There was no spontaneous riot. It was an organized attack. Do you seriously dispute this?
For the love of god. So you think that if the CIA analysts are saying one thing, and some 20-year old is saying another, the White House should go with the 20-year-old Libyan civilian?

What if I can find a 21-year old neighbor who says he saw a protest? He's one year older, so he wins, right?

For the nth time, the fact that someone reports something does not mean that the White House knows it is true, especially when they are receiving conflicting reports from many different sources. All they can do is give their best assessment at the time, subject to security considerations and protection of sources, which is exactly what they did.

Last edited by TonySinclair; 05-07-2014 at 03:47 PM.
  #295  
Old 05-07-2014, 03:50 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo Snowboarder Bo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 24,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Debaser View Post
Great. You know what you just did? Now this thread is about Bush and Iraq.

Here's my answer: We don't need to spend millions and have dozens of hearings at this point do investigate the WMDs in Iraq. We know what happened already.

What would be the point?
Let's go to the quarry and throw stuff down there! Did you seriously just ask "what would be the point?" (of investigating what was said and done in regard to starting the Iraq War) when you've been advocating for an investigation into Benghazi?

What do you mean "we know what happened already"? Why don't you enlighten me, since I am unsure of both what you mean and what happened?
  #296  
Old 05-07-2014, 04:03 PM
Donald Rump Donald Rump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 832
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
Let's go to the quarry and throw stuff down there! Did you seriously just ask "what would be the point?" (of investigating what was said and done in regard to starting the Iraq War) when you've been advocating for an investigation into Benghazi?
Maybe we should all pitch in and buy Debaser a "What difference does it make?" t-shirt because clearly he must not care about 3,000 dead Americans if he doesn't want to get to the bottom of it.

I mean, why should Republicans have a monopoly on sophomoric demagoguery after all?
  #297  
Old 05-07-2014, 04:06 PM
CannyDan's Avatar
CannyDan CannyDan is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: East coast of Florida
Posts: 2,754
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Batty View Post
Well, shit. There's the problem right there. Republicans don't believe in evolution.
Thread winner!

Yes, that's exactly it. Debaser's Wiki timeline begins with the attack. Rice, and everyone else in this thread, simply mean that something was happening before the attack, something that would better be described as a demonstration, or a protest. Or just a bunch of random pissed off people in the streets. Given the instant communications available in 2012 through things like Twitter and text messaging, everybody in the Middle East knew about pissed off people, and protesters, all over the Middle East. It's idiotic to claim that Benghazi residents were somehow immune to the events of the day. Nor is it inconceivable that, at some point during all the general hubbub and angst, a group of heavily armed militants (who may or may not have been harboring a separate grudge and may or may not have been making specific plans and preparations for any theoretical time in advance) said, "Hey, now looks like a good time for a ruckus!" and then launched the actual attack.

Thus the attack evolved out of the background of unrest and protest. Different players were involved, but that doesn't mean one kind of event couldn't have led into the other.
  #298  
Old 05-07-2014, 04:11 PM
Debaser Debaser is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Yeat!
Posts: 6,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by CannyDan View Post
Thus the attack evolved out of the background of unrest and protest.
Do you have any evidence of this? The cites I've posted say the streets around the compound were dead quiet when the surprise attack started. Do you have something that says otherwise?
  #299  
Old 05-07-2014, 04:15 PM
Debaser Debaser is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Yeat!
Posts: 6,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
Let's go to the quarry and throw stuff down there! Did you seriously just ask "what would be the point?" (of investigating what was said and done in regard to starting the Iraq War) when you've been advocating for an investigation into Benghazi?

What do you mean "we know what happened already"? Why don't you enlighten me, since I am unsure of both what you mean and what happened?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donald Rump View Post
Maybe we should all pitch in and buy Debaser a "What difference does it make?" t-shirt because clearly he must not care about 3,000 dead Americans if he doesn't want to get to the bottom of it.

I mean, why should Republicans have a monopoly on sophomoric demagoguery after all?
You guys really want this thread to be about Iraq, huh?

I admit that Bush really fucked up with his claims about WMDs in Iraq. His presidency will be stained by that in the history books and he deserves much of the scorn he gets for it. He was wrong, and it was a very important thing to be wrong about.

Benghazi, as I've said numerous times is a relatively minor matter. The spinning which turned into lying by the administration isn't a huge deal. But they did cross the line and I'm glad it was investigated and I'm glad they got some negative press out of it. Obama deserves to get some heat for this, even though it doesn't rise anywhere near the level of the lack of WMDs in Iraq.

Happy, now? Or should we debate WMDs in Iraq for six pages?

That's the difference between me and many of you. I can admit it when my guy fucks up.
  #300  
Old 05-07-2014, 04:20 PM
Debaser Debaser is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Yeat!
Posts: 6,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donald Rump View Post
Why do you suppose it's impossible that this is how it happened? I just don't understand where you're coming from on this one. I'm sorry.
It's not impossible, but it seems very unlikely. An attack like this requires planning. It couldn't be done in a day. Plus, there's no evidence that I've seen that this was the case. They attacked out of nowhere. There was no crowd around the embassy that I've seen any cites for.

Quote:
Saying something that later turns out to be untrue is not lying.
Tell that to Bush!

Quote:
Saying something one knows to be untrue is lying. I want to know how Susan Rice was lying.
There's not much of a smoking gun. There's no statement that can be proven, say, in a court of law that she said something that can be proven to be a lie. If there was this would be a much bigger deal.

I've said it's a judgement call whether this crosses the line from typical political spin into dishonesty. For me it does. Not everyone agrees, obviously.

Reading that memo, it seems clear that her directive was to try and link the protests and the video to the attack, regardless of how true that actually was.


Quote:
If you're saying, an attack of this sort by definition requires weeks or months of planning, then I'll grant that's a valid argument
Yes, that's why I posted the details of the attack. To make that point.

Last edited by Debaser; 05-07-2014 at 04:22 PM.
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 11:55 AM.

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