Pussy.
tangentially… I noticed Fox doesn’t have its “Media Bias” column on the front page of its website anymore. Wonder if the bias is now gone, or that attempting to point it out proved worthless in winning the election so the just stopped?
I’m not on board with the OP. I don’t think the administration did anything wrong (“they had a plane in Italy so they could have saved everyone in the embassy” is not a compelling argument) but it has yet to be explained to my satisfaction.
I have to agree. Shit happens and crazy people do crazy things. I’m not really sure what, if anything, can-could-or should be done to prevent something like this in the future. But for weeks to blame a youtube video is sort of insulting even to my admittedly questionable intelligence.
Can you give a “for instance” on the blaming it on a video for weeks?
This is of course independent of the “so.what” question.
I seem to remember a terrorist group themselves claiming it was because of the video, which would certainly confuse the issue.
The CIA seems to have vacillated on to what degree the attack was an opportunistic one triggered by the previous riots in Cairo and to what degree it was a preplanned one. But I don’t think they ever “blamed it on the video”. Here’s President Obama, only 14 hours after the attack:
In any case, its hardly a scandal. Figuring out the exactly what happened in an attack on the other side of the world in a country that just underwent a Civil War is always going to take some doing. I haven’t really seen any evidence the CIA did particularly badly in investigating or communicating what they found.
My personal opinion is the same as it usually is when it comes to these kinds of fake “scandals”.
Show me a motive that actually makes a single God-damned lick of sense. In other words, show me a motive that doesn’t require Obama and Hilary and who the fuck ever else to be secret anti-America conspirators in some sort of shadowy plot to destroy the country.
Even though you don’t really care;
September 12 – Secretary of State Hillary Clinton:
"We are working to determine the precise motivations and methods of those who carried out this assault. Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior, along with the protest that took place at our embassy in Cairo yesterday, as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet.
September 13 – Jay Carney:
“The protests we’re seeing around the region are in reaction to this movie. They are not directly in reaction to any policy of the United States or the government of the United States or the people of the United States.”
September 13 – State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland:
So I know that’s going to be frustrating for you, but we really want to make sure that we do this right and we don’t jump to conclusions. That said, obviously, there are plenty of people around the region citing this disgusting video as something that has been motivating."
September 16 – Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, on CNN’s “State of the Union” with Candy Crowley:
“There was a hateful video that was disseminated on the Internet. It had nothing to do with the United States government, and it’s one that we find disgusting and reprehensible. It’s been offensive to many, many people around the world. That sparked violence in various parts of the world, including violence directed against Western facilities including our embassies and consulates.”
**September 20 – President Obama at a town hall meeting organized by the Spanish-language Univision Network, responding to a question about the possible involvement of al Qaeda:
“What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.”**
It wasn’t until;
September 21 – Hillary Clinton:
“What happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack, and we will not rest until we have tracked down and brought to justice the terrorists who murdered four Americans.”
So OK it wasn’t two weeks, only nine days of claiming it was a video
OMG! Government takes almost 9 days to decide the motivations of foriegn attackers! Coverup! Scandal! pants-peeing for all!!!
Get a fucking life, would you, already?
Something chaotic happened in a chaotic country that only recently underwent a lot of chaos…
And the problem is that we didn’t know precisely what happened instantly? Pull the other one.
There seems to be some kind of false dichotomy where people are getting confused and thinking either it’s the video or it isn’t. But it was both. When the various spokespeople were talking about the embassy attacks, they were talking about them all together because they seemed related. Benghazi turned out to be an attack that wasn’t part of the other protests. But the other embassy attacks were in protests, and related to the video.
People are acting like all the White House reports were talking exclusively about Benghazi, when really they were talking about all the embassy incidences together.
WOW, Pretty intellectual response.
While the US gov’t probably did over-emphasize the roll of anti-video protests early on, they weren’t wrong in saying the attackers were, at least partially, motivated by anger over the video.
The main misunderstanding early on wasn’t that the US thought the attacks were due to anger regarding the video (they were) but that the attackers were part of a larger protest. The CIA’s original assessment apparently thought there was a less violent protest prior to the attacks, but they stressed those early statements were only perlimanary and walked them back pretty quickly.
Its pretty thin gruel to try and make a “scandal” out of.
Why the consulate, if these bad mofos wanted to show how bad they are, why not the actual embassy? Why was Amb. Stevens there, rather than at the Embassy? If the attack was targeted on him, when did anyone know he was going to be there? What kind of super sophisticated smart terrorist brag about shit on cell phones, when they could just whisper into the CIA’s ear?
These are a bunch of interesting questions no one seems interested in but me. Seems to me the reason these questions go begging is that the answers have no obvious political advantage.
Compared to pants-peeing? You betcha!
Seems it was an opportunistic attack triggered by the protests in Egypt. So presumably they attacked the Consolute because it was nearby wherever militant Islamists hang out when they’re not attacking things. Not because they knew Stevens was there, or because that target was more preferable to others in the country.
Um, because they knew that’s where the CIA base was?
Because that’s where the governing body of Libya is? Remember, that’s where the revolution started, and that’s where the people who ran it were from.
It might not have been.
I have read various places that Amb. Stevens was not at the consulate but went there after getting reports of violent protests, in order to help evacuate it:
ttp://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/09/libya-ambassador.html
It seems clear he was not a pre-attack target in any way.
Well, yeah, but there’s some questions that raises as well. For instance, we told, IIRC, that there were no protests of any real impact going on prior to the attack. This is what gives any sort of substance to the suspicions of cover-up, saying that the attack grew out of an ongoing protest or that protest was used as a “screen”. At any rate, Triploli and the Embassy are at a considerable distance from Benghazi, and Tripoli is where the Amb. “serves”. So a phrasing that suggests Stevens went to the consulate to help out with evacuation brings up the question: from where?