Benghazi- give up the faux scandal already. It didn't work.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@JQPublic

**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

Huh? Obama’s comment appears to be exactly what happened: it was a terrorist attack, which was somewhat obscured by the fact that there were ongoing protests over the video.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@JQPublic

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

Thanks for providing these. It’s very helpful to know exactly what we’re talking about.

When I look at these quotes, I don’t see anyone saying unequivocally “This was due to the video.” I see a lot of “we’re not sure,” “we’re investigating,” “we think it might have been spurred by the video.” As jackdavinci noted, one has to squint at these quotes that are clearly about the entirety of the events in the region in order to pretend they are definitive statements specific to Benghazi. It’s just not compelling.

Here, by the way, are two of the quotes more completely in context:

Fox News Flash | Fox News

Q We have reports that the White House said today that the attacks in Libya were a terrorist attack. Do you have information indicating that it was Iran, or al Qaeda was behind organizing the protests?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, we’re still doing an investigation, and there are going to be different circumstances in different countries. And so I don’t want to speak to something until we have all the information. 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 —

Q Al Qaeda?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, we don’t know yet. And so we’re going to continue to investigate this. We’ve insisted on and have received so far full cooperation from countries like Egypt and Libya and Tunisia in not only protecting our diplomatic posts, but also to make sure that we discover who, in fact, is trying to take advantage of this.

CNN.com - Transcripts

CROWLEY: Let me move you to what’s gone on in the Middle East in Arab countries and elsewhere. There is a “New York Times” story this morning that suggests that the administration thinks this is a foreshadowing of a fall that will see sustained instability. Does the administration expect to see these sorts of protests outside U.S. embassies and elsewhere throughout the fall?

RICE: Well, Candy, first of all, let’s recall what has happened in the last several days. 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. That violence is absolutely unacceptable, it’s not a response that one can ever condone when it comes to such a video. And we have been working very closely and, indeed, effectively with the governments in the region and around the world to secure our personnel, secure our embassy, condemn the violent response to this video.

And, frankly, we’ve seen these sorts of incidents in the past. We’ve seen violent responses to “Satanic Verses.” We’ve seen violent responses to the cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed in an evil way. So this is something we’ve seen in the past, and we expect that it’s possible that these kinds of things could percolate into the future. What we’re focused on is securing our personnel, securing our facilities.

I’m honestly just not getting what is wrong with these quotes.

[Merneith]

@Simplicio

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.

This, and the fact that, before Darrel Issa went all Genki Girl, they were all trying not to talk about the CIA presence.

[samclem]

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

Thanks for providing these. It’s very helpful to know exactly what we’re talking about.

When I look at these quotes, I don’t see anyone saying unequivocally “This was due to the video.” I see a lot of “we’re not sure,” “we’re investigating,” “we think it might have been spurred by the video.” As jackdavinci noted, one has to squint at these quotes that are clearly about the entirety of the events in the region in order to pretend they are definitive statements specific to Benghazi. It’s just not compelling.

Here, by the way, are two of the quotes more completely in context:

Fox News Flash | Fox News

CNN.com - Transcripts

I’m honestly just not getting what is wrong with these quotes.

Nothing wrong with the quotes, they only have a problem with “who” said them.

[JQPublic]

@samclem

Nothing wrong with the quotes, they only have a problem with “who” said them.

All I know is if this was a republican administration no one on this site would be just dimissing all this as “Oh well, bumps in the road”.
While scandal is probably the wrong word the total failure of our “intelligence community” is unacceptable. To be caught totally off guard on the anniversary of the worst terrorist attack against our country makes you wonder if anyone was paying attention to anything other than campaigning. That it’s more important to win the job than actually doing it.
What’s really amazing to me is that I would bet that most that post on this site while growing up questioned authority, and now you just roll over and accept the party line.

[Jack_Batty]

“Caught totally off guard on the anniversary of the worst terrorist attack against our country?” You’re really going to hold the administrations feet to the fire for not focusing more on an two-hole consulate in the backwoods of a backwoods country on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11?

It’s not like it all makes sense, even after the fact.

[Lightnin]

@JQPublic

All I know is if this was a republican administration no one on this site would be just dimissing all this as “Oh well, bumps in the road”.

We probably would, actually. We have no way of knowing, which is why using your particular argument is bullshit- you’re playing “What If”, and holding us responsible for what *you *think would happen. You don’t “know”- you’re guessing, and you think it’s a good argument.

@JQPublic

While scandal is probably the wrong word the total failure of our “intelligence community” is unacceptable. To be caught totally off guard on the anniversary of the worst terrorist attack against our country makes you wonder if anyone was paying attention to anything other than campaigning.

You’re right. We should totally lock down the entire world every September 11th, 'cause hey- you never know.

@JQPublic

What’s really amazing to me is that I would bet that most that post on this site while growing up questioned authority, and now you just roll over and accept the party line.

Because the authorities know what happened- we don’t. You don’t, either. Assuming that you know more about the situation than the people who do this kind of investigation for a living is pretty damn stupid.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

Fun fact: according to www.state.gov, there are more than 285 diplomatic facilities around the world for which the Department of State is responsible.

[JQPublic]

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

Fun fact: according to www.state.gov, there are more than 285 diplomatic facilities around the world for which the Department of State is responsible.

OMG over 285 facilities!! You guys are right, how would our government ever be able to look out for 285 facilities. We just don’t have the resources to properly defend the civilians that work at any of those facilities. They all just better watch their own backs, we’ve got better things to spend our money on than defending government employees in countries we’ve just recently held bombing raids to help over throw their government. What was I thinking. Like Lightnin said, the authorites will tell us what we need to know. No reason to ask any questions, just sit by quietly and do what you’re told.

[MsWhatsit]

@JQPublic

OMG over 285 facilities!! You guys are right, how would our government ever be able to look out for 285 facilities. We just don’t have the resources to properly defend the civilians that work at any of those facilities. They all just better watch their own backs, we’ve got better things to spend our money on than defending government employees in countries we’ve just recently held bombing raids to help over throw their government. What was I thinking. Like Lightnin said, the authorites will tell us what we need to know. No reason to ask any questions, just sit by quietly and do what you’re told.

You sound like an idiot. This is not a smart way to make an argument. This sounds like something that would get posted on the comments section of a news website. Try harder.

[BobLibDem]

The only scandal I see about the whole affair is how Romney politicized the attack before the bodies were even cold. That man was an embarrassment to humanity.

We’ve got a lot of embassies and consulates around the world. To protect each and every one of them against mob attack is just not feasible. Physical security must be provided by the host nation. Short of providing hundreds of troops plus air support at each facility, we’re not going to be able to stop a determined mob.

I don’t understand the big fucking deal about what was or wasn’t said immediately after the attack. It’s like there’s Magic Words that only Republicans can utter that make everything better. Shit happens, you investigate. Find out what really happened, then figure out what to do about it. I know that doesn’t fit with the right wing agenda with sending in the ICBMs every time a Muslim farts, but too fucking bad, the adults are in charge now.

Sure, we feel bad about the four people that died. Truth is, we should feel a hell of a lot worse about the hundreds of thousands that died in Iraq as a result of the utter evil that was George W. Bush.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@JQPublic

OMG over 285 facilities!! You guys are right, how would our government ever be able to look out for 285 facilities. We just don’t have the resources to properly defend the civilians that work at any of those facilities. They all just better watch their own backs, we’ve got better things to spend our money on than defending government employees in countries we’ve just recently held bombing raids to help over throw their government. What was I thinking. Like Lightnin said, the authorites will tell us what we need to know. No reason to ask any questions, just sit by quietly and do what you’re told.

I agree that there may be an argument for a lack.of sufficient preparation. I don’t fully see it at at this point, but it seems like you do.

Given that, my question is this: Why are you arguing about the fucking video or the application of the word “terrorism”?

[Kobal2]

@JQPublic

All I know is if this was a republican administration no one on this site would be just dimissing all this as “Oh well, bumps in the road”.

Challenge accepted, shitbutt.
Provide an example of a similar “OMG, -gate !” reaction to a terrorist attack that happened on Bush’s watch taking place on this very message board. Either Bush, I don’t even give a shit, I’ll sport you an H.W.
I don’t mean a lone crank posting some conspiracy shit and being soundly laughed at - I mean a comfortable amount of posters asking for blood, not only because A Thing Happened, but because A Thing Happened and the public wasn’t *immediately *told exactly what was up in real time or before any investigation could have realistically taken place.

Considering the scarcity of non-bullshit information available during Dick “Top Secret” Cheney’s turn at the helm, should be easy peasy for you. I’ll warn you though: I won’t be holding me breath.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

@Simplicio

Cite?

My post is my cite!

@elbows

Say what now?

You don’t …can’t?

(Please tell us you’re not yet a high school graduate!)

I am a high school and college graduate!

@jsgoddess

There’s nothing wrong with what he wrote.

Well, there’s nothing grammatically wrong with what he wrote. Content-wise it’s another thing entirely.

Now, now…

@Euphonious_Polemic

Don’t you DARE try to out-crazy my “lizard people” post. I have backup crazy posts I haven’t even used yet…

You got it in one…

@even_sven

If this were true, I think it would be legit to call him out for having the entire CIA apparently be completely paralyzed unless Patraeus is personally on the phone making every call? That’d be an exceptionally ineffective way to run a huge international agency, wouldn’t it?

I can see it now…
Guy on ground: “Hey, everyone is being attacked! What do we do?”
Supervisor on ground: “I don’t know. I guess we should call our boss…ring ring…Hi boss, everyone is being attacked, what do we do?”
Supervisor’s supervisor: “Hmmmm…good question. I’ll call my boss”

…some time later…

Supervisor’s supervisor’s supervisor’s supervisor: “Hey boss, shit is going down in Libya. Should we do something?”
Supervisor’s supervisor’s supervisor’s supervisor’s supervisor: "I guess we need to call Patraeus…ring ring…Aw shuck, no answer. Fuck it, I guess. Our only other option is to sit around watching everyone get slaughtered.
Someone else “Yeah. Sucks there is only one person in all of America who can make decisions to respond to an attack on American interests. I guess we didn’t think that through very well.”

That’s hilarious.

@elucidator

Fucking ridiculous. Petreaus is a lifer to the bone. Civilians, turds are tapered, lifers like him, turds are clipped square.

Sure, he’ll stick himself in the wrong honey pot, you betcha. But put himself where he cannot be reached to make the command decision? Without being sure that some else is deputized to make that decision if he can’t be found?

Nope.

The “turds clipped square” comment is really funny!

Guys…I am totally fucking joking.

[JQPublic]

@MsWhatsit

You sound like an idiot. This is not a smart way to make an argument. This sounds like something that would get posted on the comments section of a news website. Try harder.

But it’s obvious that I am an idiot for not just accepting what the government tells us.
I conceed the argument. This administration would never cover up for the embarrassment of the first U.S. ambassador to be murdered in over 30 years. We just don’t have a big enough military to defend over 285 facilites around the world. I mean we can’t afford to give up any of the 68,000 troops we have in Germany. I mean that country is ready to blow at any time. We could never use drones to protect our embassies, we only use those to blow up villages in Afghanistan.
I accept that the new norm is to wait for the establishment to tell us the truth and never question the truth delivered by the establishment.

[MsWhatsit]

Not better.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

@JQPublic

But it’s obvious that I am an idiot for not just accepting what the government tells us.
I conceed the argument. This administration would never cover up for the embarrassment of the first U.S. ambassador to be murdered in over 30 years. We just don’t have a big enough military to defend over 285 facilites around the world. I mean we can’t afford to give up any of the 68,000 troops we have in Germany. I mean that country is ready to blow at any time. We could never use drones to protect our embassies, we only use those to blow up villages in Afghanistan.
I accept that the new norm is to wait for the establishment to tell us the truth and never question the truth delivered by the establishment.

If I am not mistaken, the security of consulates and embassies is the responsibility of the host nations. I believe that the couple or few Marines posted at them are more for sensitive document security than defense of the compound itself, although I am sure that they do that when necessary.

I am prepared to be wrong about that but I believe that’s the general gist of the arrangement between nations.

Think about what you’re saying here: what country is going to let the USA or any other nation build an impregnable fortress on their soil under the auspices of diplomacy?

[Kobal2]

@JQPublic

But it’s obvious that I am an idiot for not just accepting what the government tells us.
I conceed the argument. This administration would never cover up for the embarrassment of the first U.S. ambassador to be murdered in over 30 years. We just don’t have a big enough military to defend over 285 facilites around the world. I mean we can’t afford to give up any of the 68,000 troops we have in Germany. I mean that country is ready to blow at any time. We could never use drones to protect our embassies, we only use those to blow up villages in Afghanistan.
I accept that the new norm is to wait for the establishment to tell us the truth and never question the truth delivered by the establishment.

Oh come on. Not one “sheeple” ? Not a single injunction to think ? D-, make an effort, see me after class.

[tagos]

As the Republicans didn’t want to fund embassy security properly they should just STFU about it.

For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department’s Worldwide Security Protection program — well below the $2.15 billion requested by the Obama administration. House Republicans cut the administration’s request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012. (Negotiations with the Democrat-controlled Senate restored about $88 million of the administration’s request.) Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans’ proposed cuts to her department would be “detrimental to America’s national security” — a charge Republicans rejected.

Ryan, Issa and other House Republicans voted for an amendment in 2009 to cut $1.2 billion from State operations, including funds for 300 more diplomatic security positions. Under Ryan’s budget, non-defense discretionary spending, which includes State Department funding, would be slashed nearly 20 percent in 2014, which would translate to more than $400 million in additional cuts to embassy security.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@JQPublic

But it’s obvious that I am an idiot for not just accepting what the government tells us.
I conceed the argument. This administration would never cover up for the embarrassment of the first U.S. ambassador to be murdered in over 30 years. We just don’t have a big enough military to defend over 285 facilites around the world. I mean we can’t afford to give up any of the 68,000 troops we have in Germany. I mean that country is ready to blow at any time. We could never use drones to protect our embassies, we only use those to blow up villages in Afghanistan.
I accept that the new norm is to wait for the establishment to tell us the truth and never question the truth delivered by the establishment.

Is it your position that every year on Sept 11, we should redeploy members of the military to support the State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security for 285 facilities around the world?

This is not convincing me of the specific issue of the attack in Benghazi, nor does it help me understand the debate about what was said and when in regards to the video/protests.