Regardless, the administration repeatedly said the attack was a spontaneous event resulting from a protest against a YouTube video. This continued for two weeks despite the knowledge there was no protest, ignoring the facts. I don’t know why but it does raise questions.
So explain the logic to me. You say that Obama clearly knew it was a terror attack the next day, because he said it was (he didn’t exactly - the statement could be parsed in several ways, and was probably written that way intentionally, in my opinion). But let’s say he did. Why, then, did he ALSO keep saying that it wasn’t? Why the heavy focus on the video, and the claim that there were mobs? Why, when he was directly asked if it was a terror attack more than a week later, did he prevaricate and say that they were still investigating? Why did Susan Rice get sent out to all the Sunday talk shows five days later to claim that it was a spontaneous response to a video? Why the highly publicized arrest of the filmmaker?
If Obama knew it was a terror attack the day after, the administration’s subsequent behavior was just as bizarre.
I guess it’s probably the same reason Obama keeps refusing to admit he’s a Muslim and a Kenyan and a Socialist.
??? Huh ???
Republicans are going to play it up, and Democrats are going to downplay it.
Bad intel is simultaneously a good excuse and not an excuse depending on the administration.
I agree.
Unless the administration was trying to downplay its knowledge to avoid tipping off people the intelligence services were looking for. That was mentioned several times in the first couple of days (including here, IIRC) and seems to have been forgotten.
Can you post a link from 2 weeks after the event where the administration said this was a spontaneous event resulting from a protest against a YouTube video? I believe somebody told you this, but I don’t believe it’s true.
I’m saying there’s nothing Obama could say that would satisfy you because you don’t want to be satisfied. You want him to be wrong so regardless of what he says, you’ll figure out some way to claim it wasn’t enough.
If he called it a riot, you’d complain that he was refusing to admit there was a terrorist attack. If he called it a terrorist attack, you’d complain that he was refusing to admit there was a riot. If he called it both a riot and a terrorist attack, you’d complain that he was changing his story. If he called it an attack with specifying if it was a riot or a terrorist attack, you complain he was refusing to say which one it was.
I just want to be clear that the Obama administration did “jump to conclusions”, they just happened to pick the wrong way to jump.
I feel like you people don’t even understand the charges against the administration. The salient facts are that Benghazi requested more security because things were getting hot over there, and the State Department denied it. How there’s the question of whether Clinton said yes, and Obama overruled her. Then when the Americans died, the Administration blamed a video when they knew it was a terrorist organization with links to Al Qaeda. Let me repeat that: they knew it was a terrorist attack, not a riot.
You’ve got to be fucking kidding me. Please tell me either you know what Fast and Furious is or that you’re not allowed to vote.
Right, right. Nothing could have been done. It was inevitable.
In real time? Within half an hour? Try “within months.”
I’m critical of the administrations assertions after the consulate attack in Benghazi. But that examiner article seems a little unbelievable. How realistic would it be for Bill Clinton to advise Hillary to go against the guy that gave her the Secretary of State position?
The requested security could not have prevented the attack.
And you base this on claims made by Republicans after the attack?
Why did these same Republicans vote against increased security before the attack? Maybe they didn’t feel the signs were as clear as they’re now claiming.
I wonder if people are having trouble having trouble understanding the charges against the administration because republicans were lobbing them on day one before anyone had any information. First it was that he didn’t call it an act of terror (which he did), then it was that he didn’t call it terrorism (which is the same thing), and then a month after the attack, Ed Klein says that someone says that Obama denied additional security requests. Frankly, I’m surprised it’s taken this long to impeach him.
I don’t know about the Examiner article, which is why I downplayed its veracity, but it’s a fact that extra security was denied by someone somewhere along the way.
I forgot that in Doper-land, if a Republican says it, it isn’t true. If there are charges to be made, who, exactly, would you expect to make them? Democrats? C’mon, man.
Why did these same Republicans vote against increased security before the attack? Maybe they didn’t feel the signs were as clear as they’re now claiming.
[/QUOTE]
They didn’t. They voted against increased funding for security in general. That’s a wholly separate issue that doesn’t preclude the State Department or the White House from sending more security..
How do you know they knew? Cite?
I don’t know what Fast and Furious is, not really. None of the (dozens) of liberal voters I know has followed it. I heard about it, read a brief summary, rolled my eyes and have avoided the subject ever since. Everyone I know has done the same. Does that really surprise you?
I never followed the Vince Foster nonsense during the Clinton years either. 
And in Fox-land, if a Democrat says it, it isn’t true. So how about we stick to Reality-Land? Something isn’t a fact just because a political opponent makes an accusation. You’re a fool if you believe everything the Democrats say about Romney or everything the Republicans say about Obama.
I haven’t kept up - are we over this scandal and on to the next one?
Fox will suddenly turn silent on the issue on November 7. Meanwhile, as long as they think it’s serving a purpose, they’ll keep hammering on it.