Two questions for hard-core Government believers:
#colinpowell
How about we deal with this particular situation instead of falling back on generalities about Iraq (a decade and a different administration ago)? And let’s can the bluster about “Government believers.” If you’re not going to come out and say “sheeple,” you could try for neutral language. 
Nevermind
You’ve already made up your mind that his holiness is without original sin. See how that works?
enlarging the perimeter.
You’re turn. Do you believe that closing 22 embassies in various Islamic countries changes the intent or ability to carry out such an attack? You do realize we’re not allowed to just go around blowing shit up don’t you?
And just to make it clear, there were no direct threats against any embassies.
I thought you were serious for a second there.
When one lacks key information and has to ultimately take Government at their word when they provide information, one has to develop a broad framework for a debate in which veracity of information is determined in degrees and not in absolute terms.
If you are suggesting that your argument is “because US Government says so” then what’s the debate?
If I can point out that US Government has a tendency to develop a complex enemy threat zeitgeist (e.g. 1st Iraq war and BS about scare-level of Elite Revolutionary Guard or enriched uranium story or BS about how leaked documents cause deaths of US persons etc etc etc) in which elusive and only to US Government visible uber-terrorist group – that even when all the information produced is analyzed is of no consequence and of no real threat strength to begin with – makes extraordinary threat in terms of timing and volume then we need to use more than US government news releases to arrive at the probability of veracity of the claims made.
Do I need to go back to Homeland Security Advisory System of color-coded threat levels and remind of similar techniques of increasing general anxiety in the society with nothing to back it up? There are so many examples of threat zeitgeist US Government has manufactured, it could fill a book.
Embassy closings is not an exception – it is US Government notoriety to engage in manipulation for not so obvious (or obvious to you) political reasons.
You can stick to the issue at hand but then there’s no debate. Even though, it would be interesting to read responses if WH was occupied by a Republican.
Obama can’t win.
Post-Benghazi: “Why weren’t the attack threats taken seriously? Why wasn’t embassy security given top priority?”
Now: “How can we bow to terrorists by taking their attack threats seriously?”
I did not suggest anywhere that that was my argument. I’ve talked about what the U.S. government said and did, what other governments did, and what the purposes of those actions could be and what they suggests about what the governments think. I’ll also point out again that you said earlier that there were “no details” about the alleged plot, which suggested the whole thing was fake. Now there are kind of a lot of details. What does that tell you?
And no, saying “Bush Iraq orange terror warning” doesn’t tell us anything about what’s going on here. That’s just vague muttering that’s supposed to sound suspicious.
The main problem is that none of us really know the underlying basis for the threat. I would say a prudent person would conclude that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and be inclined to take the risk to peoples’ lives seriously, because the risk of being wrong is unacceptably high. Meanwhile, the risk of being “suckered” into taking a bogus threat seriously is pretty much zero. Nobody will be hurt. And, more importantly you the argument you’re making, nobody is likely to change their mind on anything. For example, people who support NSA snooping will do so regardless of this threat; people who oppose NSA snooping will oppose it anyway.
The conspiracy theorist line about this threat being manufactured to change people’s minds on NSA snooping doesn’t appear even remotely plausible to me. Who, exactly, has changed their mind because of this reported threat? We have lots of politicians on record for and against NSA programs, show me that some of them have changed their minds.
And then on the other hand, what you (and others) are saying is that you believe the threats are bogus based on the fact that the US Government is talking about the threats. You’re inclined to throw caution to the wind, just because the US Government is saying something. If you are right and the threat is not real, then you can pat yourself on the back and feel smarter than other people. If you are wrong, people – and it sounds like lots of people – will probably die.
You disbelieve the threat reports simply based on the US Government saying there is a threat. This is poor reasoning: how does that Diogenes phrase go, “Just because a fool says the sun is up doesn’t mean that it is actually night?” I note that you’ve also used poor reasoning in arguing that Al Qaeda does not exist, to the laughable extent that you cite an expert who you claimed agreed with you, but I showed that he did not, and you basically argued that his denial was further proof that you were right. Talk about making facts fit your conclusion!
So, in total, you aren’t doing a very good job of laying out a concise, logical reason why people should take your argument seriously, and that this threat is made up.
prove me wrong.
And unfortunately the first effort to change NSA policies failed before the embassy closures were announced.
Ah, yes… the Al Q Conference Call 
A “leak” like that got to be true.
As I sadi earlier… open… just a bit wider than the last time.
In short - gigantic BS!
And you know it’s BS because… ?
There weremultiple attacks in Libya that provided a solid reason for prioritizing upgrades. But governments being what they are operate on their own time schedule so that’s to be expected. The problem with the last attack is that nothing was done to rescue them when assets were available to do so. We have the capacity to insert covert teams and they would be within distance to Benghazi.
To make an analogy, the embassies weren’t given the fire extinguishers they asked for in a timely manner and then were denied help from the fire department when the building caught fire. It’s not a function of arriving too late. It’s a function of never sending them out in the first place.
“Because Al Qaeda doesn’t exist, it’s now a bunch of franchises which are more dangerous. Wait, what? This threat is coming from one of the franchises that I just said is more dangerous? Uhhhhh… must not be a real threat, then. It’s all made up! US is liars!”
“Plus they’ve told us no specifics about what this “threat” is supposed to be… and all these details they keep telling us are obviously fake!”
Have you ever visited a heavily urbanized area? If you had, I wouldn’t have to. You can’t just put a bigger fence around something in the middle of a city. There are roads and other buildings in the way. I suppose we could move all our consular facilities to the suburbs, but I gather they’re where they are for fairly good operational reasons.
Actually you can put a bigger fence around something in the middle of a city. You buy the adjacent property. Embassies are built with the intent of securing the area from attack. But again, you think that taking a couple of days off fixes this then provide an argument that’s realistic.
CIA was on mute.