They’re footnotes in the Wikipedia article. Good Lord, you’re even more of a dumbfuck than I thought.
Classy.
Boner and Glen Beck both.
For one, it means that the fact that the embassy requested more security is irrelevant, since the attack occurred 400 miles away from the embassy.
I don’t know what you think “the protection of foreign soil” is, but the idea that diplomatic missions are sovereign territory of the visiting nation is false.
Having read the article now, I don’t consider it “unilateral” nor is it universal, or indicating a consensus of opinion. First, the questions that Snopes asks are misleading. Why ask if the White House watched a real-time video? Why not ask if they were aware of the attack as it was happening?
Rather than asking if requests for assistance were denied, why not ask why help did not arrive sooner. Tripoli and Sigonella Naval Air Station were approximately 400 - 500 miles away. Why did it take 19 hours for military assistance to arrive?
Snopes cites 2 articles from Forbes. Here are some other titles that Snopes conveniently did not use:
[ul]
[li]Libya timeline suggests cover-up in attack[/li][li]Benghazi Stand Down Denials Don’t Stand Up To Reason[/li][li]Benghazi: A Frankenstorm The Mainstream Media Won’t Cover[/li][li]The Mystery of Benghazi[/li][/ul]
And since the White House denies withholding help, that makes the allegation “undetermined.” Give me a break.
You throw Snopes at me and then vacate my entire posting because Snopes says otherwise. And why haven’t they updated their entry in two weeks? There’s been a lot more information that has come out since then.
I’d rather not use Snopes. That’s the lazy man’s way - letting someone else do the research and thinking for me.
Yup, I’m sure no one else is doing the thinking for you… this is all entirely your own words, they’ve just echoed around a WHOLE lot before you posted them.
Why the ad hominem attack with no substance? Come on, what say you about my questions? Did you read any of the articles I mentioned? What is your reaction?
In international law, there is a term for sending armed military units into a foreign country without the permission of that nation’s government.
That term is “invasion”. Invasion is typically considered an act of war.
So the question you’re asking is, why did the US not declare war on Libya, unilaterally and without an act of Congress or UN approval, on a moment’s notice, at night, with no specific intelligence about who the enemy was, their numbers, or what armament they had, when by all available intelligence the attack was already over by the time anyone in the US was aware an attack was occurring?
September 13 – Jay Carney:
"The protests we’re seeing around the region are in reaction to this movie.
September 12 – Statement by the President on the Attack in Benghazi
“While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants.”
September 16 – Susan Rice
“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
“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.”
Were you not paying attention when all of this was playing out? The White House message clearly began with blaming the attack on the video. Eventually, it became “self-evident” to Jay Carney that it was a terrorist attack.
Not a single one of those quotes says that the attack in Benghazi was specifically linked to the video.
They ask and answer such absurd questions so as to dispel the silly lies that people hear and then repeat and repeat, to the point that many people completely believe those lies because they’ve been repeated so often within their usual agenda-driven echo-chambers.
For example:
Oh, wait, that’s you!
So, let me get this straight… You’re saying it’s *Snopes *that’s being “misleading” by asking and factually answering a question addressing a common lie that you yourself were here trying to perpetuate?!? :smack:
What’s the source for those articles you list? Why no links? Not much to go on if the articles can’t be read.
ETA: In case you didn’t know, the people who run Snopes are Canadian. They have no dog in this fight.
I think I’ve paid closer attention than you. Your level of attention appears to be cutting and pasting excised quotes that other people say is meaningful without reading it yoirself.
The administration has always qualified their statements to indicate that the investigation was ongoing and the information they had was their best guess at the time.
I linked to the full transcript of a couple of these in another thread. You should check them out.
Ambassadors are, essentially, hostages to good intentions. We presume our ambassadors and their staff are held safe by the host country, even if we know better. It is a gesture as well as a statement, it states our trust in the government of the host country. By comparison, our embassy in Iraq is well-fortified. But a well fortified embassy is also a statement, it says “We don’t entirely trust you, and we can pretty much do whatever we please”.
Amb. Stevens was a pro, not a ceremonial ambassador derived from the ranks of privileged political donors, he almost certainly knew what he was risking. In that sense, an ambassador is a bit like a soldier, except that he cannot shoot back.
You are mistaken. The attack lasted 7 hours. The Situation Room was aware of the attack within 2 hours of the beginning of the attack. It took them 19 hours to respond. And we’ve been conducting drone attacks in Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen for a while now. Are those considered invasions?
John Brennan has stated that we may “… use force consistent with our inherent right of national self-defense.”[33]
No, you’re mistaken. The attack on the consulate lasted about an hour and a half, and was followed by a second attack on the CIA annex 5 hours later. The CIA team responded to the attack on the consulate within half an hour and was responsible for ending the first attack. A second team flew in from Tripoli and arrived at about the time the second attack began. By the time the State Department (not “the Situation Room”) was made aware, as far as anyone knew, the attack was over.
Nice try Smapti.
Your puny facts cannot penetrate the massive shielding. It’s composed of pure Ignorantum - nothing can get through. McCain is swathing himself in it as we speak.
ETA: This whole Benghazi thing has become the “new birtherism”. I would not be surprised to see The Donald weighing in at any second.
Drive-By Truckers. Very awsome!
No, they’re an amalgam of articles which I read and synthesized into my own thoughts. I don’t just point to one article and say, “QED”.
No one has to do anything in an effort to make Obama look bad; he can do that all on his own.