So your answer is to lay blame on the CIA, something about Trump, and what do you expect, mind-readers!?!
How about some critical thinking skills and common sense on behalf of the President and Secretary of the State at the time. It was the anniversary of 911. A sustained attack on our consulate that left our Ambassador and a diplomat dead, along with two Navy Seals. In a country we took an active part in invading, or at the very least, actively participated in overthrowing.
Instead of looking at the obvious, they choose to look at it as being our fault, or the fault of a movie that incited those against us to riot. To further that cause they put up a stooge to hammer home that narrative on every network and person that would let her speak and continued to do so long after everyone else had realized the obvious.
If it were so fluid and unknown, why put out any narrative at all, let alone the one that made it look like it was our fault, and not the fault of who it ultimately was, terrorists. Like damn near everyone thought at the time.
But hey, water under the bridge, what possible difference does it make now.
I’m guessing you’re a Trump supporter. Because wiping his ass with the CIA assessment and going with what he read on Drudge sounds exactly like something he would do.
I guess you forgot that it was a known, verified fact at that time that other attacks on other embassies/consulates (including in Cairo on Sept 11) during that same period were, without doubt, inspired by that video. Or if you’re a faithful Fox News viewer, you didn’t forget that; you never knew it.
You’ve been told by assholes like Hannity that Obama was repeating the video theory weeks later, for example in his speech at the UN. In fact, Obama was referring to those other, verified attacks on embassies when he mentioned the video.
So tell me, genius: you know for a fact that an attack in Cairo, on Sep 11, was a reaction to the video, and the CIA is telling you that its best guess is that the attack in Benghazi was, too. Do you really just ignore the CIA, and use your “critical thinking skills” to go on nationwide TV and spout an unverifed and unsupported theory that contradicts your intelligence experts?
So in the UK, given that May was responsible for the Interior for the past 9 years IIRC and therefore, gave the orders to slash Police funds - which experts Attribute to lack of surveillance in Connection with the recent London Bridge attacks- will May step down?
(Or will the Tories just backstab her for losing the election in such a spectacular manner?)
It’s that whole “Democracy” thing, really. When you go out and say “I want to do this and this and that, I need the House to back me up, ARE YOU WITH MEEEE ?!”, and the answer is a resounding “Fuck no !”, it’s a bit of a hint (said he in typical British understatement).
For the life of me I can’t figure out the point of this post.
You asked a question, “Didn’t the administration immediately blame that anti-Islam filmmaker, knowing full well he had shit all to do with the attack?”
The answer to that question is, “No.”
Do you think that link supports an answer of, “Yes,” or, “No”? You didn’t say and I don’t think it supports either.
I voted for him, if that’s what you mean. Hillary was a no-way in hell vote no matter what (Not that I’m inclined to vote Democratic much these days anyways as they lost me years ago, but I don’t rule it out in the future given the right candidate).
I support in him in that I want our country to do well, regardless. Much like I supported Obama in office, despite disagreeing with much of what he did.
So in that sense I agree with what you said.
Now you’re starting to lose me. But…
I do know that, believe it or not. Although I’d consider those more protests than attacks.
From the New York Times “Hundreds of protesters marched to the fortresslike embassy in downtown Cairo, gathering outside its walls and chanting slogans against the movie, whose origins are mysterious but which was reportedly produced in the United States.”cite
Compared to Benghazi when "On Sept. 11, 2012, heavily armed Islamist militants launched an organized attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, setting fire to buildings before all U.S. personnel could escape or reinforcements could arrive. The attackers later launched mortar rounds at a nearby CIA compound."cite
In one instance they climbed the walls bitched and yelled and condemned a movie against islam. In another they launched mortar attacks and killed anyone they saw.
I guess our definitions of ‘protest’ and ‘attack’ differs.
Now you lost me. I guess that happens when you only get your information from MSNBC.
I don’t remember him saying we were headed for “utter ruin”, I think (and agree) we were heading in the wrong direction - ie, a United States that apologized to and appeased everyone in sight.
Hi didn’t say “headed”, he said the country is a disaster, “utter ruin” means approximately the same thing.
Don’t play that trick of pretending you don’t understand what was said or change the phrasing.
Why is it people on your side aren’t content with what’s said, you have to transform it, transmogrify it, hyperbolize it?
Because you have to make it so ridiculous that nobody in their right mind could look at the original comments and come to the same conclusions you did? You have to spin it that hard?
God damn what a dishonest means of discussion and discourse.
Yes the country was headed in the wrong direction. Yes our foreign policy (and in particular our reaction and immediate response to the attack on our Libyan consulate (headed first-most and foremost by our Secretary of State Clinton) was a disaster. I don’t disagree with that in the slightest.
He was and is absolutely right.
A sign of our “utter ruin”? No. Completely different things.
…Yes, apart from the utter annihilation of the US as the leader of the free world, the rapid deterioration of our standing with our allies, the extreme political and legislative deterioration of the country (“WHO THE FUCK THOUGHT THIS WAS A GOOD IDEA?!” being the main refrain of basically every significant legislative move by the republican party as of late), we’re doing just fine, and if it weren’t for the left pointing to every batshit crazy thing Trump does and saying, “Whoa, that’s batshit crazy,” we’d be just fine!
That wasn’t the United States under Obama. Not by a long shot. I have no idea how you reached that conclusion, short of buying into the asinine “apology tour” myth. But if you look at Trump’s recent speeches in the Middle East, you’ll find what “appeasement” looks like. Compared to Obama’s speeches to the Muslim world, this is weak sauce. The only way you can get here is by mistaking “diplomacy” with “appeasement”.
But hey, now we’re not appeasing everyone. Or doing any sort of rational diplomacy, for that matter. Now we’re just alienating all our allies, and displaying an utterly rudderless course that has Trump doing things like demanding massive (and senseless) concessions from China, then dropping them without further thought the moment he speaks to the Chinese president.
“Utter ruin” was not applied to the Benghazi attack.
I linked to numerous examples of Trump using the word “disaster” to describe the state the country is in. “Utter ruin” is close enough in meaning to be interchangeable.
So what would your response have been to the attack?
Huh. I felt the same way when Obama did the apology to the world tour telling everyone around us we weren’t worthy, we deserved all the disrespect and criticism we got.
Difference of opinion I guess. I happen to think we are still the leader of the free world.
What part of that do you blame on Obama and our lack of leadership, action, or anything whatsoever on the invasion of the Ukraine, the appeasement of Iran, our lack of backbone on a definitive red line on Syria?
Now now, be fair. Trump did get concessions from the Chinese and other countries - licenses to open his Hotels there.
And his course is not completly unpredictable. It may look like zig-zagging tantrums of a toddler who is cranky when Twitter is mean to him - but if you know that Putin is one of his best buddies, and that spending Money at his Hotel/ allowing him to build a Hotel in your Country is the way to Trumps heart, you can predict … at least some of his moves.
This is and remains a myth. But even if it were true, remember that Obama took office after 8 years of Bush, who was widely (and justifiably) seen as a fucking disaster for US relations in the world. Owning up to the role of the US in things like the Iraq war, or admitting we acted like absolute pricks to our allies in Europe because they didn’t want to rush into Iraq is not somehow “telling the world we aren’t worthy” - particularly not when it’s immediately followed by pointing out reflexive anti-americanism.
But it takes a real lack of understanding to compare the diplomacy of Obama and Trump (or for that matter Obama and Bush) and assert that the former came up short. Obama’s reception on the world stage was almost universally seen as an improvement over Bush. Our allies loved him. Our enemies were at least willing to work with him - see also the Iran deal and our attempts at diplomacy with Russia. Now, look at Trump. Within the first few months of office, he’s pissed off several major allies to the point where they no longer want to share counterterrorism intelligence with him - including potentially jeapordizing the lives of Israeli counterintelligence operatives. He’s pulled out of a non-binding treaty to address global warming, one signed by all but two other countries. The response from our allies has been near-universal condemnation.
Or, to put this in stark relief: how crazy do you think FOX News would have gone if Angela Merkel had said this back in 2009 after some major diplomatic Faux Pas from Obama:
“The times in which we can fully count on others are somewhat over, as I have experienced in the past few days. And so, all I can say is that we Europeans must really take our destiny into our own hands.”
The international community loved Obama so much that he got a Nobel Prize basically just for existing.
Let’s start with the easy one: Iran. That was not a bilateral deal; the reason it came together in the first place was that much of the rest of the world was sick of the sanctions and dropping them anyways. This was not “appeasement”. This was the best deal we could make to help prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Obama doesn’t get blame for that diplomacy, he gets praise for that.
As for the rest, my impression is that most of the world is pretty happy that the USA didn’t launch headlong into another freakin’ war, but the red line was a clear diplomatic failure, I’ll freely admit that.
The red line comment definitely made us look weak (you know, about as weak as the world’s most dominant military superpower can look). Ukraine I’m not too sure about; I didn’t follow the story closely. Reviews seem mixed.
Tell that to Trey frickin’ Gowdy. It was your party that turned Benghazi into a gigantic witch hunt, trying desperately to pin the blame on, well, us.