Libya "scandal" - what motivation is suspected?

Well if you venture into rightwing loonyland you’ll find that Christopher Stevens KNEW TOO MUCH and Obama had to have him killed. He was going to tell all on Obama’s Muslims ties and had to go like Breitbart and Whitney Houston.

I think it was totally unfair to the terrorists not to keep them up to date on our evidence.

“We are still investigating”, yeah, thanks a lot. Are you onto us or not? Should we be hiding somewhere else? Don’t keep us in the dark here man. Look, just tell Romney, and he’ll let us know.

Exactly. That alludes to a good reason why this whole “not on my watch scorecard” notion is so flawed. We the public will NEVER KNOW about many foiled attacks (foiled by the FBI, CIA…), because it is in our interest to keep the bad guys in the dark about some of our security methods, and also to refrain from giving bad guys even the muted “glory” of publicity after a foiled plot.

I can’t see that Obama ever claimed the WoT had been “won”. Maybe you could link to a specific quote that Obama made which supports the claim that he did.

I don’t agree with all of what Feaver says, just the part about the Obama administration wanting to push a certain narrative and not letting anything step on that narrative. Obama really needs credibility in the war on terror, which is why they went with the most politically convenient explanation.

They shot first, aimed later.

It wasn’t a Michael Moore movie he was blaming either…win, win.

Shift any suggestion of blame away from you… and toward those who aren’t adequately sympathetic toward the feelings of terrorists.

My take, as a (moderate) liberal who sat in an office full of conservatives watching Fox News while this story unfolded:

Some middle-easterners attacked and killed some Americans. The only reason that can happen, ever, is terrorism, since all muslims are terrorists in the conservative eye. Remember the Fort Hood shooting? A guy with a funny sounding name shot some Americans, and conservatives were in an uproar because it was obvious to them that he was a muslim terrorist. The media, meanwhile, reported the incident as the actions of a troubled individual, since that’s what all the evidence pointed to at the time. This wasn’t good enough for the folks at Fox News, who were chomping at the bit to use the big T word.

The Libya attacks were a repeat; everyone at Fox News just knew it was terrorism, almost instinctively, and they couldn’t roll their eyes enough at the lamestream media for waiting for facts to come in, and/or for coming to the more realistic conclusion that the attacks had a lot to do with all the other riots going on in the middle east. And then Nobama gets up there and doesn’t directly say that it was a terrorist attack. Did you see that? That guy is so stupid! How does he not know that this is a terrorist attack when it’s so obvious to all of us, and we don’t even have access to the classified information that he’s looking at! How can he be so dense?!?! How did anyone vote for this moron!?!?!!?

Anyway, that’s my take on it. I don’t think Fox was suggesting that it was a cover-up at the time, or that Obama was trying to spin it some way for some reason. It was mostly just an attack on his intelligence (both personally and, I guess, militarily).

To add to that, the “scandal” now would be that Obama is trying to rewrite history and claim that he knew it was a terrorist attack all along, in order to cover for his previous stupidity.

Adaher, What?, you seem to be taking the homeopathic approach to argument. Approximately one molecule of evidence to every liter of insinuation. Trouble is, at that level of purity, the actual molecule of evidence becomes very difficult to identify. Perhaps that explains your reluctance to do so.

When, exactly, has Obama expressed any “sympathy” for Muslim terrorists? Was it during the “Apology tour”? Well, OK, when did that take place and what was said? Or was it some other statement or action on his part? Was it when Islamic funeral rites were performed on ObL’s body before we chucked him to feed the fishes? Is it Obama’s refusal to have my Congressman, the Hon. Keith Ellison, arrested for treason?

I realize you are operating under several disadvantages, and I am inclined to be generous. Such secret skulduggery is often hard to identify. Democrats are such crafty buggers when it comes to conspiracy. But can you offer us at least that one molecule of evidence? Anything at all, really.

I promise to give it all the attention and respect it deserves.

Look, does anybody here seriously believe the Obama Admin is in any way sympathetic to Islamist terrorists? Seriously?

This. I follow Obama as much as anyone, and I don’t think he ever even* implied *that Bin Ladin’s death was the end of terrorism.

Well, when you’ve utterly lost the argument, I suppose resorting to bumper-sticker nonsense is a way to go.

I think this is pretty much it. While no one claimed that OBL’s death meant the end of the war on terror, an AQ attack claiming the life of a US ambassador would tend to diminish the significance of OBL’s death, which gave the Administration a motivation to portray it differently.

[FTR, I agree that this is a plausible motivation and may well have happened for all I know, but haven’t looked at such evidence as there is closely enough to have a clear opinion as to whether it actually did.]

A corrolary to this is the otherwise-unrelated issue of consulate security. Here too the thinking is that the Administration may have down-played the potency of AQ at this time, and therefore undercut security. [I’m more skeptical of this angle.]

There is no evidence it was AQ, is there?

Correct me if I’m wrong but what you seem to want to imply here is that an organized, pre-planned attack could have been intercepted or stopped in some way. Is that correct?

It’s in that same speech where he claimed to be the Messiah.

Absolutely classic. Good one adaher!

Rove would be proud as punch. You’ve taken thecriticism of Romney when he shot off his mouth before the bodies were even cold, and in the total absence of facts…

And turned it around onto the very man who made that criticism of Romney in the first place!

A beautiful piece of work - consider your application to Fox accepted!

I don’t know of anyone here who would take that position. However, there certainly are members of the general public who think that is the case. My guess is the Romney people see some benefit in throwing some red meat to those folks.

And the way the Romney campaign jumped all over this initially was because they saw it as an opportunity for Mitt to go in front of the cameras talking about a national security issue in the hope it would make him look presidential. The refusal to let it die is because they think there is a chance it will make the President look bad in the eyes of independent voters.

What if it turned out to be a preplanned attack, but not by a group previously known as a terrorist group? For example, what if one of the various militias nominally keeping the peace decided to do it? Are we to then label all of the militias terrorists? What if the video was part of the motivation?

By definition it was an act of terror, and those responsible are terrorists because they committed that act. That really was not ever in question. What was in question was the nature of the group (known terrorists, rogue militia, etc), their motivation, and the degree of planning.

It would have been irresponsible for Obama to come out and give us (and the terrorists) all the evidence as it was collected, thus alerting and helping the terrorists. It would have been irresponsible for Obama to come out immediately with the conclusion that it was a known terrorist group (potentially implying that all militias are terrorist groups).

This is a Fox News attack almost as dumb as the birther attacks. I’m surprised Romney is dumb enough to fall for it. Not that there is nothing to criticize about what happened, but the specific attacks made by Romney and Fox are very stupid.

From adaher’s earlier NYT link - nope, it’s pretty unlikely.