You need to look at the dictionary definition of “most” it does not mean all, and it is a very logical assumption for terrorists to make, it does not mean that they know who exactly we are looking for.
They could have said that it was a terrorist attack and they were trying to figure out who was responsible. It would have been both true and would not have compromised any intelligence sources.
The real issue is this:
the POTUS and his staff knew of the attack within an hour. They decided that the best course of action would be to do nothing. In effect, they wrote off Ambassador Stevens and the others as “bumps in the road”. Then, they released several contradictory stories about what happened-first they blamed the riot on an anti-muslim film clip that nobody had heard of…then they decide that Al Queda was responsible. They described the riot as a mob of unarmed people…then they admitted that heavy weapons were involved. The refusal to release the truth is the biggest issue here…there is also the issue of who was making the decisions that were made.
The reality is that that rotten point only works if there was no reply made, as it turns out there was. There were really 2 attacks one to the consulate and to an intelligence compound.
A lot of the time what happens is someone repeats the RW media’s take, and when they are proven wrong they just ignore it and change the subject. This isn’t productive in the fight against ignorance.
Wow, this show you have no grasp on the facts at all. By that point the film was well known. There had already been demonstrations in several Mideast countries at that point.
Was there any evidence at all to link the video with the attack? I understand that there had been demonstrations in other countries but it seems odd that the administration stayed with the “it was the video’s fault” line. Carney’s statement that “we don’t have and did not have concrete evidence to suggest that this [the Benghazi attack] was not in reaction to the film” seems ridiculous to me. They apparently didn’t have concrete evidence that the video was the cause of the attack either but that didn’t keep them from repeating it for 2 weeks.
Wow, pretty much everything in this is wrong. I don’t recall you being this… Hmm, is there a word between republican and deluded I could use here? Deludican? Meh, sounds too much like pelican. Keep in mind that sarcasm really doesn’t transfer well online…
Yes. Apparently Snopes, one of the most famous hoax-debunking sites on the internet, is actually a completely subpar source, on par with Russian newspapers or World Net Daily. Good to know.
Oh, you’re not familiar with that meme/Republican talking point? Snopes is totally a left-wing front site, you can tell because it debunks more Obama myths than Bush ones.
Not that there are about seven hojillion more stupid lies about Obama out there than any previous president or anything.
*the witnesses on the ground as well as the actual participants in the attack said it was about the video. they attacked because they were pissed off america let people talk shit about their prophet. *
I’ve actually been seeing a lot of refusal to accept the word of any fact check sites by the more virulent right wingers these days. Not just Snopes, but also Politifact and Factcheck.org.
Lord have mercy! I would think that as a member of the “Straight Dope” community, you would surely be well informed, but when you quote Teabilly conspiracy theory babble from the likes of Faux News, I’m not only mystified but I’m at a shock for words…
