Why hasn't the Benghazi attack created sympathy for Obama?

[yorick73]

@etv78

The requested security was for Tripoli!

They also requested extra security for Benghazi

[yorick73]

@Lightnin

:rolleyes: right back atcha. I didn’t say the *attack *wasn’t a big deal, I said the right-wing insistence that the President didn’t say the magic words shouldn’t be a big deal. And it shouldn’t be. The only reason it is is because the republican party didn’t have another stick to hit him with.

This “magic words” meme is absolutely ridiculous. Obama vaguely talked about “acts of terror” the day after the attack. His administration then promptly spent the next two weeks trying to convince the country that Benghazi was caused by protests to a YouTube video. Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton, and Jay Carney all claimed the video caused the violence. Here is a sampling of the dissembling.

Now we know that the CIA reported to Washington that there were militant links to the attack within 24 hours. I personally find it hard to believe this cable never reached the White House.

Now we have the State Dept. denying a link between the video and the Benghazi attack?

There is a lack of sympathy for an administration that lied about this attack and has been playing a game of CYA since this started.

[John_Mace]

@pseudotriton_ruber_ruber

What the OP says, however, is that “attacks do good” is certainly the conventional wisdom.

Is it? Any and all attacks? Attacks on a US consulate? How many of those have there been, and how many times did they “do good”?

[elucidator]

Clearly, if Obama had heard even a whisper of the possibility of an attack, he should have closed the Embassy and the consulates and had everyone flee to the helicopters. This would have earned him the enthusiastic and unanimous support of Doper tighty righties.

Me? Tequila and bongwater, why do you ask?

[vaultermn]

@yorick73

Obama vaguely talked about “acts of terror” the day after the attack.

I think people sometimes forget that Obama is a lawyer AND a politician, through and through. The phrasing of that statement wasn’t an accident. It could be spun either way. Had the attack turned out to be rioters that showed up at the wrong address completely on accident, he could deny calling it an act of terror just as easy.

[yorick73]

@vaultermn

I think people sometimes forget that Obama is a lawyer AND a politician, through and through. The phrasing of that statement wasn’t an accident. It could be spun either way. Had the attack turned out to be rioters that showed up at the wrong address completely on accident, he could deny calling it an act of terror just as easy.

Absolutely. He also vaguely talked about the YouTube video in that same speech. He was obviously keeping his options open. That doesn’t bother me nearly as much as the lies told over the following two weeks.

[running_coach]

@yorick73

Absolutely. He also vaguely talked about the YouTube video in that same speech. He was obviously keeping his options open. That doesn’t bother me nearly as much as the lies told over the following two weeks.

He made no mention of the YouTube video. Quote where he did.

[yorick73]

@runner pat

He made no mention of the YouTube video. Quote where he did.

“Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.”

What do you think he was talking about?

[running_coach]

There has been a great deal of general Islam bashing(some of it much deserved) and distrust. Maybe that?
Now explain why it’s significant as to whether or not he mentioned the video. People are dead and you complain about semantics?

[yorick73]

@runner pat

There has been a great deal of general Islam bashing(some of it much deserved) and distrust. Maybe that?

Highly doubtful and you know that. Especially considering the video excuse over the next two weeks. Nice try!

@runner pat

Now explain why it’s significant as to whether or not he mentioned the video. People are dead and you complain about semantics?

I did that in post #26. Whose complaining about semantics? Obama was vague on both the video and the terrorist connection. One day after the attack this does not bother me. I believe he may not have known at that point what caused the attack in Benghazi. It’s the following two weeks that bothers me.

[elucidator]

No, its the following two weeks you hope will bother us.

[jayjay]

CIA Documents Supported Susan Rice’s Description Of Benghazi Attacks

[running_coach]

@yorick73

Highly doubtful and you know that. Especially considering the video excuse over the next two weeks. Nice try!

I did that in post #26. Whose complaining about semantics? Obama was vague on both the video and the terrorist connection. One day after the attack this does not bother me. I believe he may not have known at that point what caused the attack in Benghazi. It’s the following two weeks that bothers me.

Not two weeks. And you have to admit it takes time to get facts and verify them in that part of the world.
Timeline at CNN

September 20 – Jay Carney:

“It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Our embassy was attacked violently, and the result was four deaths of American officials.”

September 20 – President Obama at a town hall meeting organized by the Spanish-language Univision Network, responding to a question about the possible involvement of al Qaeda:

“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.”

September 21 – Hillary Clinton:

“What happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack, and we will not rest until we have tracked down and brought to justice the terrorists who murdered four Americans.”

Eight days.

[elucidator]

Well, now, isn’t this interesting?

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/10/20/1049311/fox-admits-libya-caused-by-video/

Fox Admits Libya Attack May Have Been Caused By Anti-Muslim Video

It appears things are not so cut and dried as we have been told.

…Reporters from both Reuters and the New York Times met with Ahmed Abu Khattala — leader in the Ansar al-Sharia militia suspected by the Libyan and U.S. governments of taking part in the attack — in a Benghazi hotel. While Abu Khattala claimed that he himself did not take part in the assault, he said the attack grew out of a protest against the video…

And this…

…Despite their growing uncertainty, intelligence officials didn’t feel they had enough conclusive, new information to revise their assessment. Ms. Rice wasn’t warned of their new doubts before she went on the air the next morning and spoke of the attacks being spurred by demonstrations, intelligence officials acknowledged.

More information casting doubt on the protest element came in on Sunday morning, around the time that Ms. Rice was completing her TV appearances, the officials said. She began taping the shows early Sunday morning. By the time intelligence analysts began to realize “there’s enough here to build a body of evidence that there probably were not protests, those things were already recorded and she [Ms. Rice] was already out there,” a senior intelligence official said…

(links to sources in cite)

You guys might just want to let this one go.

[jayjay]

Not only that, Issa and the House Republicans stepped on their own dicks again, this time outing Libyan dissidents who had worked with the US.

[yorick73]

@runner pat

Not two weeks. And you have to admit it takes time to get facts and verify them in that part of the world.
Timeline at CNN

Eight days.

They were still blaming the video at that time. This is the beginning of the transition from “the video caused a protest” to “militant terrorists attacked the embassy”.

[Death_of_Rats]

The video DID cause the protest in Libya. As it did in a bunch of other countries. That militants used the protest as a cover for an attack is seperate. Both of those statments are true.

[yorick73]

@Death_of_Rats

The video DID cause the protest in Libya. As it did in a bunch of other countries. That militants used the protest as a cover for an attack is seperate. Both of those statments are true.

There was no protest in Libya…just the attack.

[elucidator]

Well, that certainly settles that!

[Lantern]

A really excellent Q&A about the Benghazi attack by Kevin Drum. Just read the thing; it’s pretty clear that it was a synthetic controversy ginned up to make Obama look bad. It hasn’t really worked though not least because of Romney’s clumsy attack during the last debate. And I doubt it will work if he makes a big issue of it in the last debate because the trend of recent reporting backs the administration.