# With trepidation, Benghazi **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 2, 2014, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535 "2014-05-02T20:30:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![Lightnin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightnin/32/180_2.png) [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2014, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535/261 "2014-05-07T13:56:34Z")
The thing that baffles me is that the Republicans think anyone should care. _Even if_ the Obama administration lied, fudged the truth, or misled about the attack to make for a smoother election, _so fucking what_? “But it’s a bad thing if the President lies about anything!” No, it really isn’t. You see, there are degrees of lying. Even if the admin lied to sway the election, it doesn’t compare at all to lying about aluminum tubes or WMDs. Those lies, you see, _actually killed thousands of people._ Newsflash, Benghazi nuts- if this is the best you’ve got, you’re pretty damn screwed. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2014, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535/262 "2014-05-07T14:26:28Z")
I’ve already said that this is small potatoes in the grand scheme of things, and that the Republicans shouldn’t put it front and center in the elections. But I think it’s appropriate to try and find out the truth. What did he know, and when did he know it? Just because it’s not the worst lie ever told doesn’t mean it should be ignored. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2014, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535/263 "2014-05-07T14:34:04Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > No, he didn’t. Here is the only passage from [the Rose Garden speech](http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/12/remarks-president-deaths-us-embassy-staff-libya) that mentions the word “terror” (bolding mine): > > **I included the previous two paragraphs to show that thePresident has shifted to the attacks of 9/11. When he did mention “terror” it was not directly related to the Benghazi incident.** The bolded part is patently false and attempts to ignore basic sentence construction and logic as well as the factual order of Mr. Obama’s remarks. His reference to Benghazi comes after the mention of 9/11, showing that thePresident has shifted to the attacks of the previous day. Thus the phrase “acts of terror” clearly and obviously refers to not just 9/11/01 but also the events of 9/11/12. Any other interpretation cannot be reasonably supported. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2014, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535/264 "2014-05-07T14:39:10Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > But I think it’s appropriate to try and find out the truth. What did he know, and when did he know it? Just because it’s not the worst lie ever told doesn’t mean it should be ignored. If anyone can come up with a plausible motive that the administration might have to lie - other than to avoid clueing in the terrorists about the course of the investigation - I might agree with you. ---
**Author:** ![Lightnin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightnin/32/180_2.png) [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2014, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535/265 "2014-05-07T14:40:13Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > But I think it’s appropriate to try and find out the truth. What did he know, and when did he know it? Just because it’s not the worst lie ever told doesn’t mean it should be ignored. Why? _Even if_ the allegations are true, would \*anything \*have played out differently? I contend that it should be ignored- because the cost of the investigations is already into the millions. There should be a point at which scandal-mining becomes too expensive. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2014, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535/266 "2014-05-07T14:53:15Z")
> [@Lightnin](#): > > Why? _Even if_ the allegations are true, would \*anything \*have played out differently? I contend that it should be ignored- because the cost of the investigations is already into the millions. There should be a point at which scandal-mining becomes too expensive. Can you expand on this? When should we stop investigations of presidential administrations lying and doing cover ups? After a certain dollar amount has been spent? What amount? Only if something would “play out differently”, whatever that means? Do you think that administrations should be able to lie freely without being investigated? Do you think this even of Republican administrations? I don’t think anything should come of this, except some shame for the administration and a loss of confidence from the public because of the events and the cover up. I’m not saying we should impeach him or anything. If the administration was honest from the beginning this would already be forgotten. If you’re upset about the spending on the investigation I would argue that’s the fault of the administration, not those seeking to investigate. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2014, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535/267 "2014-05-07T14:57:55Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > When should we stop investigations of presidential administrations lying and doing cover ups? When we realize nothing of the sort happened. A point which was reached long ago, btw. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2014, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535/268 "2014-05-07T14:59:37Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > Yes. They are. They are actually an almost perfect definition of opposites. This is easily the dumbest thing you’ve yet written in this thread. The lack of comprehension exhibited in those 12 words is astounding. ---
**Author:** ![slash2k](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@slash2k](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slash2k)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2014, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535/269 "2014-05-07T15:08:24Z")
[QUOTE=Lamar Mundane] A spontaneous protest and a planned attack are not mutually exclusive. [/QUOTE] > [@Debaser](#): > > Yes. They are. They are actually an almost perfect definition of opposites. “Opposites” and “mutually exclusive” don’t mean the same thing. Those two terms are opposites, but they are not mutually exclusive, because both can happen at the same time in the same place. In fact, that’s precisely what earlier reports believed happened: the terrorists used the cover of a protest to launch their attack. They’d planned the ‘how’ but not the ‘when’; a spontaneous protest similar to that in Cairo gave them the ‘when.’ In fact, a version of that seems to be still very much in play: bad guys had surveilled and planned the attack, but used the video to whip up the fighters and get lots of other people to spontaneously join the assault and looting. That equals a planned attack and spontaneous fury at the same time and same place, hence NOT mutually exclusive. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2014, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535/270 "2014-05-07T15:09:10Z")
So you agree with the statement: “A spontaneous protest and a planned attack are not mutually exclusive.” You sure you know what all those words mean? You can look them up if you need to. ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2014, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535/271 "2014-05-07T15:13:09Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > So you agree with the statement: > > “A spontaneous protest and a planned attack are not mutually exclusive.” > > You sure you know what all those words mean? You can look them up if you need to. Do you know what the term “mutually exclusive” means? From your last two posts on the subject it is pretty clear that you do not. It does not mean the same thing as opposite. You are aware of that aren’t you? ---
**Author:** ![Lightnin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightnin/32/180_2.png) [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2014, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535/272 "2014-05-07T15:17:09Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > Can you expand on this? > > When should we stop investigations of presidential administrations lying and doing cover ups? After a certain dollar amount has been spent? What amount? Only if something would “play out differently”, whatever that means? > > Do you think that administrations should be able to lie freely without being investigated? Do you think this even of Republican administrations? > > I don’t think anything should come of this, except some shame for the administration and a loss of confidence from the public because of the events and the cover up. I’m not saying we should impeach him or anything. If the administration was honest from the beginning this would already be forgotten. If you’re upset about the spending on the investigation I would argue that’s the fault of the administration, not those seeking to investigate. So it’s a bad thing is the Obama administration “lied” about the attack to score political points… but somehow \*not \*a bad thing if the GOP spends millions of dollars to do the same? Again, even if the GOP’s allegations prove to be true, nothing will change. Those people would still have died. The only difference is the Obama administration will look (marginally) bad. Is it worth the millions of taxpayer dollars that have already been spent? If the truth is so important, what about the events which lead us to war? Should we be continually investigating what Bush did or didn’t know, on the off-chance that he knew he was lying? Because compared to that, Benghazi is a blip. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2014, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535/273 "2014-05-07T15:18:27Z")
> [@slash2k](#): > > “Opposites” and “mutually exclusive” don’t mean the same thing. Those two terms are opposites, but they are not mutually exclusive, because both can happen at the same time in the same place. This is silly. Every attack has some spontaneous elements to it. Using this absurd definition you could state that every attack in the history of warfare is spontaneous. > [@](#): > > In fact, that’s precisely what earlier reports believed happened: the terrorists used the cover of a protest to launch their attack. Early reports from the administration. Reports that have turned out to not be correct, since there wasn’t a demonstration in Benghazi like there was at Cairo. > [@](#): > > In fact, a version of that seems to be still very much in play: bad guys had surveilled and planned the attack, but used the video to whip up the fighters and get lots of other people to spontaneously join the assault and looting. Do you have a cite that anyone used the video to get people to spontaneously join in the fighting? People did loot after the attack. I’m sure this was spontaneous. But to say that the attack was a spontaneous riot rather than a planned attack is simply false. You need to really twist the meanings of words to the point of absurdity to make this case. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2014, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535/274 "2014-05-07T15:20:04Z")
> [@Lightnin](#): > > If the truth is so important, what about the events which lead us to war? Should we be continually investigating what Bush did or didn’t know, on the off-chance that he knew he was lying? Because compared to that, Benghazi is a blip. I’ve never argued that Bush shouldn’t be investigated about something because I wanted to save money. Not that I can recall anyway. Do you have an example of me doing this, or did you just make this up? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2014, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535/275 "2014-05-07T15:22:11Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > This is silly. Every attack has some spontaneous elements to it. Using this absurd definition you could state that every attack in the history of warfare is spontaneous. I’m pretty sure he is saying you can have a planned attack \*and \*a spontaneous riot/protest happening simultaneously. ---
**Author:** ![slash2k](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@slash2k](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slash2k)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2014, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535/276 "2014-05-07T15:50:15Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > This is silly. Every attack has some spontaneous elements to it. Using this absurd definition you could state that every attack in the history of warfare is spontaneous. No. “Having spontaneous elements” isn’t the same thing as “occurring simultaneously with a separate event with different origins.” > [@Debaser](#): > > Early reports from the administration. Reports that have turned out to not be correct, since there wasn’t a demonstration in Benghazi like there was at Cairo. Nope, early reports from _everybody._ See, e.g., [Al Jazeera’s initial report](http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/09/20129112108737726.html): > [@](#): > > An armed mob attacked and set fire to the consulate building during a protest against an amateur film deemed offensive to Islam’s prophet, Muhammad, after similar protests in Egypt’s capital. This came from Al Jazeera’s reporter in Benghazi, Suleiman El-Dressi. That same article reported on a British think-tank’s assertion that it was a planned attack, but then went on talk about the movie and the attack in Cairo. > [@Debaser](#): > > Do you have a cite that anyone used the video to get people to spontaneously join in the fighting? People did loot after the attack. I’m sure this was spontaneous. But to say that the attack was a spontaneous riot rather than a planned attack is simply false. You need to really twist the meanings of words to the point of absurdity to make this case. Yes, actually, I do have cites. Some of them have already been given in this thread, but in case you missed it, see e.g. the [AP’s coverage](http://bigstory.ap.org/article/libyan-witnesses-recount-organized-benghazi-attack/): > [@](#): > > But a lawyer passing by the scene said he saw the militants gathering around 20 youths from nearby to chant against the film. See also the [New York Times](http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2013/benghazi/?hp#/?chapt=4): > [@](#): > > A Libyan journalist working for The New York Times was blocked from entering by the sentries outside, and he learned of the film from the fighters who stopped him. Other Libyan witnesses, too, said they received lectures from the attackers about the evil of the film and the virtue of defending the prophet. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2014, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535/277 "2014-05-07T15:51:29Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I’m pretty sure he is saying you can have a planned attack \*and \*a spontaneous riot/protest happening simultaneously. Yeah. The attack in Benghazi and the riot/protest in Cairo. :rolleyes: I’m sure some random people looted afterwards. Maybe some people spontaneously picked up guns and joined in the attack (we haven’t seen a cite for this yet, but it’s possible.) But a few unplanned things in an organized attack don’t stop it from being an organized attack. This was a couple hundred people who planned and showed up with heavy weapons and vehicles. They made an organized attack. It wasn’t a riot or protest that spontaneously got violent. Attempts like that NYTimes article (which we’ve only seen a paragraph of, with no link to the whole article for context) to paint this as spontaneous because of small details like that just serves to provide an excuse to the administration’s spin. ---
**Author:** ![Donald\_Rump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9fc29f/32.png) [@Donald\_Rump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Donald_Rump)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2014, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535/278 "2014-05-07T15:59:43Z")
**Debaser** , can you summarize the current state of our knowledge on the extent of planning that went into the attack? Because as far as I’ve seen, we \*still \*don’t know anything about it being planned (much less, on 9/16/12), except insofar as an attack by “heavily armed extremists” may ipso facto reflect a degree of planning–in which case the attack being “planned” was implicit in Susan Rice’s calling it an attack by heavily armed extremists as opposed to an attack by spontaneous protesters. ---
**Author:** ![Fiddle\_Peghead](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiddle_peghead/32/3506_2.png) [@Fiddle\_Peghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiddle_Peghead)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2014, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535/279 "2014-05-07T16:22:28Z")
Hey **Debaser** , welcome to the club of people here who absolutely refuse to give any creedence to _any_ quote whatsoever that even slightly suggests that the video may have played a role in the attack. Why can you not acknoweldge that these reports were made by the various media organizations because of evidence they had at the time? ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2014, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535/280 "2014-05-07T16:31:30Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > I’m sure some random people looted afterwards. Maybe some people spontaneously picked up guns and joined in the attack (we haven’t seen a cite for this yet, but it’s possible.) > > But a few unplanned things in an organized attack don’t stop it from being an organized attack. This was a couple hundred people who planned and showed up with heavy weapons and vehicles. They made an organized attack. It wasn’t a riot or protest that spontaneously got violent. Attempts like **that NYTimes article (which we’ve only seen a paragraph of, with no link to the whole article for context)** to paint this as spontaneous because of small details like that just serves to provide an excuse to the administration’s spin. [Here’s a link to the NY Times article, _A Deadly Mix in Benghazi_ by David D. Kirkpatrick](http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2013/benghazi/?hp#/?chapt=0). Here’s a relevant quote; please note the last sentence: > [@](#): > > Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault. The attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO’s extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535.md?page=15)