# 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:** 15
**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, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535/281 "2014-05-07T16:37:18Z")
> [@Donald\_Rump](#): > > **Debaser** , can you summarize the current state of our knowledge on the extent of planning that went into the attack? I’ll repost what I posted in the old thread back in Oct about a month after the attack: > [@The second presidential debate: 10/16/2012](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-second-presidential-debate-10-16-2012/637847/923): > > [Boston Globe Today](http://www.boston.com/politicalintelligence/2012/10/17/debate-president-obama-and-mitt-romney-leave-out-libya-details/RctYXwbiSV2NoznKJgVSVP/story.html) > > > [@](#): > > > > During a congressional hearing last week, State Department officials said there was no video protest in Benghazi. > > > > While Obama did call the attack an act of terror almost right away, for days afterward his administration also provided an account of events in Benghazi that proved false. > > [Lindsey Graham on the 15th of this month](http://www.greenvilleonline.com/article/20121015/NEWS/310150009/Graham-criticizes-administration-Libya-attack?odyssey=nav%7Chead) > > > [@](#): > > > > Graham, a Seneca Republican who is a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said on CBS’ “Face the Nation” that there never was a riot at the embassy, the attack lasted six hours or more, and the administration knew all of that within 24 hours. > > > > “But the administration officials and Obama himself kept talking about an attack inspired by a video,” Graham said. > > [Romney, during the debate said it.](http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/decision2012/2012-presidential-debate-president-obama-and-mitt-romneys-remarks-at-hofstra-university-on-oct-16-running-transcript/2012/10/16/be8bfb9a-17dd-11e2-9855-71f2b202721b_story_4.html) > > > [@](#): > > > > And there was no demonstration involved. It was a terrorist attack and it took a long time for that to be told to the American people. > > Obama didn’t challenge this. It’s not in dispute, except I guess to those of you who don’t know. So back then it was clear to a lot of people a month after the event that there was no demonstration. Romney knew it at the debate and said so. I’m not sure why people now a year later still don’t know this. I blame polarization of the media. If you only get your news from left wing sources you probably never heard the truth. > [@](#): > > 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. Yes, Rice was spinning away. She mentioned the “heavily armed extremists”, which does indicate planning. But as the talking points email points out her message was definitely focused on the video and the demonstrations. Her story was basically that there was a demonstration which led to a riot which led to heavily armed people showing up and attacking. This wasn’t true. The attack was planned and wasn’t born from a demonstration. Whether this was just the usual administration spin or crossed the threshold into lying is up to interpretation. For me, it crosses that line. They had a narrative that they needed to spin for the election and they let it get in the way of the truth. ---
**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, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535/282 "2014-05-07T16:56:16Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > I’ll repost what I posted in the old thread back in Oct about a month after the attack: > > So back then it was clear to a lot of people a month after the event that there was no demonstration. Romney knew it at the debate and said so. I’m not sure why people now a year later still don’t know this. I blame polarization of the media. If you only get your news from left wing sources you probably never heard the truth. You can’t be serious here. My question for you is, in light of on-the-ground reporting provided by the media reports cited on this page, why did Romney and Sen. Graham lie about the non-existence of a protest, and then continue to lie about it for weeks afterward??? I mean, the irony here is so deliciously savorable here I could practically skip my lunch over it. You’re sitting here accusing the administration of lying for political purposes when the only evidence we have is that it was in fact his opponents who did so. I asked you for evidence that the attack was preplanned, and your answer is a couple mendacious quotes from politicians on the other side of the aisle. Unbelievable. As for the State Department officials who said there was no protest–some said there was one, some said not. I’m asking what basis you have for alleging that it was a lie, a bald-faced lie, to say that there was a protest. > [@Debaser](#): > > Yes, Rice was spinning away. She mentioned the “heavily armed extremists”, which does indicate planning. But as the talking points email points out her message was definitely focused on the video and the demonstrations. Her story was basically that there was a demonstration which led to a riot which led to heavily armed people showing up and attacking. This wasn’t true. The attack was planned and wasn’t born from a demonstration. I don’t know if my question was poorly phrased or if you’re choosing not to answer. Let me try again. What evidence did we have on 9/16 indicating that the attack was planned (other than in whatever trivial sense is implicit in saying it was a heavily armed attack)? When Bob Schieffer [asked](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/face-the-nation-transcripts-september-16-2012-libyan-pres-magariaf-amb-rice-and-sen-mccain/2/)Susan Rice point-blank, “Was this planned for months in advance?” what possible answer could she have honestly given at that time other than, “We don’t believe so based on what we know, but maybe the investigation will turn something up,” which is exactly what she said? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2014, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535/283 "2014-05-07T17:03:05Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > She mentioned the “heavily armed extremists”, which does indicate planning. I guess the presence of armed Tea Party types at the Cliven Bundy demonstration indicates planning for an attack on the US Government, then? ---
**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, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535/284 "2014-05-07T17:04:32Z")
Bob Somerby at the Daily Howler is his usually insightful self on the lastest on [Benghazi](http://dailyhowler.blogspot.com/2014/05/this-just-in-on-benghazi-front.html). > [@](#): > > Susan Rice said, again and again, that she was giving a preliminary account of what happened—that the investigation would continue. When an official keeps saying that the facts have not been established, Republicans and journalists shouldn’t pretend that she made the opposite claim. > > Susan Rice didn’t say that a bunch of protestors staged the killing attack. Simply put, she didn’t say that on the Sunday programs for which she has been reviled. John McCain and others invented that claim. Our “journalists” began to recite. > > Susan Rice didn’t deny that terrorists staged the attack. When Bob Schieffer directly asked if al Qaeda had staged the attack, she said that might be the case. She said it may have been “al Qaeda affiliates,” or even “al Qaeda itself.” This statement was instantly disappeared in service to McCain’s narrative. I think it is safe to say that you could subsititute the names of certain people here for “Republicans and journalists” and “John McCain” in the quote, and have an accurate picture of where they are coming from. They are “pretending” and “reciting”, refusing to acknowledge the evidence available at the time supported what Rice said. **Debaser, Magiver** , care to respond? ---
**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, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535/285 "2014-05-07T17:26:22Z")
[QUOTE=Donald Rump] 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) [/quote] I’ll try this again. It amazes me that even now people feel so passionately about this but can’t be bothered to get awareness of the basic facts about what happened. [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benghazi_attack) has a good page on the attack. Let’s start there. First, the attack itself: > [@](#): > > Between 125 and 150 gunmen, “some wearing the Afghan-style tunics favored by Islamic militants,” are reported to have participated in the assault. Some had their faces covered and wore flak jackets. Weapons they used during the attack included rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs), hand grenades, AK-47 and FN F2000 NATO assault rifles, diesel canisters, mortars, and heavy machine guns and artillery mounted on gun trucks. > [@](#): > > The assault began at nightfall, with the attackers sealing off streets leading to the main compound with gun trucks. > [@](#): > > About 9:40 pm (local time) large numbers of armed men shouting “Allāhu Akbar” descended on the compound from multiple directions. The attackers lobbed grenades over the wall and entered the compound under a barrage of automatic weapons fire and RPGs, backed by truck-mounted artillery and anti-aircraft machine guns. > [@](#): > > The attackers entered the main building and rattled the locked metal grille of the safe haven. They carried jerrycans of diesel fuel, spread the fuel over the floor and furniture, and set fires. > [@](#): > > Just after midnight, an attack on the CIA annex began, which included machine gun, rocket and mortar fire. > [@](#): > > “Benghazi: The Definitive Report” claims that just under 100 attackers were killed. This doesn’t sound planned to you? They lost 100 men out of 150, yet they still were fighting? That’s dedication for a bunch of protesters. It’s also an amazing group of protesters that had anti-aircraft guns and mortars. They blocked off the streets and cleared the area before the attack. This takes planning. They attacked from all directions all at once. This was planned. They brought gas to burn people out of the safe room. Planned. Here’s some more info from the wiki page: > [@](#): > > David Kirkpatrick of the New York Times reported that 20-year-old neighbor Mohamed Bishari witnessed the attack. According to Bishari, it was launched without warning or protest and was led by the Islamist militia Ansar al-Sharia There was no protest. There was no spontaneous riot. It was an organized attack. Do you seriously dispute this? ---
**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, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535/286 "2014-05-07T17:42:24Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > 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? Do you have an example of me accusing \*you \*of doing so, or did you just make this up? 'Cause you see, that debating tactic don’t fly 'round these parts. But let’s see it. Let’s see you shout from the rooftops that Bush should be investigated for years as to whether he knew there were WMDs. Because if you want further investigation of Benghazi- despite the millions that have already been spent and the approximately 50 congressional hearings, briefings, and interviews we’ve seen so far- then surely the previous President’s actions which directly led to the death of thousands would be even more pressing. Let’s see you start threads on the subject. Let’s see you argue incessantly that we simply don’t know all of the veracity of Bush’s beating of the war drums. I’m sure, though, that you won’t. Because it’s not about the investigation, it’s about the political grandstanding. Amirite? ---
**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, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535/287 "2014-05-07T17:44:40Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > I’ll try this again. It amazes me that even now people feel so passionately about this but can’t be bothered to get awareness of the basic facts about what happened. > > [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benghazi_attack) has a good page on the attack. Let’s start there. > > First, the attack itself: > > This doesn’t sound planned to you? They lost 100 men out of 150, yet they still were fighting? That’s dedication for a bunch of protesters. It’s also an amazing group of protesters that had anti-aircraft guns and mortars. > > They blocked off the streets and cleared the area before the attack. This takes planning. > > They attacked from all directions all at once. This was planned. They brought gas to burn people out of the safe room. Planned. > > Here’s some more info from the wiki page: > There was no protest. There was no spontaneous riot. It was an organized attack. Do you seriously dispute this? Can we just establish something explicitly here? **Neither I nor anyone on this board says the attack was carried out by protesters, nor did Susan Rice ever say it.** Can you agree to that statement? If not, perhaps you can provide a link to a post on this thread or a direct quote from Susan Rice proving otherwise. Because in the world I live in, Susan Rice said it was heavily armed extremists. If you can’t agree on this basic point then further discussion of this matter is probably futile because we might as well live in alternate realities. Ok, so now that we’re talking about attackers and _not_ protesters, I’m asking you a separate question about the extent of planning by the attackers, and what was known about that planning by the attackers as of 9/16. If you’re saying that by definition, “heavily armed attack” = “planned,” then, trivially, Susan Rice effectively said it was planned. Right? But I suspect that’s not your beef with her. _Your_ beef is that she refused to commit to the following proposition: “Yes, Bob, it was clearly planned weeks or months in advance.” My simple–mind-numbingly simple–question for you is, **What was the evidence available to the WH on 9/16 that the attack was planned for weeks or months in advance?** ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2014, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535/288 "2014-05-07T17:45:09Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > There was no protest. There was no spontaneous riot. It was an organized attack. Do you seriously dispute this? What difference does it make? And, I’m pretty sure the administration acknowledged this by calling it an attack by armed extremists. I’m sorry, but you’re not making your point clear. ---
**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, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535/289 "2014-05-07T17:48:58Z")
> [@Lightnin](#): > > Do you have an example of me accusing \*you \*of doing so, or did you just make this up? 'Cause you see, that debating tactic don’t fly 'round these parts. > > But let’s see it. Let’s see you shout from the rooftops that Bush should be investigated for years as to whether he knew there were WMDs. Because if you want further investigation of Benghazi- despite the millions that have already been spent and the approximately 50 congressional hearings, briefings, and interviews we’ve seen so far- then surely the previous President’s actions which directly led to the death of thousands would be even more pressing. Let’s see you start threads on the subject. Let’s see you argue incessantly that we simply don’t know all of the veracity of Bush’s beating of the war drums. > > I’m sure, though, that you won’t. Because it’s not about the investigation, it’s about the political grandstanding. Amirite? Great. You know what you just did? Now this thread is about Bush and Iraq. Here’s my answer: We don’t need to spend millions and have dozens of hearings at this point do investigate the WMDs in Iraq. We know what happened already. What would be the point? Also, have you missed my repeated posts that I do agree that the Republicans should probably drop this before the elections and that I don’t think it’s that big of a deal? My repeated posts here are more out frustration dealing with the people who still after all this time are in denial that a planned attack even occurred. That’s simply amazing to me. This board is supposed to be about fighting ignorance, but that’s just wallowing in it. ---
**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, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535/290 "2014-05-07T17:56:46Z")
> [@Donald\_Rump](#): > > Can we just establish something explicitly here? > > **Neither I nor anyone on this board says the attack was carried out by protesters, nor did Susan Rice ever say it.** From the talking points memo: > [@](#): > > The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations. Susan Rice on the Sunday shows: > [@](#): > > Based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy—sparked by this hateful video. But soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that-- in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent." “We do not-- we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.”"I think it’s clear that there were extremist elements that joined in and escalated the violence. Whether they were al Qaeda affiliates, whether they were Libyan-based extremists or al Qaeda itself I think is one of the things we’ll have to determine. > [@Donald Rump](#): > > My simple–mind-numbingly simple–question for you is, > > **What was the evidence available to the WH on 9/16 that the attack was planned for weeks or months in advance?** Your simple question has some moving goalposts, because it started as this: > [@Donald Rump](#): > > Debaser, can you summarize the current state of our knowledge on the extent of planning that went into the attack? I’ve answered your question twice, so I don’t think a third time will help. Let me ask you a question: You said “Because as far as I’ve seen, we still don’t know anything about it being planned”. Do you still stand by this? Was the attack planned or not? ---
**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, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535/291 "2014-05-07T18:02:53Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > We don’t need to spend millions and have dozens of hearings at this point do investigate the WMDs in Iraq. We know what happened already. > > What would be the point? Great. Now apply the analogy. ---
**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, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535/292 "2014-05-07T18:30:50Z")
> [@](#): > > The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations. You seem to think it somehow defies the laws of logic and/or physics that there was a brewing protest, and that Muhammad al-Jihadi and his buddies–who may or may not have also been pissed about the video, but probably \*were \* pissed because why would they of all people have the broadness of mind to be any less irate than the rest?–said, “you know what, as Sly Stone said there’s a riot goin’ on and it’s time we go and give these Americans what for, once and for all.” Why do you suppose it’s impossible that this is how it happened? I just don’t understand where you’re coming from on this one. I’m sorry. > [@Debaser](#): > > From the talking points memo: > I’ve answered your question twice, so I don’t think a third time will help. Let me ask you a question: > > You said “Because as far as I’ve seen, we still don’t know anything about it being planned”. Do you still stand by this? Was the attack planned or not? I don’t mean to move goalposts. My earlier iteration of the question was obviously poorly worded. What I’ve been after all along, on this whole God forsaken thread, is to understand what basis we have for saying Susan Rice lied. Saying something that later turns out to be untrue is not lying. Saying something one _knows_ to be untrue is lying. I want to know how Susan Rice was lying. Your Wikipedia excerpts tell me about the nature of the attack. They don’t tell me about the extent of long-term planning. If you’re saying, an attack of this sort \*by definition \*requires weeks or months of planning, then I’ll grant that’s a valid argument (though I’m not sure how to assess whether that’s true). But, again, if that’s true then it was _implicit_ in what Susan Rice said, and therefore she can’t possibly be said to be lying. So, I only see three possibilities here. Either: 1. It’s trivially true that it was planned (because the attack was ipso facto evidence of planning) and hence there’s no real controversy because Susan Rice didn’t conceal the nature of the weaponry involved; 2. It was launched more or less without long-term planning (i.e., planned out sometime that very day); or 3. It was launched with long-term planning, contrary to what Susan Rice said.\* My question to you is, is (3) the case and how do we know it? Did Susan Rice know it on 9/16? \*Although, for the umpteenth time, she didn’t categorically say it wasn’t long-term planned. She said we don’t know yet. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2014, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535/293 "2014-05-07T19:08:37Z")
> [@](#): > > The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and _ **evolved** _ into a direct assault against the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations. Well, shit. There’s the problem right there. Republicans don’t believe in evolution. ---
**Author:** ![TonySinclair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/49beb7/32.png) [@TonySinclair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TonySinclair)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2014, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535/294 "2014-05-07T19:44:25Z")
> [@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. You are being incredibly dense about this. Nobody is saying that some people came with signs to protest, and then magically changed their signs into RPGs and mortars. They are talking about two different sets of people. It is entirely possible to have different people with different goals at the same place on the same day. At the time Rice went on TV, there were conflicting reports, and the CIA assessment was that there were both protestors and attackers. Nobody alleged that they were the same people, or even associated with each other. If I were an attacker, the last thing I would want is protestors raising the alert level. > [@Debaser](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > David Kirkpatrick of the New York Times reported that 20-year-old neighbor Mohamed Bishari witnessed the attack. According to Bishari, it was launched without warning or protest and was led by the Islamist militia Ansar al-Sharia > > There was no protest. There was no spontaneous riot. It was an organized attack. Do you seriously dispute this? For the love of god. So you think that if the CIA analysts are saying one thing, and some 20-year old is saying another, the White House should go with the 20-year-old Libyan civilian? What if I can find a 21-year old neighbor who says he saw a protest? He’s one year older, so he wins, right? For the nth time, the fact that someone reports something does not mean that the White House knows it is true, especially when they are receiving conflicting reports from many different sources. All they can do is give their best assessment at the time, subject to security considerations and protection of sources, which is exactly what they did. ---
**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, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535/295 "2014-05-07T19:50:39Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > Great. You know what you just did? Now this thread is about Bush and Iraq. > > Here’s my answer: We don’t need to spend millions and have dozens of hearings at this point do investigate the WMDs in Iraq. We know what happened already. > > What would be the point? Let’s go to the quarry and throw stuff down there! Did you seriously just ask “what would be the point?” (of investigating what was said and done in regard to starting the Iraq War) when you’ve been advocating for an investigation into Benghazi? What do you mean “we know what happened already”? Why don’t you enlighten me, since I am unsure of both what you mean and what happened? ---
**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, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535/296 "2014-05-07T20:03:27Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > Let’s go to the quarry and throw stuff down there! Did you seriously just ask “what would be the point?” (of investigating what was said and done in regard to starting the Iraq War) when you’ve been advocating for an investigation into Benghazi? Maybe we should all pitch in and buy **Debaser** a “What difference does it make?” t-shirt because clearly he must not care about 3,000 dead Americans if he doesn’t want to get to the bottom of it. I mean, why should Republicans have a monopoly on sophomoric demagoguery after all? ---
**Author:** ![CannyDan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cannydan/32/548_2.png) [@CannyDan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CannyDan)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2014, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535/297 "2014-05-07T20:06:12Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > Well, shit. There’s the problem right there. Republicans don’t believe in evolution. Thread winner! Yes, that’s exactly it. **Debaser’s** Wiki timeline _begins_ with the attack. Rice, and everyone else in this thread, simply mean that something was happening before the attack, something that would better be described as a demonstration, or a protest. Or just a bunch of random pissed off people in the streets. Given the instant communications available in 2012 through things like Twitter and text messaging, **everybody** in the Middle East knew about pissed off people, and protesters, all over the Middle East. It’s idiotic to claim that Benghazi residents were somehow immune to the events of the day. Nor is it inconceivable that, at some point during all the general hubbub and angst, a group of heavily armed militants (who may or may not have been harboring a separate grudge and may or may not have been making specific plans and preparations for any theoretical time in advance) said, “Hey, now looks like a good time for a ruckus!” and then launched the actual **attack**. Thus the attack evolved out of the background of unrest and protest. Different players were involved, but that doesn’t mean one kind of event couldn’t have led into the other. ---
**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, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535/298 "2014-05-07T20:11:19Z")
> [@CannyDan](#): > > Thus the attack evolved out of the background of unrest and protest. Do you have any evidence of this? The cites I’ve posted say the streets around the compound were dead quiet when the surprise attack started. Do you have something that says otherwise? ---
**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, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535/299 "2014-05-07T20:15:05Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > Let’s go to the quarry and throw stuff down there! Did you seriously just ask “what would be the point?” (of investigating what was said and done in regard to starting the Iraq War) when you’ve been advocating for an investigation into Benghazi? > > What do you mean “we know what happened already”? Why don’t you enlighten me, since I am unsure of both what you mean and what happened? > [@Donald\_Rump](#): > > Maybe we should all pitch in and buy **Debaser** a “What difference does it make?” t-shirt because clearly he must not care about 3,000 dead Americans if he doesn’t want to get to the bottom of it. > > I mean, why should Republicans have a monopoly on sophomoric demagoguery after all? You guys really want this thread to be about Iraq, huh? I admit that Bush really fucked up with his claims about WMDs in Iraq. His presidency will be stained by that in the history books and he deserves much of the scorn he gets for it. He was wrong, and it was a very important thing to be wrong about. Benghazi, as I’ve said numerous times is a relatively minor matter. The spinning which turned into lying by the administration isn’t a huge deal. But they did cross the line and I’m glad it was investigated and I’m glad they got some negative press out of it. Obama deserves to get some heat for this, even though it doesn’t rise anywhere near the level of the lack of WMDs in Iraq. Happy, now? Or should we debate WMDs in Iraq for six pages? That’s the difference between me and many of you. I can admit it when my guy fucks up. ---
**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, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535/300 "2014-05-07T20:20:45Z")
> [@Donald\_Rump](#): > > Why do you suppose it’s impossible that this is how it happened? I just don’t understand where you’re coming from on this one. I’m sorry. It’s not impossible, but it seems very unlikely. An attack like this requires planning. It couldn’t be done in a day. Plus, there’s no evidence that I’ve seen that this was the case. They attacked out of nowhere. There was no crowd around the embassy that I’ve seen any cites for. > [@](#): > > Saying something that later turns out to be untrue is not lying. Tell that to Bush! > [@](#): > > Saying something one _knows_ to be untrue is lying. I want to know how Susan Rice was lying. There’s not much of a smoking gun. There’s no statement that can be proven, say, in a court of law that she said something that can be proven to be a lie. If there was this would be a much bigger deal. I’ve said it’s a judgement call whether this crosses the line from typical political spin into dishonesty. For me it does. Not everyone agrees, obviously. Reading that memo, it seems clear that her directive was to try and link the protests and the video to the attack, regardless of how true that actually was. > [@](#): > > If you’re saying, an attack of this sort \*by definition \*requires weeks or months of planning, then I’ll grant that’s a valid argument Yes, that’s why I posted the details of the attack. To make that point. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535.md?page=16)