With trepidation, Benghazi

[BobLibDem]

I can see it now- Obama addresses the nation after say George HW Bush dies- says something like “this death is a sad day for America”. Then the Republicans will be like “CAN YOU BELIEVE IT??? HE NEVER ACKNOWLEDGED THAT BUSH DIED!!!”

Jeez-o-peets. While talking about the incident, he mentioned “acts of terror”. Does it take a fucking rocket scientist to infer that by “acts of terror” he meant the Benghazi attack? He was right, Romney was wrong (and his own behavior was despicable, exploiting the dead before their blood turned cold) and Crowley was correct in her correction of Romney.

In the words of your next president, “what difference does it make?” Suppose he had acted like a Republican, sprinting to a microphone as soon as he heard the news shouting “TERRORISM! TERRORISM! WOE IS US!” How would that have been helpful?

[Donald_Rump]

@Debaser

The claim that some people are making here that she was telling the truth because she did mention heavily armed militants showed up is just silly. That doesn’t get her off the hook. Clearly she was downplaying that and mentioning the protests as much as possible, and that part wasn’t true.

What should she have said on 9/16 in response to the questions, “What happened, who was behind it, is there any indication this was related to the events in Cairo and other protests throughout the Middle East this week, and was it preplanned for weeks in advance?” I would like to know what sample script she could have used that would be acceptable to you, bearing in mind that at that time there were conflicting reports–some said there had been a protest, others not–and that the CIA had provided its own assessment (spontaneous reaction to events in Cairo evolving into an attack, etc.).

[nate]

@Debaser

It seems very clear that the talking points that Rice went out with were designed to confuse people and mislead, at the very least.

It doesn’t seem clear to me. How are you coming to this conclusion? What evidence have you seen that leads you to think this?

[Lamar_Mundane]

@Debaser

I don’t think a timeline of exactly what happened when is very important.

The thread I will always remember was one we had one the Presidential debate, that turned into a discussion on Benghazi.

It was over a month after the attack. It had been widely reported that it was in fact an attack. Not a protest. Not a protest that turned into an attack.

We were in the middle of debating whether there was a cover up or not and people still at that point didn’t know that it wasn’t a protest turned wrong.

That’s how powerfully and consistently the Obama administration was pumping out that message. That was exactly what they wanted.

Here’s some highlights from that thread, in late October. (The attack happened on Sept 11th.)

Where is your evidence that there was no protest? There were protests all over the Muslim world that day over the video, including earlier in Tripoli. The New York Times, which has done the best reporting on this and actually interviewed militia members who were there, had this to say:

The violence, though, also had spontaneous elements. Anger at the video motivated the initial attack. Dozens of people joined in, some of them provoked by the video and others responding to fast-spreading false rumors that guards inside the American compound had shot Libyan protesters. Looters and arsonists, without any sign of a plan, were the ones who ravaged the compound after the initial attack, according to more than a dozen Libyan witnesses as well as many American officials who have viewed the footage from security cameras.

A spontaneous protest and a planned attack are not mutually exclusive. They can happen one after the other or even at the same time, by different groups of people.

I have not seen any evidence that it was first, foremost, and only a planned attack.

[Ravenman]

@Donald_Rump

Seriously dude, what’s the difference? I’ve been trying to get a straight answer on this for half the thread.

Amen. I can see this scenario playing out in my mind:

Obama: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is a scum-sucking piece of crap. He killed innocent men, women and children in a depraved and disgusting way, which makes him a total waste of human skin. I look forward to his soul being tortured for eternity, burning in fire hotter than 10,000 suns; condemned to feel the concentrated anguish of all the peace-loving peoples of the world, whom he made his enemy, through his insipid career of hate and violence.

Benghazi Truther Chorus: OMG Obama didn’t call him a terrorist!!!

[furt]

I’m just gonna put this out there since I don’t think anyone has mentioned it: it’s one thing for Rice to come on like three days after the incident and be wrong. Okay, maybe things were still muddled.

But a full week went by and Hillary was promising the families of the dead they were going to get … not AQ, not terrorists … the guy who made the video. And another week went by and Obama was in the UN still saying “there is no video that justifies attacking an embassy,” long after he should have known the video really had nothing to do with it. THAT is a lot more problematic.
I don’t think Clinton or Obama was being deliberately misleading; I think the most likely scenario is that someone below them did figure it out eventually and opted to stick with the video story, and kept feeding it to them. One of Obama’s worst traits is that he is unwilling to throw his subordinates to the wolves. That may arguably be a good trait on a personal level, but it’s hampered his presidency IMO.

[TonySinclair]

@magellan01

When he did mention “terror” it was not directly related to the Benghazi incident.

I think I understand your rules:

1. Whenever Obama mentions terror, he is not talking about Benghazi.

2. Whenever Obama mentions protests, he is talking exclusively about Benghazi.

[Fiddle_Peghead]

@Lamar_Mundane

Where is your evidence that there was no protest? There were protests all over the Muslim world that day over the video, including earlier in Tripoli. The New York Times, which has done the best reporting on this and actually interviewed militia members who were there, had this to say:

Upthread I posted another quote from the New York Times where they also report that the video was a motivation for the attacks. But acknowledging the legitimacy of that quote, and yours, and others that are in this thread would completely undermine the positions of certain dopers here that Susan Rice lied.

[Donald_Rump]

@furt

I’m just gonna put this out there since I don’t think anyone has mentioned it: it’s one thing for Rice to come on like three days after the incident and be wrong. Okay, maybe things were still muddled.

But a full week went by and Hillary was promising the families of the dead they were going to get … not AQ, not terrorists … the guy who made the video. And another week went by and Obama was in the UN still saying “there is no video that justifies attacking an embassy,” long after he should have known the video really had nothing to do with it. THAT is a lot more problematic.
I don’t think Clinton or Obama was being deliberately misleading; I think the most likely scenario is that someone below them did figure it out eventually and opted to stick with the video story, and kept feeding it to them. One of Obama’s worst traits is that he is unwilling to throw his subordinates to the wolves. That may arguably be a good trait on a personal level, but it’s hampered his presidency IMO.

Our embassy /was/ attacked over the video - in Cairo. Was Obama explicitly referring to Benghazi at the UN?

With all due respect to the families of the victims, the source of that quote from Clinton is Tyrone Woods’ father talking to Glenn Beck. Without knowing the larger context of what she said to him I’m not prepared to extrapolate too much from that. The quote he attributed to Biden in that interview struck me as hard to believe, too. Of course, who knows.

[Donald_Rump]

From AP, 9/25/12:

Much of the growing ire is aimed at the United States because of anti-Islam film produced in this country, but the White House has now deemed the attack on its consulate in Libya a “terrorist attack” and has not ruled out the possibility it was premeditated. Obama now says it “wasn’t just a mob action.”

“There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents,” President Obama says in the speech excerpts.

“There is no video that justifies an attack on an embassy. There is no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan.”

Seems to me he’s not specifically talking about Benghazi here.

[elbowj]

@furt

I’m just gonna put this out there since I don’t think anyone has mentioned it: it’s one thing for Rice to come on like three days after the incident and be wrong. Okay, maybe things were still muddled.

But a full week went by and Hillary was promising the families of the dead they were going to get … not AQ, not terrorists … the guy who made the video. And another week went by and Obama was in the UN still saying “there is no video that justifies attacking an embassy,” long after he should have known the video really had nothing to do with it. THAT is a lot more problematic.
I don’t think Clinton or Obama was being deliberately misleading; I think the most likely scenario is that someone below them did figure it out eventually and opted to stick with the video story, and kept feeding it to them. One of Obama’s worst traits is that he is unwilling to throw his subordinates to the wolves. That may arguably be a good trait on a personal level, but it’s hampered his presidency IMO.

Unlike a great number of his critics, Obama understood that there was no embassy in Benghazi.

[TonySinclair]

@Donald_Rump

Our embassy /was/ attacked over the video - in Cairo. Was Obama explicitly referring to Benghazi at the UN?

Of course not, and the Hannity types know it, but they continue to say he was. In other words, they are the ones who are lying.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/whitehouse/full-text-president-obama-s-speech-at-the-united-nations-general-assembly-20120925
Emphasis added to aid the reading challenged.

" In every country, there are those who find different religious beliefs threatening; in every culture, those who love freedom for themselves must ask how much they are willing to tolerate freedom for others.

That is what we saw play out the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity. It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well – for as the city outside these walls makes clear, we are a country that has welcomed people of every race and religion. We are home to Muslims who worship across our country. We not only respect the freedom of religion – we have laws that protect individuals from being harmed because of how they look or what they believe. We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them.

I know there are some who ask why we don’t just ban such a video. The answer is enshrined in our laws: our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech. Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs. Moreover, as President of our country, and Commander-in-Chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day, and I will always defend their right to do so. Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views – even views that we disagree with.

We do so not because we support hateful speech, but because our Founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views, and practice their own faith, may be threatened. We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can become a tool to silence critics, or oppress minorities. We do so because given the power of faith in our lives, and the passion that religious differences can inflame, the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech – the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect.

I know that not all countries in this body share this understanding of the protection of free speech. Yet in 2012, at a time when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views around the world with the click of a button, the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete. The question, then, is how we respond. And on this we must agree: there is no speech that justifies mindless violence.

There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There is no video that justifies an attack on an Embassy. There is no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan.

More broadly, the events of the last two weeks speak to the need for all of us to address honestly the tensions between the West and an Arab World moving to democracy. Just as we cannot solve every problem in the world, the United States has not, and will not, seek to dictate the outcome of democratic transitions abroad, and we do not expect** other nations** to agree with us on every issue. Nor do we assume that the violence of the past weeks, or the hateful speech by some individuals, represents the views of the overwhelming majority of Muslims– any more than the views of the people who produced this video represent those of Americans.

However, I do believe that it is the obligation of all leaders, in all countries, to speak out forcefully against violence and extremism. It is time to marginalize those who – even when not resorting to violence – use hatred of America, or the West, or Israel as a central principle of politics. For that only gives cover, and sometimes makes excuses, for those who resort to violence."

I think that I’ve quoted the part that contains every reference to a video. And there were only a couple of very generic reference to protests; the most specific one mentioned Tunisia, not Libya. He mentioned Benghazi several times, but only in tributes to Chris Stevens.

I couldn’t find anything that implied a direct connection with either the video, or protests in general, to the attack in Benghazi. furt, or anyone else, is welcome to read the whole thing and show me what I missed.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/whitehouse/full-text-president-obama-s-speech-at-the-united-nations-general-assembly-20120925

[magellan01]

@Ravenman

Amen. I can see this scenario playing out in my mind:

Obama: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is a scum-sucking piece of crap. He killed innocent men, women and children in a depraved and disgusting way, which makes him a total waste of human skin. I look forward to his soul being tortured for eternity, burning in fire hotter than 10,000 suns; condemned to feel the concentrated anguish of all the peace-loving peoples of the world, whom he made his enemy, through his insipid career of hate and violence.

Benghazi Truther Chorus: OMG Obama didn’t call him a terrorist!!!

You know, there is something worth pointing out in this. The first paragraph merely indicts a man. It may paint a picture that KSM is the most vile human being on the planet, but it does nothing to point to the larger threat: Islamic Extremism. With your description of KSM, one could easily build the impression that “Okay, we got him. Problem over” But that’s the opposite of helpful/ It is important to be able to identify the larger threat, not just an individual here and there. This is precisely the problem I and many people have with Obama. And identifying the threat as Islamic Extremism and Islamic Terrorism is one thing the Bush got exactly right. That’s try even with Iraq being a mistake.

[magellan01]

@TonySinclair

I think I understand your rules:

1. Whenever Obama mentions terror, he is not talking about Benghazi.

2. Whenever Obama mentions protests, he is talking exclusively about Benghazi.

Evidently you can an “my rules” to the long list of other things you do not understand.

[TonySinclair]

@magellan01

You know, there is something worth pointing out in this. The first paragraph merely indicts a man. It may paint a picture that KSM is the most vile human being on the planet, but it does nothing to point to the larger threat: Islamic Extremism. With your description of KSM, one could easily build the impression that “Okay, we got him. Problem over” But that’s the opposite of helpful/ It is important to be able to identify the larger threat, not just an individual here and there. This is precisely the problem I and many people have with Obama. And identifying the threat as Islamic Extremism and Islamic Terrorism is one thing the Bush got exactly right. That’s try even with Iraq being a mistake.

So you think Obama was wrong when he said, “Ours is a war not against a religion, not against the Muslim faith. But ours is a war against individuals who absolutely hate what America stands for.”

Or when he said,“We see in Islam a religion that traces its origins back to God’s call on Abraham. We share your belief in God’s justice, and your insistence on man’s moral responsibility. We thank the many Muslim nations who stand with us against terror. Nations that are often victims of terror, themselves.”

Or this: “Islam is a vibrant faith. Millions of our fellow citizens are Muslim. We respect the faith. We honor its traditions. Our enemy does not. Our enemy doesn’t follow the great traditions of Islam. They’ve hijacked a great religion.”

Or this: “Islam is a faith that brings comfort to people. It inspires them to lead lives based on honesty, and justice, and compassion.”

And especially this: “All Americans must recognize that the face of terror is not the true faith – face of Islam. Islam is a faith that brings comfort to a billion people around the world. It’s a faith that has made brothers and sisters of every race. It’s a faith based upon love, not hate.”

And really especially this: “According to Muslim teachings, God first revealed His word in the Holy Qur’an to the prophet, Muhammad, during the month of Ramadan. That word has guided billions of believers across the centuries, and those believers built a culture of learning and literature and science. All the world continues to benefit from this faith and its achievements.”

Fuck it, I’m getting tired. Read the rest here: Backgrounder: The President's Quotes on Islam

[Ravenman]

@magellan01

You know, there is something worth pointing out in this. The first paragraph merely indicts a man. It may paint a picture that KSM is the most vile human being on the planet, but it does nothing to point to the larger threat: Islamic Extremism. With your description of KSM, one could easily build the impression that “Okay, we got him. Problem over” But that’s the opposite of helpful/ It is important to be able to identify the larger threat, not just an individual here and there. This is precisely the problem I and many people have with Obama. And identifying the threat as Islamic Extremism and Islamic Terrorism is one thing the Bush got exactly right. That’s try even with Iraq being a mistake.

What’s that internet rule about extremism being indistinguishable from parody? Well, I’m invoking it.

[Debaser]

@Lamar_Mundane

Where is your evidence that there was no protest?

Read the many cites that I posted in the linked thread from last year. It was widely reported within a couple weeks of the attack that it was a planned attack by a couple hundred militants. They had RPGs, and truck mounted mortars. It was organized and planned in advance. This isn’t in dispute by anyone except the Obama administration for a few weeks after the attack (but eventually they admitted it) and apparently you still to this day.

That NYTimes quote you offered with no link says that some people spontaneously looted the compound after the attack. So what? It was still a planned attack, not a riot that led to one.

A spontaneous protest and a planned attack are not mutually exclusive.

Yes. They are. They are actually an almost perfect definition of opposites.

I have not seen any evidence that it was first, foremost, and only a planned attack.

Then you aren’t paying attention. Even the Obama administration dropped this narrative a long time ago.

I guess this settles the issue of whether the administrations deliberate obfuscation was successful. We’ve got people that to this day still believe the lies.

[Jack_Batty]

@magellan01

You know, there is something worth pointing out in this. The first paragraph merely indicts a man. It may paint a picture that KSM is the most vile human being on the planet, but it does nothing to point to the larger threat: Islamic Extremism. With your description of KSM, one could easily build the impression that “Okay, we got him. Problem over” But that’s the opposite of helpful/ It is important to be able to identify the larger threat, not just an individual here and there. This is precisely the problem I and many people have with Obama. And identifying the threat as Islamic Extremism and Islamic Terrorism is one thing the Bush got exactly right. That’s try even with Iraq being a mistake.

@Ravenman

What’s that internet rule about extremism being indistinguishable from parody? Well, I’m invoking it.

What if he made that speech under a big “Mission Accomplished” banner? That would sew up all the loose ends, wouldn’t it?

[ElvisL1ves]

Extremism in the defense of parody is no vice.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@Ravenman

What’s that internet rule about extremism being indistinguishable from parody? Well, I’m invoking it.

Poe’s Law. That said, I’m not sure exactly how he’s wrong. I mean, I don’t think it’s as important of a distinction politically, but in terms of accuracy… I don’t think I can complain with the assessment.