Well bless your heart, you’re a debate psychic.
How about this. The WH cooperates with requests for emails. That would be a start toward not claiming a coverup.
I’m not a relentless critic of the White House, and I would criticize them for going radio silent and not talking to the press after four Americans were murdered. “They didn’t need to say anything” is simply asinine.
I agree that it kind of blows his credibility as an impartial fact-finder; then again, I don’t think anyone thought he was that anyway. He’s a relentless partisan. Watergate was advanced, in the early stages, by partisans as well. Partisan does not mean necessarily wrong, and the adversarial system works in our courts. So yeah, so long as the first amendment applies, he does have the privilege to say it, and you and I have the right to judge him for it.
And BTW, do you have an opinion on Obama announcing that the IRS scandal has “not even a smidgen” of truth to it, even while his DOJ is supposedly still investigating? Just wondering.
I haven’t followed the IRS issue closely, but Darrell Issa has proven that the existence of an investigation has no connection as to whether there is actually a problem.
To be precise, he didn’t say that there wasn’t a smidgen of “truth.” He said there wasn’t a smidgen of “corruption.”
However, I would readily agree Obama shouldn’t have said that. Given his position he shouldn’t be prejudging the outcome of an ongoing investigation. I’d doubly feel that way if Obama were personally leading the investigation, as Darrell Issa is.
I’m not making any argument other than the purposeful talking points from the administration shortly after the attacks that they were spontaneous and inspired by the YouTube video. A denial that such a thing occurred is similar to Big Brother’s assertion of increasing the chocolate ration. I had several discussions around the water cooler about the freedom of an individual to post a YouTube video and that those actions should never be an excuse for murder.
Months later, it was denied that such an excuse was ever raised. Posters in this thread and others continue to deny that such talking points were given.
Your Wikipedia site is very informative, and the investigation may indeed show that we provided all of the security necessary given the Ambassador’s wishes and the nature of the attack. It still doesn’t change the purposeful response of the administration to change the narrative from a planned attack (which by all accounts it KNEW to be the case or had reason to know) to a spontaneous demonstration.
Susan Rice’s statements contained the following allegations, albeit she peppered the living fuck out of all of them with provisos such as “current best assessment” and “based on information we have at present” and “we believe” and stressing the need for further investigation to firm up the administration’s assessment:
- Protesters showed up to replicate protests in Cairo (yes, strongly implying they were motivated by the video if not saying it outright)
- Heavily armed extremists distinct from the aforementioned protesters launched into an attack.
So let’s say it again: she did NOT say that the attackers were motivated by the video. It’s impossible to have a reasoned debate on this subject when you and your brethren persist in misrepresenting the administration’s line.
Out of a desire to be charitable to your reading comprehension skills, I refuse to believe you’re actually bothering to read what she said.
Define “planned attack.” In the context where the question of being pre-planned came up, namely Rice’s appearance on Face the Nation, clearly “pre-planned” meant weeks or months in advance. When asked if the attack was preplanned, Susan Rice said we don’t know yet for sure. That is plainly different from categorically denying it was preplanned.
This statement is 100% consistent with the CIA-provided talking points, namely:
“Inability to rule out” is not the same as having a basis to “conclude.” The WH had no basis to conclude that it was preplanned, again, “several months ago” as explicitly characterized in the question that Susan Rice was answering.
If your argument is that an attack by heavily armed extremists is ipso facto evidence of a months-long planning process, fine–though I have no idea why you’d make that assumption–but then Susan Rice never disputed that the attack was launched by heavily armed extremists. So you’re saying she was “covering up” something that was plainly implicit, by your lights, in what she said?
By the way, your claim that the WH “KNEW” that it was preplanned is severely weakened by the fact that *even today *we don’t know that it was preplanned (in the sense of being planned months in advance to occur on the night of 9/11/12).
I have indeed read the transcripts of those news interviews. The parties used language calculated to allow them to retreat to the fall back position that you have described.
The American public should not have to parse words or re-read transcripts in order to see through the deception that was purposefully put all over the media. Obama himself went on David Letterman and talked about the video. The purpose of those appearances were and remain obvious: give the public the impression that the attacks were a result of a spontaneous demonstration resulting from the YouTube video. And further, as your cites support, the administration knew immediately that the attacks were not a part of any spontaneous demonstration.
I might be dense on some things, but I consider myself a reasonably educated person when it comes to current events. If I was lead to believe by the administration that the attacks were a result of a spontaneous demonstration, I’m sure that many others were similarly mislead, and that it was purposefully done that way two months before an election.
Jtgain, I don’t see how you can deny that the administration had sufficient basis to “believe” in good faith, duly conditioned with “we’re not sure yet,” that there was a protest at the consulate in Benghazi that day, independently of there being a major attack subsequently. Their belief was supported by on-the-ground reporting at the time, the CIA’s assessment that there was a spontaneous reaction to events in Cairo, and the fact that it’s a pretty freaking crazy coincidence if the entire Muslim world is aflame on the same day over this execrable video, and the one place where the violence takes the worst turn happens to be the one place where the turmoil has zero to do with the video. Why would that have been the administration’s most plausible working theory, absent harder intelligence on which to base their assessment?
If the administration had come out and said, “We know with certainty that the attack wasn’t preplanned. There simply aren’t any terrorists left to do such planning, because President Obama has effectively won the war on terror and Al-Qaeda and similar groups just don’t pose an organized threat any longer. We are investigating the security lapse, but we have no expectation of discovering that it was preplanned,” then I would agree with you.
For the sake of discussion, when Susan Rice was asked, “Do you believe this was planned months in advance?” by Bob Schieffer, what should she have said? I want a sample answer that would meet your standard of veracity.
What difference would that make? No more than 72 hours after the attack according to Xema’s timeline the administration said it was a pre-planned attack. It doesn’t make any difference if on day one they said the Martians had attacked. There was crime comitted, no failure to disclose any relevant information, thus no cover up even if there was an attempt to hide something from the public initially.
I left the whole post but bolded the part I want to respond directly to.
I find your deliberate mischaracterization of the context of the pseudo-quote is appalling and reprehensible; IMO you should be embarrassed by your transparent and pathetic attempt to distort the record and warp perception.
The “2 years ago” comment was clearly in response to an inquiry about his inability to recall a picayune detail about a specific email. The fact that so many people are trying, as you did, to make it out to be anything else says a whole lot more about those people than it does about anything the administration did regarding Benghazi.
You may have concluded that because there were in fact spontaneous demonstrations in other parts of the Middle East that that time, partly, I’m sure, in response to that video. It was all over the news. You don’t have to parse words from the administration to realize they never said the consulate attack was such a demonstration.
Sorry no, they went on a witch hunt for the maker of the film. They were clearly trying to spin what happened.
Of course they were trying to spin it. So what?
I would say that a “scandal” that ultimately hinges on the use of the word “terrorist” instead of “heavily armed extremist”–admit it, if Susan Rice had said “terrorist attack” we wouldn’t be talking about this–ought to require an appropriately careful reading of what was said.
Personally, I don’t think it’s a good thing that months-long “scandals” can now be perpetuated by a sloppy review of the facts pushed by rabidly partisan media outlets, with the mainstream media falling all over itself to project “balance” in order to protect its market share on the right. All of this Benghazi bullshit is poisoning the well of public discourse for years to come, as far as I can tell. God help the next Republican administration.
Snowboarder, as the one who posted that quote originally, and did not get a response from Magiver, I wouldn’t expect him to reply to you either. But thanks for bringing it up. I don’t like to ask other posters to respond to my own post when they miss or ignore it. Makes me look needy. 
You’re welcome. The willful ignorance and deliberately obtuse collation of facts by those searching for a scandal is astounding (and somewhat bewildering); all I can do is keep pointing to facts. As you note, it prolly won’t help any, yet I feel compelled to try and carry out the SD mission anyway.
The scandal is the deliberate front loaded lie followed by a witch hunt of the guy making a movie followed by a lack of cooperation in the investigation.
Along with a very healthy dollop of Obama Derangement Syndrome.
Well that explains how he got elected. 52% of the public now realize what they got out of the deal. The next election cycle will find Democrats running from his shadow.