DescentBB

Seems as time goes by, the more the Obama Administration's attempts to say the killing of the Libyan embassy personnel was due to some racist anti-Muslim video is unraveling as the truth comes out. Some will say the whole of Obama's policy toward the middle east is unraveling as well. To call the murder of our ambassador a mere "bump in the road" show not only how inept Obama's foreign policy is but also how strong his lust for a 2nd term is...to the point where he is willing to say anything and do anything. No Mr President, no matter how many time you spike the ball over Bin La-dens death and no matter if you say Al Qaeda id dead, the real world is showing you how wrong you are. Too bad you thought playing with your IPAD was more important than attending your National Security Meeting, otherwise maybe you could of taken steps to prevent the Benghazi attack.

True there is a downward trend in approval since 2009, but the numbers reflect greater support than during the Bush years (a much needed improvement). Considering how much political turmoil has spread throughout the Middle East and North Africa, I would say that things are still better than should be expected.

Of course, I'm sure we would all love to hear your own detailed foreign policy. You have a detailed foreign policy, right? You should consider emailing it to the White House.

Also, I like how you address the president directly in your post. It's a nice Eastwood-esque touch.

As time has gone by it is becoming ever more clear that The Chair's middle east policy is in shamble and his desperate attempt to to make the Benghazi attack into a non terrorist attack is crumpling around him like a cheap suit. Today there will be a sub-committee hearing with senior state department people testifying (too bad they don't haul Ms Rice in) and we should have more details to flesh out what happened, especially in areas of just why there was not more protection given when the Libyan Embassy asked for it. I guess Hillary was right about one thing, when the 3:00 am phone call came in, The Chair wasn't prepared to deal with it.

woodchip wrote:As time has gone by it is becoming ever more clear that The Chair's middle east policy is in shamble and his desperate attempt to to make the Benghazi attack into a non terrorist attack is crumpling around him like a cheap suit.

What happened in Benghazi is not terrorism in any shape or form. You, like most of the Western world, are ensnared by this term "terrorism" which is now overused, improperly used to be associated with anything anti-West. There is a key component to missing in the Benghazi attack, and that component is terror. Where is the psychological element? There is none. A small militia attacked an embassy, which is usually what happens when people are angry like this. Sure you can claim al-Qaeda was behind it, but terrorism (in the actual sense, not the popular media sense) is just one element of al-Qaeda's methods. Even suicide attacks are not automatically terrorism unless there is a strong psychological angle to them. There is an associative element that needs to be present, a juxtaposition of violence and serenity. Terrorism is an art.

vision wrote:

woodchip wrote:You, like most of the Western world, are ensnared by this term "terrorism" which is now overused, improperly used to be associated with anything anti-West. There is a key component to missing in the Benghazi attack, and that component is terror. Where is the psychological element? There is none. A small militia attacked an embassy, which is usually what happens when people are angry like this. Sure you can claim al-Qaeda was behind it, but terrorism (in the actual sense, not the popular media sense) is just one element of al-Qaeda's methods. Even suicide attacks are not automatically terrorism unless there is a strong psychological angle to them.

I tend to agree (with the exception of the last two sentences that I did not quote).

I agree also that “terrorism” is an overused term, but I don’t see it in this case, because…

Terrorism is defined as violence against civilians in an attempt to change the course of politics.

This attack was on an embassy (a political post) and probably done by terrorists. (that’s what terrorists do)

It all comes down to whether you believe this attack was planned or not…I believe it was.

Agreed. Vision is correct about the meaning, but I took woodchip to mean that it was "an act done by terrorists" rather than "an act of terrorism".

In any case, it's disappointing to hear all the semantic spin being put on something so tragic.

Spidey wrote:It all comes down to whether you believe this attack was planned or not…I believe it was.

I believe it was too. But that's exactly why I don't consider it terrorism. Embassies are always targets, especially Western ones in the Middle East and Africa. An ambassador isn't a civilian in the same way you or I are civilians. They are political figures and they are perpetual targets for violence. Again, I don't see an element of terror in this act. It is sad to say, but this is pretty much expected to happen every now and then. I think the Benghazi incident should be widely condemned, but I would also refrain from attaching the word terrorism to it because it diminishes the meaning of the word. It's an important word.

And more on target with OP, yeah the US probably knew it was planned. But I'm sure the CIA hears about plans to attack US embassies every day. There are limits to what can be done reasonably to protect ambassadors. We can't make every embassy a underground fortress with missile launchers and fantastic means of allowing ambassadors to escape via rocket ship. We need to trust the countries we open embassies in, to some degree. It is this kind of trust that makes international relationships work, and when stuff like Benghazi happens, we need to work harder at that relationship. I have no sense of nationalism in me, but I would still choose to be an ambassador and give my life to help countries tackle their issues. I hold diplomats in the highest regard.

Foil wrote:Agreed. Vision is correct about the meaning of "terrorism", but I took woodchip to mean that it was "an act done by terrorists" rather than a "terrorist act".

He said terrorist attack. After reading many of woodchip's posts I don't think he's into that kind of subtlety, not that "an act done by terrorists" is any different than "terrorist act" in this context.

Foil wrote:Agreed. Vision is correct about the meaning, but I took woodchip to mean that it was "an act done by terrorists" rather than "an act of terrorism".

In any case, it's disappointing to hear all the semantic spin being put on something so tragic.

welcome to western society and western news reporting.

Romney's really dug deep into the pit of slime this time. He's using Glen Doherty's death as an political tool, by telling a heartwarming buddy story that really wasn't during his campaign speeches, using it as a way to humanize himself in his twisted attack on Obama over the Embassy killings. How low can he go. According to Elf Ellefsen, Doherty's friend, Romney couldn't even remember Glen Doherty's face when he was introduced to the guy over and over in a twenty minute period at a private gathering.

http://973kiro.com/75/1375049/Mother-qu ... d-in-Libya

Even Doherty's mother asked Romney's campaign to stop telling the story, which they finally did, loooooooooong after they'd gotten their use out of it.

http://www.kirotv.com/news/ap/top-news/ ... top/nSZYg/

And the House Republicans are shameless tools themselves to blame Obama when THEY voted to cut the security staffing budget at all U.S. Embassies, only part of which was restored in the Senate at the behest of the Democrats. Instead of investigating Obama, Republicans should perhaps be investigating themselves.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html

Can we put this topic aside for the moment and collectively agree that affixing "-gate" to every political scandal is really ★■◆●ing stupid? The "-gate" in Watergate was part of the hotel name. Not a suffix. Not something you shove onto whatever word you want.

[/rant]

Ummm, TC, when asked specifically at the congressional hearings if the budget cuts would of affected security at embassies, Ms Lamb, who is the state department official in charge of such things, said no. Nice try though.

Now it seems Obama's Middle East Le Grande Appeasement Maginot Line has got another embassy official killed. I suppose the infamous video was also to blame. Perhaps Obama shouldn't of spiked the Bin Laden ball 'cause I get the feeling the non-existent terrorists are actively working to keep Obama from another term in office. To bad good people have to die in the process.

Ok I need to drop the hammer on this. Embassy attacks happen to everyone, all the time. Death is one of the job hazards when you are a diplomat. They all know this and accept it because the work they do is important to keeping the peace. Educate yourself by reviewing this helpful list of embassy attacks on Wikipedia. You'll see that what happened in Benghazi is, unfortunately, very normal. Blaming Obama won't do anything because he still has a better track record than his predecessor regarding this type of thing.

There is no "Benghazigate." This topic is officially closed, thanks to rational thinking. Your welcome.

vision wrote:Ok I need to drop the hammer on this. Embassy attacks happen to everyone, all the time.

yes they do

There is no "Benghazigate."

obviously your not understanding the problem here. the whole "Benghazigate." has little to do with the actual attack and mostly to do with the administration continual lying and trying to cover up their mistakes. that is the problem, not the embassy attack. any rational person would understand that you can try to prevent these sort of things but you can never totally stop them. its just a shame that the attackers didn't take into account that there is an election coming up. is this being politicized. YEP. should it be? only in the fact that you are being lied to.

CUDA wrote:obviously your not understanding the problem here. the whole "Benghazigate." has little to do with the actual attack and mostly to do with the administration continual lying and trying to cover up their mistakes.

No I understand perfectly. It's not a coverup. This happens all the time in every administration. Whenever there is an event like this, the administration is pressured into making a statement before all the facts are available. The size and complexity of our government and the resulting bureaucracy prevents different branches and departments from having access to all the necessary information in a timely fashion (one reason I advocate a smaller, more efficient government). As time goes by, more information surfaces. Inevitably, conflicting information arises and people get all crazy and yell "it's a coverup! the government lies!" I mean, didn't you learn how this works after 9/11?

There is no way to win against the doubters. The administration can make a statement before they have all the facts and get called lying, inept fools. Or, they can say "we will issue a statement later when all the facts are known" and the doubters will let their conspiracy slanted minds wander and scream "oh, they are hiding something, that's why they aren't talking."

And another thing, the Internet breeds "conspiracy culture" and it's hard not to get caught up in it. This is something that started to play a major role in the Bush years and is even worse for Obama's administration since Internet access is growing exponentially. It will only get worse. Try your best to resist.

the administration is pressured into making a statement before all the facts are available

the facts were confirmed within 24 hours as a planned attack. so the facts were available.
why did the administration INC the President keep changing the story 2 weeks later, even AFTER they admitted it was a terrorist attack they kept the talking points that it was caused by a Video. they lied. it was proven they lied. and the evidence is without dispute.



time line

There is no way to win against the doubters.

I agree so why don't you stop doubting and look at the evidence.

Do you have something from another source other than Fox News? I mean, c'mon...

EDIT: I've been doing some research on the subject, but I can't seem to find any sign of a coverup. I keep seeing right-wing websites with lots of capital letters and exclamation points claiming lies and deception, but I can't find an impartial news source with a clear overview of the events of the past two weeks.

Anyone lend a hand? I read a few statements made by the White House, but none of them conflict with what I stated above about facts becoming available slower than our 24/7 information culture would like.

vision wrote:Do you have something from another source other than Fox News? I mean, c'mon they don't drink left wing cool aid...

EDIT: I've been doing some research on the subject, but I can't seem to find any sign of a coverup among the left wing sources. I keep seeing right-wing websites with lots of capital letters and exclamation points claiming lies and deception, but I can't find a left wing news source with a clear overview of the events of the past two weeks, it's almost like they're hiding something.

Anyone lend a hand? I read a few statements made by the White House, but none of them provide absolute disproof of what I stated above about facts becoming available slower than our 24/7 information culture would like.

Fixed it for you.

If you look hard enough, you will always be able to find what you're looking for in the noise. I know that goes two ways... but the administration's statements seemed awfully convenient & smelled funny from day one.

vision wrote:Do you have something from another source other than Fox News? I mean, c'mon...

didn't even watch it did you?

There is no way to win against the doubters.

Hahaha. One thing is for sure, you guys totally underestimate by ability to fact-find when I'm up to the task. I just spent the last two hours reading every statement and press briefing on whitehouse.gov since 9/11. What better way to find out if the administration is lying than to actually read what they said?

This is going to be too much work for most of you to read, but here is results of my investigation. I've added a few comments in parenthesis throughout. Disclaimer: I have no party affiliation. I don't even like Obama. I do like facts though, so feast your eyes on these. I'm sorry to report there is no coverup, just media sensationalism. (You can skip right to the bottom press briefing, which summarizes everything above.)


September 12, 2012
Official statement
Presidential remarks
(President refers to incident as “acts of terror”)
Press Briefing: 4:09 P.M. EDT

Q: Jay, does the U.S. -- does the White House believe that the attack in Benghazi was planned and premeditated?

MR. CARNEY: It's too early for us to make that judgment. I think -- I know that this is being investigated, and we're working with the Libyan government to investigate the incident. So I would not want to speculate on that at this time.

Q: Jay, is the U.S. doing something wrong policy-wise in Libya that brings this on? Or is the policy fine, it's just this particular event?

MR. CARNEY: I think it's important not to speculate, not to jump the gun, not to guess, while we are still collecting facts, at what precipitated this and who was responsible. And I think that your question goes to that.


September 13, 2012
Official statement
Press Briefing: 10:30 A.M. MDT
(Nothing about Libya, some discussion on freedom of speech, religious freedom)


September 14, 2012
Press Briefing: 11:42 A.M. EDT

Q: Because there are administration officials who don’t -- who dispute that, who say that it looks like this was something other than a protest.

MR. CARNEY: I think there has been news reports on this, Jake, even in the press, which some of it has been speculative. What I’m telling you is this is under investigation. The unrest around the region has been in response to this video. We do not, at this moment, have information to suggest or to tell you that would indicate that any of this unrest was preplanned.

(In this briefing, it is clear there is some confusion and overlap between what is known about Benghazi specifically and how it relates to, if at all, the protests sparked by the movie. Jay Carney makes a few sweeping remarks regarding the movie.)

Q: Okay. And if I could just follow up on -- you earlier said the cause of the unrest was a video, then you repeated something similar later on. And I just want to be clear, that's true of Benghazi and Cairo?

MR. CARNEY: I’m saying that that -- the incident in Benghazi, as well as elsewhere, that these are all being investigated. What I’m saying is that we have no evidence at this time to suggest otherwise that there was a preplanned or ulterior instigation behind that unrest.


September 18, 2012
Press Briefing: 11:33 A.M. EDT

Q: Can I ask one more question, just on a different topic? It seems that the U.S. and Libya have sort of different accounts of the attack in Benghazi last week. There are reports that Libyan officials warned the U.S. of the growing extremist threat prior to the attacks, that they admitted they could not control some of these militias. That seems to run counter to what administration officials have been saying, that this was just a spontaneous reaction to this anti-Islam film. Can you kind of reconcile this?

MR. CARNEY: Well, what I can tell you is that we have provided information about what we believe was the precipitating cause of the protest and the violence, based on the information that we have had available. There is an ongoing investigation. The FBI is investigating. And that investigation will follow the facts wherever they lead.
…

Q: ...There were other reports suggesting that the U.S. installation in Benghazi in Libya had up to three days’ notice that violence was increasing. I didn’t hear an answer to that, so I’m trying to understand -- to that question. Did the administration have any sort of heads-up that violence was increasing specifically in Libya before the attack?

MR. CARNEY: I’m not aware of any, Ed. This is a matter that’s under investigation in terms of what precipitated the attacks, what the motivations of the attackers were, what role the video played in that.


September 19, 2012
Press Briefing: 11:32 A.M. EDT

MR. CARNEY : ...based on what we know now and knew at the time, we have no evidence of a preplanned or premeditated attack.  This, however, remains under investigation, and I made that clear last week, and Ambassador Rice made that clear on Sunday.  And if more facts come to light that change our assessment of what transpired in Benghazi and why and how, we will welcome those facts and make you aware of them.
 
But again, based on the information that we had at the time and have to this day, we do not have evidence that it was premeditated.  It is a simple fact that there are, in post-revolution, post-war Libya, armed groups, there are bad actors hostile to the government, hostile to the West, hostile to the United States.  And as has been the case in other countries in the region, it is certainly conceivable that these groups take advantage of and exploit situations that develop, when they develop, to protest against or attack either Westerners, Americans, Western sites or American sites. 
 
And again, this is something that’s under investigation.  We have provided you our assessment based on the information we’ve had as it’s become available.  As more information becomes available, we will make clear what the investigation has revealed.


September 20, 2012
Press Briefing: 12:00 P.M. EDT

Q: Jay, a couple things on Libya, a follow.  FOX has some intelligence sources saying that al Qaeda was involved in this attack and possibly a former Guantanamo detainee.  So I’m wondering if you have a reaction, comment on that...

MR. CARNEY:  Well, let me -- hold on one second, let me find this here.  I think the sources that you cite I think include the open hearing with the NCTC Director, Mr. Olsen, in which he discussed indications of possible involvement of elements of extremist groups, including possible participation by elements of al Qaeda and particularly al Qaeda in the Maghreb, an al Qaeda affiliate. … I would point you to a couple of things that Mr. Olsen said, which is that at this point it appears that a number of different elements were involved in the attack, including individuals connected to militant groups that are prevalent in Eastern Libya.

He also made clear that at this point, based on the information he has -- and he is briefing the Hill on the most up-to-date intelligence -- we have no information at this point that suggests that this was a significantly preplanned attack, but this was the result of opportunism, taking advantage of and exploiting what was happening as a result of reaction to the video that was found to be offensive. 

September 22, 2012
Press Briefing: 1:05 P.M. EDT

Q: Do you have any new information on the investigation?  Have you gathered any new details that would help you understand what happened with the initial attacks?

MR. EARNEST:  I don't have any new details that I can announce at this point.  We obviously are awaiting the ongoing investigation, the results of the ongoing investigation being conducted by the FBI.  In the last couple of days you saw Secretary Clinton talk about a general accountability review board, I believe it's called, being appointed to take a look at some of the issues that are at play here.  So we're going to wait for the conclusion of those reviews.  But I don't have any more to share this morning.


September 26, 2012
Press Briefing: 11:33 A.M. EDT

Q: Jay, in his interview on the Today Show this morning, the Libyan President said that the attacks on the consulate had nothing to do with the video that sparked all the protests as elsewhere.  He also repeated his claim that they were preplanned, given their sophistication, so given that's in direct contradiction to what the administration says, who's right?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I can tell you that President Magarief made very heartfelt public statements before his meeting with Secretary Clinton in New York about the brave four Americans who were killed and the firm commitment of Libya to not allow a violent minority to hijack Libya's hopes and dreams. 

Over the course of the past two weeks, this administration has provided as much information as it has been able to.  We made clear that our initial assessment and interim reports were based on information that was available at the time.  Several administration officials, including the NCTC director, have spoken on the record about the information we have.  We have also been clear that there's an ongoing FBI investigation and that we must allow that investigation to take its course.  The Accountability Review Board established by Secretary of State Clinton is also doing a full investigation. 

I can point you again to the statements by the NCTC director about his assessment as the chief counterterrorism official about the information that we had available at the time about how the attack occurred and who was responsible.  And it continues to be the case that we provided information based on what we know -- not based on speculation, but based on what we know -- acknowledging that we are continuing an investigation that will undoubtedly uncover more facts, and as more facts and more details emerge we will, when appropriate, provide them to you.

Q: The fact that he was pretty equivocal statement today that the video --

MR. CARNEY:  The U.S. intelligence upon which we make our assessments has provided very clear public assessments of the information that they have available, that they had initially, that they had available when the NCTC director talked to Congress and spoke publicly.  And that's what -- we make our judgments based on the information that we gather.


September 30, 2012
Press Briefing: 12:08 P.M. EDT

Q: Josh, the administration, the campaign, Democrats on the Hill have accused Republicans of trying to exploit the Libya situation for political gain.  But are there not sort of legitimate questions about what kind of security Ambassador Stevens had, what is the situation in Libya now?  I mean, where does it end?  Is it not fair enough for people to be asking these questions?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I’ll say a couple of things about that. One thing that we have done throughout this process is to inform you and the American public with the latest intelligence information about the circumstances surrounding this attack, about why it occurred, about who was responsible.  A lot of that underscores the President’s commitment to holding accountable those, bringing to justice those who perpetrated this terrible attack.  We’ve remained committed to trying to provide you and the American people the latest information on this investigation. That investigation is continuing.  It’s something that the President and other senior members of this administration are closely following.  If we get to a position where we can share more information about that investigation, then we will do so. 


October 01, 2012
Press Briefing: 3:17 P.M. PDT

Q: Jay, can you give us any sense of how the President is keeping updated on the investigation in Libya?

MR. CARNEY:  I don’t have anything specific beyond his regular presidential daily briefings on foreign policy, national security conversations.  I have nothing new for you on the attack on the diplomatic facility in Benghazi.  He has made clear that he wants the perpetrators to be brought to justice.  And he wants the FBI investigation as well as the State Department’s security review to proceed and lead wherever they may.

(Throughout the press briefings Jay Carney has repeatedly deferred to the State Departmet and the FBI. This highlights some of the problems with information sharing across government departments.)


October 02, 2012
Press Briefing: 12:45 P.M. EDT

Q: When you tell us to talk to the State Department, the State Department says they're not commenting on any of this until the accountability review is done, and it ends up being just that we don't know anything, the public doesn’t know anything, about this, at least when it comes to official statements from the White House.  I would think that just a basic yes or no, were there warnings?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, again, I'm not going to get into a situation that's under review by the State Department or by the FBI in its investigation of what happened.  It is certainly, broadly speaking, a known fact that Libya is in transition.  It is a known fact that in the eastern part of Libya there are militant groups, and in the country as a whole but especially in eastern Libya, a great number of armed individuals and militias -- that is one of the legacies of the revolution there and the civil war. 


October 10, 2012
Press Briefing: 2:02 P.M. EDT

(This briefing is so rich in discussion it is worth reading in it's entirety. It highlights what I mentioned above about facts filtering in over time and how early statements may contradict later ones. It also points to my argument that you can't satisfy the doubters. The press pushes and pushes for answers. That's what they are supposed to do. However, many members of the press are only interested in sensationalism and trying to catch a story, thus the fabricated Benghazigate. Accusing the administration of lying when they are clearly acting on information known to be reasonable at the time.)

Q: Since there were so many unknowns at the very beginning, why even then speculate that it could have been caused by this film?  Why not just say, we’re waiting for all the facts to come in?

MR. CARNEY:  Again, based on what we knew at the time, based on the assessments -- not our opinion, not mine or anybody in this building’s sole opinion, but the assessments made by the intelligence community, as the DNI has made clear, as is being made clear today on Capitol Hill, we provided the information that we had, and made clear that it was preliminary, that there were active investigations, and that in situations especially like this, that new facts come to light that often change what we know about an event.  And we were very transparent about that, and we’re being very transparent about it today, both here and up on Capitol Hill.

(After reading one month's of press briefings, it's clear beyond a doubt that there is no lying and no coverup for Benghazi. If anything, the administration is too transparent, giving preliminary assessments to fools without critical thinking skills, or worse, sensationalism as their motivation. Case closed.)

Funny how actually reading what people are saying, instead of relying on third-hand interpretations, gives you the clearest picture of the truth.

still didn't watch the timeline did you.

I'll refer you back to your own statement AGAIN

There is no way to win against the doubters.

listening to the White House defend their own actions in the matter is like listening to Jerry Sandusky say he doesn't molest boys. the facts say otherwise

when I get home from work I'll get the facts for you instead of the kool-aid your hooked on. not that you'll even read them.

Uh...isn't the whole argument being made against the Administration here that they confirmed it as a planned attack the day after it happened, but then backtracked and tried to use the video as an excuse? You said as much yourself. If that's the case, then looking at the Administration's own statements would provide the primary evidence as to whether or not that's what actually happened. And as vision's research showed, the Administration never once made those claims.

Also, now that I'm finally attempting to sit through that "damning" timeline, there are a fantastic number of irrelevant comments, out-of-context statements, and unproven assertions. So in other words, the usual Fox nonsense.

Much as I admire your effort in this, Vision; I'm afraid to say that you've wasted your time.

Ferno wrote:Much as I admire your effort in this, Vision; I'm afraid to say that you've wasted your time.

Haha, not really. You see, I've got the day off and this is a good opportunity to keep my skeptical chops up. My effort might be wasted on the likes of wood, cuda, snoop, and whoever, but this time isn't wasted on myself.

CUDA wrote:still didn't watch the timeline did you. ...
when I get home from work I'll get the facts for you instead of the kool-aid your hooked on. not that you'll even read them.

Since you are never too old to learn, I'm going to teach you how to watch a FOX news story! Woo-hoo!


0:00-1:43
Nothing new here. Al-Qaeda makes some threats, which they do every day. Some are viable, some are not. Obviously it's up to intelligence agencies to determine which. Sometimes they get it right, sometimes not. No one is perfect, not even you (surprise).

1:43-2:22
“Officials say 'Everything is calm...There's nothing unusual'” Oh yeah? Which “official” would that be? Nice unnamed source for FOX's crack news team.

2:22-3:28
Mostly politics here. Regarding statements, I read all these on the White House website. None of them are lies or contradictions to anything known at the time. Insert Romney again. By the way, this is a clear political distraction on the part of FOX. Romney has no credible intelligence to offer and nothing he said should be used to draw conclusions. Just politics, baby.

3:28-3:41
The attack is named a terrorist act in order to free up resources. That was mentioned in my briefing post above. And, it sounds like the administration is on top of things here, it seems a good move to reclassify it as terrorism for the sake of creating a robust investigation. This is a plus for Obama's team.

3:58-4:07
FOX news cites their mysterious intelligence sources. Wow, they are really on top of things. Maybe FOX should run the government? “Groups could be behind the attack”? Speculation, for the sake of leading the viewer.

4:07-4:29
Insert Republican Mike Rogers claiming it was Al-Qaeda. Oh sure, no political motivation there. Then cue another unidentified talking head to reinforce the point. This is classic one-two punch media agencies use to make a point.

4:29-5:53
All statements here are true. They are statements made about unrest in the region, not specifically Benghazi. Of course you wouldn't know this because you didn't scour the White House website like I did. These sound-bytes are taken out of context and there to manipulate the viewer. (Look how much you are learning!)

5:53-6:10
Insert John McCain saying it is very likely terrorism. Great job John, except the president already said that two days ago.

6:10-6:55
Susan Rice reiterates what is known at the time. Again, this is what is known based on intelligence available and reiterates the press briefing from 9/20. No conflicts yet.

6:55-8:40
Fox pats themselves on the back again with some nameless talking head claiming unnamed sources on the ground said there were no protests. Here is where I think people lose track of what was really going on. There was unrest in a few Muslim cities on 9/11. While there was no demonstration going on at them embassy in Benghazi, the excitement of the day would be a great opportunity to get a bunch of people together for a 5 hour attack on an embassy. This also contradicts FOX's own reporting that it was a “commando style raid”. What organized military effort takes 5 hours to take down one building and kill 4 people? Idiots I tell you...

8:40-8:51
Matthew Olsen says “it's terrorism”. FOX says this is the only administration official to testify so far. The only one? So we can disregard all the other statements up to this point, right?

8:51-9:04
A clip of Anderson Cooper saying Ambassador Stevens journal mentioned a rise in Al-Qaeda and Stevens being on a hit-list. But this was expected. Libya is in a state of transition and Al-Qaeda is opportunistic. Also, Al-Qaeda has every diplomat on a hit-list!

9:04-9:31
FOX takes time to give themselves imagined credibility by saying “We said it was terrorism! The New York Times doesn't even have a story on Libya.” Really? How is this relevant? Oh wait, it's FOX sensationalism again... Note: I would suggest everyone watch that section of the video. Anyone with any critical thinking skills can recognize how much this plays into the propaganda game. It's hilarious, really.

9:31-10:43
Running out of things to talk about, they focus on the minutia of how to categorize the attack, as terrorism or not. This is a ploy. Terrorism is a buzz word, and they take the administration's hesitance to speak without facts as a sign of incompetence. More propaganda.

10:43-11:00
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta says it's a terrorist attack on September 27. Nothing wrong with that. They have now had enough time to review intelligence and make that decision. No contradictions here.

11:15- end
FOX has some sort of meaningless panel discussion so they can stroke themselves in front of their hypnotized viewers.


So there you go. Am I supposed to think what a sensationalist news source claims is more credible than what the administration says as I read it with my own eyes? I'm drinking Kool-aid because I went to the source to find out what was said? Are you insane? I guess if you watch FOX News to find out about the world you are...

My favorite part was the segment pointing out that Obama had a campaign rally in Las Vegas. A sitting President performing scheduled campaign activities two months before his re-election bid? Gasp!

And yeah, the not-so-subtle diss on the Times was fun too.

I don’t know what is worse…bumbling or covering up.

Here's WaPo's timeline. Puts some more perspective on what vision posted. Is more pointed at noting the Administration's emphasis early on of the purported effect of the video and Muslim demonstrations (or not).

Top Gun wrote:My favorite part was the segment pointing out that Obama had a campaign rally in Las Vegas. A sitting President performing scheduled campaign activities two months before his re-election bid? Gasp!

And yeah, the not-so-subtle diss on the Times was fun too.

How much you want to bet that someone's gonna come along and blame obama for not taking care of "the problem" because "he was too busy campaigning"?

But apparently it was okay for Bush to take three-month vacations every year?

(For the record I thought those complaints were ridiculous at the time.)

Top Gun wrote:My favorite part was the segment pointing out that Obama had a campaign rally in Las Vegas. A sitting President performing scheduled campaign activities two months before his re-election bid? Gasp!

And yeah, the not-so-subtle diss on the Times was fun too.

No, this is my favorite presidential play-machoman-while-he-slacks-off moment.

weird. I sense some subtle irony on Bush's part in this clip, as if he were making fun of his own persona. But its probably just me going "this can't be for real".

President Obama now claims he declared the attack as terrorism in the rose garden the day after. We have seen the time line Roid gave us on the attack no where is there an admission to it being a terror attack in the beginning.

Heretic wrote:President Obama now claims he declared the attack as terrorism in the rose garden the day after.

It's true. You should go back to Page 1 where I pointed it out. There is a link to the transcript so you can read it yourself. Have fun.

They why did he go on blaming a video and spontaneous protest for the attack that killed the Amb and security force?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-575 ... orist-act/

Heretic wrote:They why did he go on blaming a video and spontaneous protest for the attack that killed the Amb and security force?

As you can tell from that post I linked to, I've done a bit of research on this. But I can only speculate as to why the administration acted as such. I'll give you my interpretation of what I think happened based on what I've read. Disclaimer: this is not a justification or apology for anything the administration has done, though I think the same could happen no matter who is in office. (Please read everything I posted on Page 1 before continuing.)

First, I'll start out with a few facts, and then I'll draw what I think is a reasonable conclusion from them.

1. The anniversary of 9/11 was filled with protests in many Muslim cities.
2. Muslims were outraged over a ridiculous film. This may or may not be related to the 9/11 anniversary.
3. There were no mass protests in Benghazi comparable to Cairo or other cities, though tensions were high everywhere.
4. Al-Qaeda is still functioning, though they seem to be less and less potent as time goes by.
5. Diplomats and embassies are always targets to our enemies.
6. US Intelligence gets a continual stream of leads to possible terror activity. It's not always clear what constitutes a real threat.
7. Post-attack statements by the administration seemed vague at best and sometime contradictory.

So, this is what I think happened. The attack in Benghazi was premeditated. However, I think it was premeditated in the same way you might plan a camping trip. You have your tent and all your supplies ready, you just need the right weather to fall on the right weekend. Al-Qaeda probably plans an event for every 9/11 anniversary, but as we have seen, they haven't done anything -- until now.

Would they have attacked the embassy on 9/11 regardless of current events? We might never know. However, I think the general unrest in the Muslim world made it very easy to round people up for an attack of this scale. Libya just came out of a major conflict. There are unsecured weapons and lots of political unrest. It's a perfect place for Al-Qaeda to do their work. And they definitely needed all the weapons and bodies they could muster. It took dozens of people a few hours to take town the embassy and kill 4 Americans. This is not characteristic of a trained military operation. It looks ad hoc, what you might expect from a spontaneous demonstration that got out of control in a region where weapons are easily available and unrest is prevalent.

Prior to the attack, the US State Department got word of a buildup and possible attack. But as you can imagine, there is a perpetual threat to our diplomats in the Middle East and North Africa. The State Department had to make an evaluation, and they did what they thought was best. Obviously, it wasn't enough to save 4 important lives. However, let's take a quick look at what their options were: almost none. Could the US realistically send enough troops and armor into Libya, who just had a small civil war, to reinforce a US embassy from rocket attacks? Probably not without causing even greater problems in the immediate area. So we are left with two choices, to either rely on existing security or pull the Ambassador and diplomats out. The second option is the correct one, but we only know this in hindsight. As I mentioned above, diplomats and embassies are perpetual targets and there are constant threats to their safety. For the most part, the State Department gets it right. This time they didn't, and that is unfortunate.

So what about after the attack? It seems the main argument is centered around how to define this: is it terrorism or not? People split hairs about "terrorism" vs "act of terror" vs "spontaneous in response to a movie." I don't know that any of that is important. It is clear that the day's unrest was a factor, whether that was ultimately caused by a movie is questionable for any city where demonstrations occurred. There were a lot of unknowns, and the administration was clear about stating this. Popular media doesn't work that way and knows nothing of depth and subtlety -- just catchy headlines.

I personally don't consider the Benghazi attack terrorism, as I stated on the previous page. And even though labeling this as terrorism is difficult, let's look at the reasons for and against that label.

Calling it terrorism does a couple of things. First, saying an Al-Qaeda terrorist attack happened on 9/11 for the second time sounds like political disaster. But I don't think this is true. Terrorism will never go away. It is a concept. Realistically, Al-Qaeda will also exist for a long time regardless of our efforts. But if you look at the the 9/11 attacks on 2001 and 2012, the difference is staggering. In 2001 several massive buildings were destroyed and thousands of people were killed on US soil. In 2012, four Americans were killed in an embassy in Libya. Not to diminish the deaths of our Ambassadors, but for the sake of contrast it is clear that progress has been made in dealing with Al-Qaeda. The embassy attack could have happened anywhere in the Middle East or North Africa on any day of the year (by anyone really). It becomes a bigger deal when it happens on the anniversary of 9/11. I can see why some would be hesitant to call it terrorism given the day's sensitivities.

Secondly, a good reason to call it terrorism is because that label opens up investigative and financial resources by deferring the incident to government groups designed specifically to deal with this sort of thing. This was made clear a number of times in the days following the attack. It was probably a tough call since information about the nature of the attack was still questionable early on. Unfortunately, our government is huge and full of red tape. Information doesn't circulate among the necessary individuals as timely as we would like it too.

On the other hand, to forgo the terrorism label completely and say this was due to regional unrest is not skirting the issue. This is probably closer to fact. "Terrorism" is completely overused to describe anything anti-West. I think it is safe to assume our diplomats are always in danger and attacks are imminent. The only thing stopping them is opportunities, and in the case of Benghazi, the window of opportunity opened when Muslims around the world started protesting the West.

I do not think there is any sort of coverup going on. People confuse government "coverup" with "ineptitude," which unfortunately is the case all too often. And that ineptitude is not a byproduct of this administration, but all administrations past, present, and future.

There's another angle to this mess and it starts with Bush.

He's the one that started all this private contractor business during his 2 wars on terror. Privatize the military, uh, huh. All those mundane security jobs that were formerly done by our professional military. Specifically, the U.S Embassies around to world that used to be protected by Marines. Now, all of this is done by private contractors with no oversight. As an example, these guys in Afghanistan, although not at an Embassy.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/video-sho ... d=17493189

I'm in no way impugning the courage of those who died in Benghazi. They fought as best they could with the few men they had. I'm only trying to point out the series of missteps and purposely planned scenarios by the previous administration that got us into these straits.

But there's another layer to this. After the Blackwater incident in Iraq, in which 17 Iraqis were killed by Blackwater contractors, protests erupted all over the Arab World over the aggressive tactics by Blackwater employees.

Unsurprisingly, the new Libyan Government did not want Blackwater Mercenaries storming into their country, which really put a bind on the State Department. Combine that with the scarce resources that the State Department now deals with in the wake of budget cuts, the very same budget cuts put through by Republicans and protested against by Democrats, we have a perfect storm.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/13/world ... wanted=all

Another legacy from Bush that Obama inherited and cannot readily fix. Granted there are a whole host of other issues as the above article goes into, like the fact that the State Department didn't think of Libya as a war zone, but the main problem has been cast in stone, the problem of private mercenary contractors and a shrinking budget. And one makes the other smaller.

so your blaming the ambassadors death on Bush now. you've stooped to new lows now. Pathetic

Well it has come out the outsourced security in Libya were only allowed to carry flashlights and batons. A good mix to combat rpg's and ak-47's eh?

CUDA wrote:so your blaming the ambassadors death on Bush now. you've stooped to new lows now. Pathetic

No, Bush put the sugar in the gas tank. Obama's been stuck trying to keep the engine running, even while Republicans keep throwing more sugar into the gas tank.

woodchip wrote:Well it has come out the outsourced security in Libya were only allowed to carry flashlights and batons. A good mix to combat rpg's and ak-47's eh?

So who's fault is that? Blue Mountain's or the State Department? Blue Mountain hired and trained Libyan men for the job, and gave them the inadequate training and weapons in the first place. If we'd still had Marines guarding our Embassies, like in the past, this screwup by a private company that has no oversight wouldn't have happened in the first place. BUSH! BUSH! BUSH! DAMMIT!

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012 ... al-shalchi

Obama is not superhuman and all knowing, so how in the hell would Obama even be involved in this piddly decision making process before this fiasco even occurred? That IS why the State Department exists ya know.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/fo ... kesmen-say