MonroeTalks.com > Categories > News > US ambassador killed in consulate attack in Libya II


Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 53   Go Down

Author Topic: US ambassador killed in consulate attack in Libya II  (Read 39153 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Will Sweat

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4166
Re: US ambassador killed in consulate attack in Libya II
« Reply #30 on: October 25, 2012, 10:41:35 AM »

(From Britebart.com) Today, at the White House press gaggle, Jay Carney was asked one – really, just one question about the emails regarding the terrorist attack in Benghazi. Those emails, to refresh, showed that within two hours of the attacks, the White House had been informed that the action on the ground was a terrorist attack. There was no mention of a YouTube video or a spontaneous demonstration in the emails.
Carney acknowledged today not only that the White House knew, but that it knew “instantaneously”:

"The email you’re referring to was an open-source, unclassified email referring to an assertion made on a social media site that everyone in this room had access to and knew about instantaneously."

In my estimation, the implication of this is:

(1) members of the media knew that the attack in Benghazi was a terrorist attack and a group had claimed responsibility (even lacking confirmation this should have been reported - BTW; yes, I believe Jay Carney on this if for no other reason nobody questioned him). 

(2) members of the media either (a) did not read the emails or (b) made the decision to not report the story. 

(3) the Administration made the decision for days / weeks to not bring this information forward for public consumption because (a) they wanted time to confirm things (reasonable) or (b) they wanted to use the narrative of a "video" coupled with Gov. Romney's response the evening of the events in an effort push the ideal that "reacting" to Islamic extremism with out using a "tempered" response creates more problems than solutions (i.e. the idea of measured diplomacy - which I believe is a great and worthy thing the problem is this case it (according to Jay Carney - the Administration (and media) knew this wasn't the case). 

(4) CBS news reporter Steve Kroft interviewed Pres. Obama on 12 September and during that interview Pres. Obama.  Pres. Obama told Kroft that the attack in Benghazi was different from the violent protest at the U.S. embassy in Cairo: "You're right that this is not a situation that was exactly the same as what happened in Egypt, and my suspicion is, is that there are folks involved in this who were looking to target Americans from the start." Meaning (a) the day after the attack Pres. Obama acknowledged that the attack on Benghazi appeared to be organized and intentional and (b) he was willing to share this with the American public the following day.  The problem is that CBS made the decision NOT to air this part of the interview, leading NPR's Mara Liasson to criticize them for doing so.  (video is the second link). 

Something is wrong.  Maybe it was nothing more than the information being difficult to assess and organize.  But - if that is the case (and it could be) why play the narrative of the "Innocence of Islam" video (with Pres. Obama going so far to mention it in his UN remarks no less than six times) being the triggering event?  Why not just say . . . hey folks, no matter how nice we are are what we do there exist people who want to kill us because we are not like them. 

Something is very wrong. 

Britebart story ref. Jay Carney's remarks:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/10/24/Carney-everyone-knew-terrorist-claims-instantaneously

Brietbart story with CBS video of Pres. Obama:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/10/25/CBS-Busts-Obama--and-Itself-Hidden-60-Minutes-Clip-Proves-White-House-Lied-About-Benghazi

Mediate report and video of Pres. Obama's remarks to the UN:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/president-obama-condemns-both-disgusting-anti-islam-video-and-mindless-violence-before-the-u-n/

Note:  Brietbart is the site started and operated by Andrew Brietbart until his death.  Yes, is has a conservative bent however the stories are (1) direct reporting from a WH press conference and a (2) CBS news interview. 
Logged
"While we try to teach our childern about life, our childern teach us what life is about"  - Angela Schmidt

ducksoup

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11180
Re: US ambassador killed in consulate attack in Libya II
« Reply #31 on: October 25, 2012, 11:26:44 AM »

Some observations.

Plenty of things happen and it takes days or weeks to sort out what actually took place, even in the states where information I assumedly more reliable and prominent.

This article and other slanted ones dismiss the PRECEEDING events.  A protest was going on about that movie.  That consulate issued an apology trying to calm the situation.  Why is it ignored?  Wouldn’t it be the logical thing to assume that it was a part of the problem since it was assuredly one BEFORE the attack?

People, primarily on the right keep making accusation without evidence, guesses that are partisan, and seem to be unwilling to allow that events when they happen are NOT the same as looking back to what happened.

I hear a ton of “why didn’t they…”  I don’t know the answers to those, nor do I know what the people responsible were getting from the site.  Sometimes we just have to accept that those in charge actually know what they are doing and have more information and different information than we do.  It is just like police.  The police routinely do not release all information about crimes because it is important to keep some for investigation.  Some, in the consulate case, because it is not here, clearly has to be held back for the security of OTHER people or programs that would be at risk.  Just as the CIA base that was at the consulate.  In the rush to place partisan blame a pair of idiots revealed that to the world.  Now, how much was not released to the media simply because of THAT?  As far as I can tell they still do not publicly say that the CIA was there even after the blabbing.  And frankly, that never would have been known if there wasn’t a huge rush by some to make it a partisan attack. 

I am not saying to ignore it, nor to not investigate.  But trial by newspaper isn’t the way.  Congress can have closed door investigations that can get the answers to ALL of the information.

It is sad that some lost their lives, it is sadder that some want to USE them for political gain.
Logged
After one taste, you'll duck soup the rest of your life ... Groucho Marx.

MM1

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7772
Re: US ambassador killed in consulate attack in Libya II
« Reply #32 on: October 25, 2012, 12:05:48 PM »

Quote: "It is sad that some lost their lives, it is sadder that some want to USE them for political gain."


It's a very sad situation to be sure. 

I wonder how Mrs. Stevens (and the families of the other fallen US citizens at the embassy that day) feels about all this.  I wonder if they believe (or accept) what Obama and his whitehouse is saying about their initial response and actions to this day.  I'm not interested in any more Obama-speak about it.  I've had enough of him.  I wonder what is in their head and hearts right now about all of it. 

I wonder if THEY feel Obama jumped through hoops to provide damage control in the most heated leg of this political race for his job. 

I wonder.  I haven't seen anybody interview them (that I've seen anyway).  Granted, I've not seen all the news so maybe they have talked about it and I missed it.  I'd like to hear for myself if they have.  Not an interpretation of what they said or read a transcript.  I'd like to hear their voices and their responses in full context.  But, if they haven't, I find it very curious.  Very curious.   


I have lots of questions, suspicions and complete dis-trust of this administration.  I think there are many, many voters who feel the same way.

Just wondering.

We'll know pretty soon.
 
Logged

excelsior

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4211
Re: US ambassador killed in consulate attack in Libya II
« Reply #33 on: October 25, 2012, 01:07:56 PM »

Some observations.

Plenty of things happen and it takes days or weeks to sort out what actually took place, even in the states where information I assumedly more reliable and prominent.

This article and other slanted ones dismiss the PRECEEDING events.  A protest was going on about that movie.  That consulate issued an apology trying to calm the situation.  Why is it ignored?  Wouldn’t it be the logical thing to assume that it was a part of the problem since it was assuredly one BEFORE the attack?

People, primarily on the right keep making accusation without evidence, guesses that are partisan, and seem to be unwilling to allow that events when they happen are NOT the same as looking back to what happened.

I hear a ton of “why didn’t they…”  I don’t know the answers to those, nor do I know what the people responsible were getting from the site.  Sometimes we just have to accept that those in charge actually know what they are doing and have more information and different information than we do.  It is just like police.  The police routinely do not release all information about crimes because it is important to keep some for investigation.  Some, in the consulate case, because it is not here, clearly has to be held back for the security of OTHER people or programs that would be at risk.  Just as the CIA base that was at the consulate.  In the rush to place partisan blame a pair of idiots revealed that to the world.  Now, how much was not released to the media simply because of THAT?  As far as I can tell they still do not publicly say that the CIA was there even after the blabbing.  And frankly, that never would have been known if there wasn’t a huge rush by some to make it a partisan attack. 

I am not saying to ignore it, nor to not investigate.  But trial by newspaper isn’t the way.  Congress can have closed door investigations that can get the answers to ALL of the information.

It is sad that some lost their lives, it is sadder that some want to USE them for political gain.



It is being ignored because the protest never happened.   The US State Department stated there was no protest over two weeks ago.


Logged
"The beginning of wisdom is a definition of terms." ~ Socrates

"No rational argument will have a rational effect on a man who does not want to adopt a rational attitude." ~ Karl Popper

"What vitiates entirely the socialists economic critique of capitalism is their failure to grasp the sovereignty of the consumers in the market economy." ~ Ludwig von Mises

“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”  ~ Socrates

ducksoup

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11180
Re: US ambassador killed in consulate attack in Libya II
« Reply #34 on: October 25, 2012, 01:32:22 PM »

Quote: "It is sad that some lost their lives, it is sadder that some want to USE them for political gain."


It's a very sad situation to be sure. 

I wonder how Mrs. Stevens (and the families of the other fallen US citizens at the embassy that day) feels about all this.  I wonder if they believe (or accept) what Obama and his whitehouse is saying about their initial response and actions to this day.  I'm not interested in any more Obama-speak about it.  I've had enough of him.  I wonder what is in their head and hearts right now about all of it. 

I wonder if THEY feel Obama jumped through hoops to provide damage control in the most heated leg of this political race for his job. 

I wonder.  I haven't seen anybody interview them (that I've seen anyway).  Granted, I've not seen all the news so maybe they have talked about it and I missed it.  I'd like to hear for myself if they have.  Not an interpretation of what they said or read a transcript.  I'd like to hear their voices and their responses in full context.  But, if they haven't, I find it very curious.  Very curious.   


I have lots of questions, suspicions and complete dis-trust of this administration.  I think there are many, many voters who feel the same way.

Just wondering.

We'll know pretty soon.
 

See what I mean.  As if you EVER tolerated anything Obama said… ever.

When Bush said Iraq has nukes and WMD a whole lot of people thought it was false.  He told us, and congress that he had more information than could be told and “trust me”.  I did, because it is a truth that they do have more information and we don’t.  Turns out now that was a complete lie, but that doesn’t change that it was right to believe him.

You wrongly start from the partisan premise that everything he says is false, no matter what it is.  That sets up the presumption that nothing he says can possibly ever be truth.

You are plain and simple just being extremely partisan and nothing more.
Logged
After one taste, you'll duck soup the rest of your life ... Groucho Marx.

ducksoup

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11180
Re: US ambassador killed in consulate attack in Libya II
« Reply #35 on: October 25, 2012, 01:35:50 PM »


It is being ignored because the protest never happened.   The US State Department stated there was no protest over two weeks ago.





E.  The way I hear it the original protest was real, and about the movie and the organized group took it over.  Looking at the way people are, that seems plausible.  It doesn't change events.  What it does do is say that even now the facts are not all that clear and jumping to partisan boisterousness isn't going to get to the facts.

I too want to know what happened, but using it as a partisan attack is not helpful.

Also, if you remember, the consulate put out the apology and call for calm before the attack.  That memo was what Romney jumped on BEFORE the actual attack.  If they felt, at the time, on the ground THERE, then how can it be not involved?
« Last Edit: October 25, 2012, 01:39:00 PM by ducksoup »
Logged
After one taste, you'll duck soup the rest of your life ... Groucho Marx.

Will Sweat

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4166
Re: US ambassador killed in consulate attack in Libya II
« Reply #36 on: October 25, 2012, 01:47:05 PM »

We would have to disagree that the article is slanted as one looks at Jay Carney's direct quote to a question and the other shows the entire CBS video of President Obama's interview.  Wouldn't it be just as logical to say - this occurred on the anniversary of 9/11 and as there was no protest in Benghazi it was a well planned and executed terrorist strike on US assets.  Is the film offensive?  I will take the word of Muslims that they see it that way.  Were there demonstrations against it on 9/11 and for several days after - yes.  However to simply color everything as being a part of that lacks an understand of the precision, planning and logistics needed for an offensive strike - this wasn't planned "after" the protest.  I would wager the protest were planned as a "cover" to divert attention. 

I hope that my questions did not come across that way but if they did - so be it.  I will say - the CBS video and the quote by Jay Carney seems like direct evidence that the Adm instration (and if Jay Carney is to be believed and as I said earlier, I do believe him) and others knew someone was claiming responsibility for the murder for four Americans within hours of it occurring and the emails from Benghazi demonstrate they were "under attack" not that a "protest" was taking place.  If the Administration does not want people to "look back" after something occurs then share what those on the ground have told you; (1) they are under attack and there is no protest and (2) a group has claimed responsibility for it.   

That's just the thing - what we know now (according to the WH and e-mails) is that per, Jay Carney, ton's of people knew within hours that what was happening in Benghazi was not not the same as what was occurring elsewhere but responsibility for these actions was already being accepted by a group.  Why was this not shared?  I get withholding somethings in order to investigate it but according to the WH the e-mails from Benghazi were "open source", "unclassified" and members of the media had them.  So, either they made the decision to not use this information until it was confirmed or they did read them or they really did not have them - there is no other logical answer to this. 

You are correct that it is sad this has been used for political purposes but the fact of the matter is this; Somebody (again, according to the WH, everyone) had an more than one e-mail the day of the attack that (1) there was no protest in Benghazi, (2) they were under an organized attack and (3) a group had claimed responsibility for the assault.  Why not just say that?  Had that been done then politics would have been off the table and Americans could have (and I bet would have) rallied around the President just like we did President Bush when 9/11 occurred. 
Logged
"While we try to teach our childern about life, our childern teach us what life is about"  - Angela Schmidt

Will Sweat

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4166
Re: US ambassador killed in consulate attack in Libya II
« Reply #37 on: October 25, 2012, 01:53:21 PM »

I wonder how Mrs. Stevens (and the families of the other fallen US citizens at the embassy that day) feels about all this.  I wonder if they believe (or accept) what Obama and his whitehouse is saying about their initial response and actions to this day.  I'm not interested in any more Obama-speak about it.  I've had enough of him.  I wonder what is in their head and hearts right now about all of it. 

I wonder if THEY feel Obama jumped through hoops to provide damage control in the most heated leg of this political race for his job. 

I wonder.  I haven't seen anybody interview them (that I've seen anyway).  Granted, I've not seen all the news so maybe they have talked about it and I missed it.  I'd like to hear for myself if they have.  Not an interpretation of what they said or read a transcript.  I'd like to hear their voices and their responses in full context.  But, if they haven't, I find it very curious.  Very curious.   


Not sure if this is what you are looking for but the Mother of Sean Smith was recently interviewed by the NY Post: 

WASHINGTON — The grieving mother of one of four Americans slain at the US Consulate in Libya was furious yesterday that the government still can’t tell her what happened a day after President Obama strangely said the tragedy was “not optimal.”

“Everyone’s giving me different answers. I don’t have good answers, and they are not giving me good answers. Some of the people [from the government] looked me right in the eye and lied to me,” said Pat Smith, the mother of Sean Smith, a State Department technology expert who died with Ambassador Chris Stevens and two security officials in the attack in Benghazi last month.

“Somebody is lying, or else these crooks are running our country, and I don’t choose to believe that,” she told The Post by phone from her San Diego home yesterday. “My son is dead, and I don’t know why, and I don’t know why nobody went out to help my son.”

 Speaking of Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and the decisions made on security at the consulate, Smith said: “They’re on the top. They’re the big cheeses. If they didn’t make the decision, they should have been the ones that made the decision.”

Obama spoke about the government’s handling of the attack in an interview on “The Daily Show” Thursday, after host Jon Stewart asked whether the feds provided “not the optimal response, at least to the American people” — a reference to initial administration claims that the attack resulted from a demonstration brought on by an anti-Islam video.

“Here’s what I’ll say: If four Americans get killed, it’s not optimal. We’re going to fix it. All of it,” Obama responded.

The comment drew outrage from Republicans, including Sen. John McCain, and comes as Obama and Mitt Romney prepare for their third and final debate, this one in Florida and focusing on foreign policy.

“Well, even from someone like the president, who has never known what these kinds of tragedies are about and the service and sacrifice that people make, it’s still just — you know, I can’t even get angry. It’s just so inappropriate,” McCain told Fox News.

“And I’m sure that the families of those brave Americans are not amused,” he added.

Earlier in the day, Smith vented to The Daily Mail of London about Obama’s “not optimal” remark.

“It’s insensitive to say my son is not very optimal; he is also very dead. I’ve not been ‘optimal’ since he died, and the past few weeks have been pure hell,” she told the British newspaper.

In her interview with The Post, Smith denied making the remarks to The Daily Mail. She called them a lie, saying, “I did not feel that.”

And she said she hadn’t heard Obama’s “Daily Show” interview.

When she read Obama’s “not optimal” remark, Smith said: “I did not hear them. I did not agree with them. I don’t want them used in connection with me.”

The Obama camp yesterday offered no further clarification of the president’s comments.

The attack in Libya is certain to come up in Monday’s debate, for which moderator Bob Schieffer has announced he will ask two sets of questions on the Middle East and the “new face of terrorism.”

The controversy over the Libya attack sparked one of the hottest exchanges between Obama and Romney in their debate last week.

And Paul Ryan again hammered Obama on the issue yesterday.

“Look around the world, turn on your TV, and what we see in front of us is the absolute unraveling of the Obama administration’s foreign policy,” the vice-presidential candidate told WTAQ radio in Wisconsin.

“I’m excited we’re going to have a chance to talk about that on Monday,” Ryan added.


http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/tragic_ma_optimal_my_ass_wYmDf3u12EExRAoeCAsyZI
Logged
"While we try to teach our childern about life, our childern teach us what life is about"  - Angela Schmidt

Will Sweat

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4166
Re: US ambassador killed in consulate attack in Libya II
« Reply #38 on: October 25, 2012, 02:11:11 PM »

E.  The way I hear it the original protest was real, and about the movie and the organized group took it over.  Looking at the way people are, that seems plausible.  It doesn't change events.  What it does do is say that even now the facts are not all that clear and jumping to partisan boisterousness isn't going to get to the facts.

I too want to know what happened, but using it as a partisan attack is not helpful.

Also, if you remember, the consulate put out the apology and call for calm before the attack.  That memo was what Romney jumped on BEFORE the actual attack.  If they felt, at the time, on the ground THERE, then how can it be not involved?


Duck - there were protest but not in Benghazi - the State Department has acknowledge this.  Do you honestly believe that a group jumped into attack mode simply because there was a protest?  This defies simply because of the logistics and planning needed to carry out such an exercise.  This occurred on 9/11 - somebody planned it and even Pres. Obama in his 9/12 CBS interview acknowledged what occurred in Benghazi was "not the same" and that it pointed to a planned attack.  CBS made the decision not to play that part of the interview. 

I don't think that anyone is dismissing the video (or I am not) entirely, but it is a much more logical thing to believe that because (1) there was an organized / planned attack that (2) those who planned it used 9/11 as the planned date (because of it's relevance) and used the video to gin up public outrage and create a diversion to draw attention away from the target.  I doubt that any of those involved in the actual attack were at the protest.  They were able to get the public in a furor which gave them a chance to hit the targets they planned (again, directing a specific attack at American's as Pres. Obama himself has confirmed). 

Consider - this "video" had been floating around the internet for more than two months prior to the "protest".  Hell, even Cenk Uygur stated that what occurred in Libya was an organized attack and not connected to the protest over the video. 

Cenk Uygur's assessment of the video: 

'Innocence of Muslims' Sparks Outrage
Logged
"While we try to teach our childern about life, our childern teach us what life is about"  - Angela Schmidt

excelsior

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4211
Re: US ambassador killed in consulate attack in Libya II
« Reply #39 on: October 25, 2012, 02:12:11 PM »

E.  The way I hear it the original protest was real, and about the movie and the organized group took it over.  Looking at the way people are, that seems plausible.  It doesn't change events.  What it does do is say that even now the facts are not all that clear and jumping to partisan boisterousness isn't going to get to the facts.

I too want to know what happened, but using it as a partisan attack is not helpful.

Also, if you remember, the consulate put out the apology and call for calm before the attack.  That memo was what Romney jumped on BEFORE the actual attack.  If they felt, at the time, on the ground THERE, then how can it be not involved?


I believe you may be confusing Libya with the Egypt incident.   I am not aware of statements being released in Benghazi.

Did the U.S. apologize for the Cairo embassy attack?

more at:  http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57510951-503544/did-the-u.s-apologize-for-the-cairo-embassy-attack/

(CBS News) After a massive crowd of angry Egyptians began amassing outside the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, furious over an anti-Muslim film produced in the U.S., the embassy there released a statement saying it did not support any anti-religious efforts.

"The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims - as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions," the statement began.

Conservatives have pounced on the statement, calling it an "apology," and the White House responded by saying it had not approved the statement before its release.

"The statement by Embassy Cairo was not cleared by Washington and does not reflect the views of the United States government," an administration official told Politico.

It appears the White House was attempting to get ahead of an oft-used conservative trope on Democrats, namely that they have an apparent "apologize first" approach to foreign policy.

Mitt Romney's campaign wasted little time late Tuesday trying to turn the embassy's statement into an effort to strengthen his foreign policy credentials.

In a statement, Romney said: "I'm outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It's disgraceful that the Obama Administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks."
Logged
"The beginning of wisdom is a definition of terms." ~ Socrates

"No rational argument will have a rational effect on a man who does not want to adopt a rational attitude." ~ Karl Popper

"What vitiates entirely the socialists economic critique of capitalism is their failure to grasp the sovereignty of the consumers in the market economy." ~ Ludwig von Mises

“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”  ~ Socrates

ducksoup

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11180
Re: US ambassador killed in consulate attack in Libya II
« Reply #40 on: October 25, 2012, 02:28:15 PM »

We would have to disagree that the article is slanted as one looks at Jay Carney's direct quote to a question and the other shows the entire CBS video of President Obama's interview.  Wouldn't it be just as logical to say - this occurred on the anniversary of 9/11 and as there was no protest in Benghazi it was a well planned and executed terrorist strike on US assets.  Is the film offensive?  I will take the word of Muslims that they see it that way.  Were there demonstrations against it on 9/11 and for several days after - yes.  However to simply color everything as being a part of that lacks an understand of the precision, planning and logistics needed for an offensive strike - this wasn't planned "after" the protest.  I would wager the protest were planned as a "cover" to divert attention. 

I hope that my questions did not come across that way but if they did - so be it.  I will say - the CBS video and the quote by Jay Carney seems like direct evidence that the Adm instration (and if Jay Carney is to be believed and as I said earlier, I do believe him) and others knew someone was claiming responsibility for the murder for four Americans within hours of it occurring and the emails from Benghazi demonstrate they were "under attack" not that a "protest" was taking place.  If the Administration does not want people to "look back" after something occurs then share what those on the ground have told you; (1) they are under attack and there is no protest and (2) a group has claimed responsibility for it.   

That's just the thing - what we know now (according to the WH and e-mails) is that per, Jay Carney, ton's of people knew within hours that what was happening in Benghazi was not not the same as what was occurring elsewhere but responsibility for these actions was already being accepted by a group.  Why was this not shared?  I get withholding somethings in order to investigate it but according to the WH the e-mails from Benghazi were "open source", "unclassified" and members of the media had them.  So, either they made the decision to not use this information until it was confirmed or they did read them or they really did not have them - there is no other logical answer to this. 

You are correct that it is sad this has been used for political purposes but the fact of the matter is this; Somebody (again, according to the WH, everyone) had an more than one e-mail the day of the attack that (1) there was no protest in Benghazi, (2) they were under an organized attack and (3) a group had claimed responsibility for the assault.  Why not just say that?  Had that been done then politics would have been off the table and Americans could have (and I bet would have) rallied around the President just like we did President Bush when 9/11 occurred. 

See, that's the thing, isn't it.  The date of 9/11 certainly COULD be a factor, but who knows. 

I disagree that in this hyper partisan world that the right would get behind the president on anything, even that.
Logged
After one taste, you'll duck soup the rest of your life ... Groucho Marx.

ducksoup

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11180
Re: US ambassador killed in consulate attack in Libya II
« Reply #41 on: October 25, 2012, 02:32:37 PM »

Duck - there were protest but not in Benghazi - the State Department has acknowledge this.  Do you honestly believe that a group jumped into attack mode simply because there was a protest?  This defies simply because of the logistics and planning needed to carry out such an exercise.  This occurred on 9/11 - somebody planned it and even Pres. Obama in his 9/12 CBS interview acknowledged what occurred in Benghazi was "not the same" and that it pointed to a planned attack.  CBS made the decision not to play that part of the interview. 

I don't think that anyone is dismissing the video (or I am not) entirely, but it is a much more logical thing to believe that because (1) there was an organized / planned attack that (2) those who planned it used 9/11 as the planned date (because of it's relevance) and used the video to gin up public outrage and create a diversion to draw attention away from the target.  I doubt that any of those involved in the actual attack were at the protest.  They were able to get the public in a furor which gave them a chance to hit the targets they planned (again, directing a specific attack at American's as Pres. Obama himself has confirmed). 

Consider - this "video" had been floating around the internet for more than two months prior to the "protest".  Hell, even Cenk Uygur stated that what occurred in Libya was an organized attack and not connected to the protest over the video. 

Cenk Uygur's assessment of the video: 

'Innocence of Muslims' Sparks Outrage


Okay, so lets assume for a moment that this was a planned attack and only a planned attack.  Is it supposed to be that the government is perfect and catches absolutely everything.  Again, it is a big butt partisan attack that doesn't care to figure out what really happened, but what way it can be used for partisan spin.

I too want to know what happened and if it could have been prevented, or what things can be done for future events, but the partisan BS is making it harder, not easier to figure out.
Logged
After one taste, you'll duck soup the rest of your life ... Groucho Marx.

Will Sweat

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4166
Re: US ambassador killed in consulate attack in Libya II
« Reply #42 on: October 25, 2012, 02:37:51 PM »

You know . . . I don't think it was happenstance that this occurred on 9/11.  I can't speak for the hard right but I will say, I for one, would have been more than willing to support President Obama on this issue had the information that was known been clearly communicated. 

In truth - it was communicated if you believe the WH (and I do), in that the emails were open source and the media had them.   Plus, the President himself said on 09/12 in his CBS interview that he believe the attack on Benghazi was not like the "protest" in Egypt or Tripoli.  So maybe the real question is . . . why didn't the media share this information and instead of folks thinking the media is slanted in favor of Pres. Obama maybe they should consider that the media withheld information that only served to harm him. 
Logged
"While we try to teach our childern about life, our childern teach us what life is about"  - Angela Schmidt

MM1

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7772
Re: US ambassador killed in consulate attack in Libya II
« Reply #43 on: October 25, 2012, 02:40:48 PM »

Thanks Will.  And, that sort of solidifies my point about wanting to hear it for  myself, and not read a version of or some quotes.  It's too easy for people to lie or at the very least twist a truth to fit their version of reality.  (lies)

And, the poster is right.  I am not tolerant of Obama because I do not trust him.  He has all the bells and whistles of a liar, IMO.  He has all the bells and whistles of a slick manipulator whose main focus is his own agenda/image.  IMO.  These are my opinions.  You can agree or disagree, makes no difference to me whatsoever.   And, these feelings were alive and well LONG before this most recent manipulation of facts. 


I would like to hear those interviews in actual footage.  Uncut, unedited and as they were told. 

Until I do, I'm sorry I can't believe what is printed. 

It's a short road to November and I really think the "hope and change" will FINALLY be delivered by Obama as he exits the whitehouse. 


JMO of course.   
Logged

ducksoup

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11180
Re: US ambassador killed in consulate attack in Libya II
« Reply #44 on: October 25, 2012, 02:45:15 PM »

You know . . . I don't think it was happenstance that this occurred on 9/11.  I can't speak for the hard right but I will say, I for one, would have been more than willing to support President Obama on this issue had the information that was known been clearly communicated. 

In truth - it was communicated if you believe the WH (and I do), in that the emails were open source and the media had them.   Plus, the President himself said on 09/12 in his CBS interview that he believe the attack on Benghazi was not like the "protest" in Egypt or Tripoli.  So maybe the real question is . . . why didn't the media share this information and instead of folks thinking the media is slanted in favor of Pres. Obama maybe they should consider that the media withheld information that only served to harm him. 
I don't know Will.  That's what my big problem is, that it is all over he place with wild ideas and sadly people that are so opposed to the president that anything he says or does is a lie or wrong or evil.  I am not trying to defend the president, or anyone else, I just don't see how the constant attack mode is going to do anything but hurt.

I am unsure about the whole email thing at this time.  If the media held it, then maybe hey thought they had to to protect lives, they do do that.  Maybe they didn't actually read it?  I don't know.  I wouldn't put it past some to ignore, but doubt that all would unless they felt there was a reason, or didn't notice them.
Logged
After one taste, you'll duck soup the rest of your life ... Groucho Marx.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 53   Go Up