Geeez ,, no talk of this , Big breaking story today ..

[Raven]

one politician was talkin junk about rebuilding syria
with what? our looks?

if we don't take a step backwards we'll have
good samaritaned ourselves to death monitarilly

meanwhile CHINA is gonna Spank jAPAN

[detbuch]

Benghazzzzzzzzzzzzzzziiiii:

http://www.redstate.com/2014/04/30/h...azi-video-lie/

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Benghazzzzzzzzzzzzzzziiiii:

http://www.redstate.com/2014/04/30/h...azi-video-lie/

Both her and her husband lie. It's who they are & what they do.......
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Benghazzzzzzzzzzzzzzziiiii:

http://www.redstate.com/2014/04/30/h...azi-video-lie/

Well, at least that's an unbiased opinion

All this smoking gun talk is hilarious. The letter doesn't appear to contradict anything from the numerous investigations. Further, if you actually read the email -- rather than just the snipped being reported -- the author goes into detail specifically about the protests at various sites that certainly were a result of the video...

Of course, that's not really important as 99.9% won't bother.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Well, at least that's an unbiased opinion

Is there such a thing as an unbiased opinion? Yours seem to be consistently biased in a direction guided by mostly "liberal" media opinion and the avoidance of what you consider biased "extremist" opinions.

All this smoking gun talk is hilarious.

Your sense of humor is rather dark, sardonic, and biased.

The letter doesn't appear to contradict anything from the numerous investigations.

Appearance is that slanted view of the biased observer.

Further, if you actually read the email -- rather than just the snipped being reported -- the author goes into detail specifically about the protests at various sites that certainly were a result of the video...

Of course, that's not really important as 99.9% won't bother.

-spence

Well, since the memo was sent just after the Benghazi fiasco, it would stand to reason that Benghazi was at least a part of the motivation for writing it. If not, it would be an abnormally strong message. And it desperately tries to tie the "protests" to the video and not to policy as in the memo's second bullet point:

"To underscore that these protests are rooted in an internet video, and not a broader failure of policy."

Why would it be necessary to create a talking point for Susan Rice which would emphasize that it wasn't policy failure? And why be so emphatic that it was about a video when they already had much stronger evidence that it was a coordinated terrorist attack not related to the video . . . and an attack planned by Al Qaida affiliates?

And the first bullet point:

"To convey that the United States is doing everything that we can to protect our people and facilities abroad."

Why was that talking point necessary. Haven't we always assumed that we would do everything required to protect our people? Why, if not to deflect from not having done so in Benghazi?

And if the memo was not about Benghazi, why was it provided in a request through the freedom of information for Benghazi documents?

The memo was about making the administration look good in a bad situation. I understand that the purpose of talking points is mostly to do that. But when they willingly stray far from the truth to paint a picture, or the promise of a picture, of steady, successful leadership in circumstances of abject failure, they are . . . I'll let you provide the word for what they are . . . even a biased one.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Well, since the memo was sent just after the Benghazi fiasco, it would stand to reason that Benghazi was at least a part of the motivation for writing it. If not, it would be an abnormally strong message. And it desperately tries to tie the "protests" to the video and not to policy as in the memo's second

At the time there were protests in response to the video, some violent, in around a half dozen countries swept up in the Arab Spring...this was a big story.

"To underscore that these protests are rooted in an internet video, and not a broader failure of policy."

Why would it be necessary to create a talking point for Susan Rice which would emphasize that it wasn't policy failure? And why be so emphatic that it was about a video when they already had much stronger evidence that it was a coordinated terrorist attack not related to the video . . . and an attack planned by Al Qaida affiliates?

The entire purpose for a document such as this is to prepare someone for hypothetical questions they *could* be asked by a media attempting to challenge the Administration's policy...

The context for the email seems to be the regional situation which was largely a response to the video, and the investigations clearly show it was the CIA who ultimately influenced the talking points.

"To convey that the United States is doing everything that we can to protect our people and facilities abroad."

Why was that talking point necessary. Haven't we always assumed that we would do everything required to protect our people? Why, if not to deflect from not having done so in Benghazi?

Again, they were trying to prepare Rice to be ready for potential lines of questioning. The embassy staff in Egypt clearly were feeling threatened by the video protest and this is something that they felt deserved being addressed.

And if the memo was not about Benghazi, why was it provided in a request through the freedom of information for Benghazi documents?

Well, that's an aspect of process. I've read that the email wasn't included in a previous request for Benghazi documents as it was assumed it wasn't specifically about Benghazi. Reading the full email rather than the snippets seems to indicate this is partially accurate. Perhaps it should have been, but I don't see anything that would indicate something substantial was withheld.

The memo was about making the administration look good in a bad situation. I understand that the purpose of talking points is mostly to do that. But when they willingly stray far from the truth to paint a picture, or the promise of a picture, of steady, successful leadership in circumstances of abject failure, they are . . . I'll let you provide the word for what they are . . . even a biased one.

Given at the time they didn't know the truth -- as Rice indicated -- I'm not sure how you could accuse them of straying from it.

Is any of the Benghazi conspiracy theory backed by evidence? Most of the systemic mistakes that were made have been long since called out.

-spence

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

I've read that the email wasn't included in a previous request for Benghazi documents as it was assumed it wasn't specifically about Benghazi.

-spence

I heard on the hearings today it hadn't been released previously because it was classified. What would have made it classified if it were such mundane info as they try to make you believe?

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

I heard on the hearings today it hadn't been released previously because it was classified. What would have made it classified if it were such mundane info as they try to make you believe?

Likely it wasn't declassified rightly or wrongly because do the reason I mentioned above...I would assume most of these communications were classified, as are most dealing with national security. But even if classified I'd also assume that it would have been available to both the Mullen and House investigations long ago...

More importantly, doesn't the GOP realize they've cried wolf so many times people just don't listen any more?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence;1040983

More importantly, doesn't the GOP realize they've cried wolf so many times people just don't listen any more?
[size=1

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device[/size]

And that is the plan isnt it. Let the people who care talk all they want, have the national media totally ignore the story and lie as often as you can ,until the people trying to reach the truth look like the bad guys.
To anybody with a shred of common sense, the lying is incredibly in-your-face. Maybe in the end, karma will bring down the Democratic Party
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

Likely it wasn't declassified rightly or wrongly because do the reason I mentioned above...I would assume most of these communications were classified, as are most dealing with national security. But even if classified I'd also assume that it would have been available to both the Mullen and House investigations long ago...

More importantly, doesn't the GOP realize they've cried wolf so many times people just don't listen any more?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Likely" and "Assume" are some pretty wishy wash words. That e mail was only released after Judicial Watch ,the non partisan watch dog group , sued over the Freedom of Information Act.

No,"More importantly ",the Terrorists who killed the 4 Americans, have not been brought to justice as Obama promised, and in addition 4 days after the attack when the bodies were flown home and Hilary met with the parents, when the CIA had already called it a Terrorist attack at 3:15 AM the day of the attack the parents were told it was caused by the video. That is not a "likely " or "assumed" story, it's a fact, I saw the interview with one of the Mothers.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

"To convey that the United States is doing everything that we can to protect our people and facilities abroad."

.

And what, exactly, di dthe administration do, afetr the attack started, to protect our people? There was a special forces team in Croatia (I think?) that coul dhave been on the ground at the embassy in less than 4 hours, according to the generl in charge of that part of the world. We had jets that could have been there in less than that.

Did Obama order the military to do anything? anything at all?

If Obama and Clinton sens someone to a dangerous placem and they come under attack, you do everything you can.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

And what, exactly, di dthe administration do, afetr the attack started, to protect our people? There was a special forces team in Croatia (I think?) that coul dhave been on the ground at the embassy in less than 4 hours, according to the generl in charge of that part of the world. We had jets that could have been there in less than that.

Did Obama order the military to do anything? anything at all?

If Obama and Clinton sens someone to a dangerous placem and they come under attack, you do everything you can.

If you'd pay attention to a single ounce of reporting on the subject you'd know that the military leadership has been very consistent that we didn't have resources positioned to respond in time. I believe as a measure they did move some troops closer if there was a follow on event.

Hell, in the House's desparate attempts to troll through this again the idea was shot down yet again...just yesterday Air Force Brigadier General Robert Lovell said:

CONNELLY: I want to read to you the conclusion of the chairman of the [Armed Services] Committee, the Republican chairman Buck McKeon, who conducted formal briefings and oversaw that report he said quote "I'm pretty well satisfied that given where the troops were, how quickly the thing all happened, and how quickly it dissipated we probably couldn't have done much more than we did." Do you take issue with the chairman of the Armed Services Committee? In that conclusion?

LOVELL: His conclusion that he couldn't have done much more than they did with the capability and the way they executed it?

CONNELLY: Given the timeframe.

LOVELL: That's a fact.

CONNELLY: Okay.

LOVELL: The way it is right now. The way he stated it.

CONNELLY: Alright, because I'm sure you can appreciate, general, there might be some who, for various and sundry reasons would like to distort your testimony and suggest that you're testifying that we could have, should have done a lot more than we did because we had capabilities we simply didn't utilize. That is not your testimony?

LOVELL: That is not my testimony.

CONNELLY: I thank you very much, general.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

If you'd pay attention to a single ounce of reporting on the subject you'd know that the military leadership has been very consistent that we didn't have resources positioned to respond in time. I believe as a measure they did move some troops closer if there was a follow on event.

Hell, in the House's desparate attempts to troll through this again the idea was shot down yet again...just yesterday Air Force Brigadier General Robert Lovell said:



-spence

"the military leadership has been very consistent that we didn't have resources positioned to respond in time. "

Spence, one simple question...when the attack first happened, neither Obama nor his military leadership had absolutely any way of knowing how long the attack was going to last, correct? So how could he know, at that time, whether or not he could have sent help before it was over. The attack could have lasted for days. They could not have known, at the time the first decisions were being made, how long the attack was going to last.

When an attack is underway, American commanders don't ask (at least, until Obama they didn't ask) "gee, the Americans would probably all be dead before we could get boots on the ground, so why bother? I'm off to Pebble Beach!"

I cannot wait for your response. I sinmply cannot wait...

When you send Americans to a dangerous place, and they come under attack while serving the President, then you move heaven and earth to get them out of harm's way. It doesn't matter that it may be unlikely that you can get help there in time. You do anything you can possibly do. Even if it turns out that it was mathematically impossible to get help there before they were all dead, Obama should still get crucified for not trying. When Americans are under attack in a situation like that, you aren't supposed to do a cost-benefit-analysis before you send in th ecavalry.

You said they couldn't send help "in time". The problem with that Obama apology, is that at the time, no one had any idea what "in time" meant. Right?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, one simple question...when the attack first happened, neither Obama nor his military leadership had absolutely any way of knowing how long the attack was going to last, correct? So how could he know, at that time, whether or not he could have sent help before it was over. The attack could have lasted for days. They could not have known, at the time the first decisions were being made, how long the attack was going to last.

When an attack is underway, American commanders don't ask (at least, until Obama they didn't ask) "gee, the Americans would probably all be dead before we could get boots on the ground, so why bother? I'm off to Pebble Beach!"

I cannot wait for your response. I sinmply cannot wait...

When you send Americans to a dangerous place, and they come under attack while serving the President, then you move heaven and earth to get them out of harm's way. It doesn't matter that it may be unlikely that you can get help there in time. You do anything you can possibly do. Even if it turns out that it was mathematically impossible to get help there before they were all dead, Obama should still get crucified for not trying. When Americans are under attack in a situation like that, you aren't supposed to do a cost-benefit-analysis before you send in th ecavalry.

You said they couldn't send help "in time". The problem with that Obama apology, is that at the time, no one had any idea what "in time" meant. Right?

I think the issue here is you don't know what you're talking about.

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=118500

Make a little effort to try and understand.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

the military leadership has been very consistent that we didn't have resources positioned to respond in time.


-spence

Have they been "consistent"? Here's another quote from Lovell's recent testimony...U.S. forces "should have tried" to get to the outpost in time to help save the lives of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. He blamed the State Department for not making stronger requests for action.

""The military could have made a response of some sort," he (Lovell) said.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/general-sa...030646726.html

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Have they been "consistent"? Here's another quote from Lovell's recent testimony...U.S. forces "should have tried" to get to the outpost in time to help save the lives of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. He blamed the State Department for not making stronger requests for action.

""The military could have made a response of some sort," he (Lovell) said.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/general-sa...030646726.html

Read your own article...

A few hours later, the powerful chairman of the Armed Services panel, Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif., challenged the testimony of Lovell, who was in U.S. Africa Command's headquarters in Germany monitoring the attack.

The general "did not serve in a capacity that gave him reliable insight into operational options available to commanders during the attack, nor did he offer specific courses of action not taken," McKeon said.

And when pressed during testimony Lovell walked back his statement as I quoted above.

Funny how misleading it is when you only read 1/2 of the story...

-spence

[Raven]

shifty = Clinton defines Shifty
and none of them LIE
they just bend the truth

[buckman]

One more rant about this because it bothers me to the core.
They lied about the video. The protest in Egypt might've been about the video but the further violence that escalated in regards to the video, was a direct result of the Obama administration lying and continually pushing the video story. Susan Rice did not have to get on every show she could Z,and push that story ,especially knowing that they knew nothing about it. Obama and Hillary did not have to rent time on a middle east TV and apologize for the video . Hillary Clinton told the parents of those dead heroes that the Obama administration would get the guy who made that video. That is despicable!!
And for people to defend that action is totally disgusting.
This is not going away in my mind.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

One more rant about this because it bothers me to the core.
They lied about the video. The protest in Egypt might've been about the video but the further violence that escalated in regards to the video, was a direct result of the Obama administration lying and continually pushing the video story. Susan Rice did not have to get on every show she could Z,and push that story ,especially knowing that they knew nothing about it. Obama and Hillary did not have to rent time on a middle east TV and apologize for the video . Hillary Clinton told the parents of those dead heroes that the Obama administration would get the guy who made that video. That is despicable!!
And for people to defend that action is totally disgusting.
This is not going away in my mind.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Are you just making this stuff up? If it bothers you to the core I'd think you'd try to actually understand the situation.

The protests happened primarily before Rice ever hit the talk shows. The Admin released a video not to apologize but to affirm our tolerance because people were dying in Pakistan.

A huge part of this story that's been lost is how big the reaction to the video really was. I said a half dozen protests above, that's just at US diplomatic missions, there were dozens and dozens of protests globally, many violent, with several dozen killed. Put the email (if you actually read it) in context of reality and it's quite appropriate.

Some are so consumed with attacking Obama and Hillary they want the entire story to be about a lie regardless of the truth...perhaps that is the lie.

-spence

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Are you just making this stuff up? If it bothers you to the core I'd think you'd try to actually understand the situation.

The protests happened primarily before Rice ever hit the talk shows. The Admin released a video not to apologize but to affirm our tolerance because people were dying in Pakistan.

A huge part of this story that's been lost is how big the reaction to the video really was. I said a half dozen protests above, that's just at US diplomatic missions, there were dozens and dozens of protests globally, many violent, with several dozen killed. Put the email (if you actually read it) in context of reality and it's quite appropriate.

Some are so consumed with attacking Obama and Hillary they want the entire story to be about a lie regardless of the truth...perhaps that is the lie.

-spence

The protest became a big story because the Obama administration wanted to be the story. They are responsible for much of the violence in Pakistan and other places . You have your timeframe wrong Spence .
You are the one that makes #^&#^&#^&#^& up
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

The protest became a big story because the Obama administration wanted to be the story. They are responsible for much of the violence in Pakistan and other places . You have your timeframe wrong Spence .
You are the one that makes #^&#^&#^&#^& up
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

September 9
Egyptian television airs an Arabic-language scene from the Bacile film.

September 11
Protesters in Cairo climb over the walls of the US Embassy and tear down an American flag, replacing it with a black flag inscribed with Islamic emblems. Egyptian police have surrounded the compound to block further incursions.

Protestors in Cairo condemn this film promoted by controversial American pastor Terry Jones as a "humiliation of Muhammad under the pretext of freedom of speech".

September 12

U.S. president Barack Obama says that the United States rejects denigration of religious beliefs.

Sam Bacile, supposed writer and director of the allegedly privately produced film that motivated the attacks, has gone into hiding, while a second person, apparently separately, claims production of the video.

Afghanistan blocks access to YouTube until the video is taken down.

Syrian rebels express outrage that the alleged privately produced video belittling Muhammad is generating more anger among Arabs than the rising death toll within Syria.

September 13

Protestors breach the walls of the U.S. embassy compound in Sana'a, Yemen.

U.S. officials say they are investigating whether the protests over Innocence of Muslims denigrating Muhammad were used as a cover by the Benghazi consulate attackers, rather than being spurred by them.

The US consulate in the suburbs of Berlin, Germany, is briefly evacuated due to suspicions over the contents of an envelope.

Yemeni police fire warning shots in the air and four people are killed. The Egyptian ministry of health says 224 people are injured in demonstrations around the embassy in Cairo. In Kuwait, 500 people gathered and chanted near the embassy.

More details emerge about the "privately" produced anti-Islam film that sparks unrest in the world. Sam Bacile is also the name a Washington-based activist assumed to initiate forwarding the link last week. One reporter points to the suspected real name of "Abano(u)b Basseley".

September 14

Protesters attacked the German and British embassies in the Sudanese capital of Khartoum.

At least seven people were killed during protests in Khartoum, Tunis and Cairo.

The United States Consulate in Chennai, India was targeted by Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazagham resulting in minor damage to the consulate and Injuries to 25 protesters after Police resort to Riot Control methods.

Protesters in Tripoli, Lebanon, set fire to a KFC and a Hardees restaurant, sparking clashes with local security forces. One protester has been killed and 25 people have been wounded, including 18 police officers.

Clashes occurred in the Yemeni capital of Sanaa.

In the Sinai, an international observer base near El Gorah is shot at. Two observers are injured.

At least two American Marines and 16 Taliban fighters were killed in a Taliban attack on Camp Bastion airbase in Afghanistan's Helmand province, according to a spokesman at nearby Camp Leatherneck. The attack was a complex and coordinated assault using several types of weapons. The Taliban claimed that it was in response to the film, and have also stated that Prince Harry, who is currently stationed at the base, was the target of the attack. A hangar within the facility suffered considerable damage, with five aircraft destroyed and three others being damaged.

Hundreds of Muslims protesting the film riot in Jerusalem and the Damascus Gate, and hurl stones at police officers.

September 15

At least 4 were killed and 46 injured during protests near the American embassy in Tunis, the capital of Tunisia. The U.S. government pulled out all non-essential personnel and urged its citizens to leave the city.

Egyptian riot police stormed Tahrir Square and arrested at least 220 protesters after four days of clashes in Cairo. A 35-year old man died of birdshot wounds after clashes near the US embassy overnight. Authorities announced the number of injured since the beginning of protests had risen to more than 250.

In Yemen, a statement from AQAP called for Muslims everywhere to attack American embassy personnel.

Saudi Arabia's Grand Mufti, Sheikh Abdul-Azeez ibn Abdullaah Aal ash-Shaikh, denounced the attacks and urged governments and international bodies to criminalise insults against prophets.

Violent protests occurred in Sydney, Australia, where up to six hundred people marched. Several scuffles broke out between security forces and protesters, with rocks and bottles being thrown.

Over 80 people were arrested during a protest near the US embassy on Champs Elysees in Paris, France.

Sudan refused a US government request to station a Marine platoon at its embassy in Khartoum, forcing authorities to pull out all non-essential personnel and advise American citizens to avoid travelling to the country.

September 16
Susan Rice goes on TV

Amazing how Obama started this entire thing. Latest word is the Administration used tax revenue from abortions to secretly fund the video to distract from a much larger conspiracy. *Hint* It's made from people

-spence

[spence]

Ultimately though, how many investigations do we need? Sweet Jesus now Bohner wants a select committee because of an email that reveals nothing new?

-spence

[buckman]

Jim , you are assuming the President was available to give orders . From everything I've read he was not. We have no idea where the president was at the time of this attack. If there's nothing to hide then they should tell us where the hell he was.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by buckman

Jim , you are assuming the President was available to give orders . From everything I've read he was not. We have no idea where the president was at the time of this attack. If there's nothing to hide then they should tell us where the hell he was.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Another reason why we need more answers.

The hot question for me is, when (if ever) was the cavalry ordered to get there ASAP? It doesn't take more than 20 minutes to get a quick reaction force off the ground. And it seems to me, that on the anniversary of 09/11, after we had received serious threats, and the Ambassador asked for more security, we'd have the cavalry pointed in that direction and ready to go at a moment's notice. According to Spence's link, it was 12 hours from the start of the attack to when the last Americans left the area. In that time, we could have landed Marines from the continental US. Presumably someone was a lot closer than that.

We got caught with our pants down (State dept, under Hilary, denied Stevens' request for extra security). We likely didn't respond nearly as aggressively as we could have. It happened 8 weeks before a Presidential election, during which one of Obama's major themes was that Al Queda was on the run. You don't need to be Steven Hawking to make a really good guess as to what happened and why.

I feel sick for those families. Hilary sends Stevens to Libya, denies his request for extra security, we did noting to help him during the attack, Obama (at best) was reluctant to call this attack what it was, and we haven't brought anyone to justice for what happened. It's a disgrace (but maybe to be expected when our President thinks he can make everyone like him because he's so charming), and very likely a scandal.

[spence]

Another thing I don't get.

I watched Jane Harman get eviscerated on Fox last Sunday by Brit Hume's assertion that there wasn't *ANY* evidence the attack could have been a response by the video. I'm amazed really that someone with her stature could have been so unprepared for an easy question.

How about the fact that the attack happened after an assault on the neighboring Egyptian embassy?

How about the fact that the following week was rampant with video protests and violence towards US missions in the region?

How about the fact that the NY Times reported interviews with attackers who claimed the video was their inspiration?

Why is it so hard to believe that the attack could have been a product of both terrorism *AND* the video?

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Another thing I don't get.

I watched Jane Harman get eviscerated on Fox last Sunday by Brit Hume's assertion that there wasn't *ANY* evidence the attack could have been a response by the video. I'm amazed really that someone with her stature could have been so unprepared for an easy question.

How about the fact that the attack happened after an assault on the neighboring Egyptian embassy?

How about not providing adequate security to the consulate after that attack. Sept. 11 . . . Growing influence of Al Qaeda . . . The attack in Egypt . . .

How about the fact that the following week was rampant with video protests and violence towards US missions in the region?

OK. So you stick to the administration's talking points and disregard other "reports" that the violence in Egypt, as reported in Egyptian press, had more to do with other things than the video, such as the protest over the imprisonment of the blind Sheik. And that mass protests in dictatorial regimes opposed by other dictatorial and extremist opponents are nearly always instigated by one or the other of the opponents, and always by some talking point used to legitimize the violence. When a whole nation or its embassies is attacked over a video rather than retribution demanded by a fatwa against the individual who made the video, it is far, far, more likely that the video is a prop, a tool, used by, in these cases, jihadists, rather than spontaneous peaceful people upset over an isolated insult to the Prophet, or Islam. If normal peace loving Muslims can be so blindly incited to deadly mayhem by such a trifle, why would we be so stupid to trust them? And if it was more "extreme" Muslims, why were we caught so unaware? It wasn't as if there were no warnings or signals or evidence of trouble. I recall you bought the Kool-Aid that Libya was not, as I had put it, a hot bed of terrorism. And that, as the administration claimed, Al Qaeda was decimated, weakened, on the run, losing influence, and Libya or Benghazi was not a dangerous place. We based our policy on such a view?

How about the fact that the NY Times reported interviews with attackers who claimed the video was their inspiration?

That is, on one level, so laughable to believe that a reporter from the NY Times, a representative of the great Satan, was going to get the real skinny, and nothing but the real skinny, from a jihadist. Was the reporter going to be told to his face that he was an enemy. If the video was so offensive that it was cause to kill, not the video maker, but those who represented the U.S., what would the jihadist interviewed by the American reporter be expected to tell him. "Oh . . . it was just the video . . . and I like you so I'll tell you exactly what happened . . . but not in such a way that might make you uncomfortable, or feel threatened. And besides, if I were to kill you, without the aid of some anti-offensive talking point, I might be in deep trouble." And isn't it amazing that the reporter so easily found and got supposed confessions from attackers, but the administration which vowed to get them and bring them to justice has not yet done so. Again, even if the "extremist" attacker did so only because of the video, did he accidentally or "spontaneously" join in the well-coordinated attack? Wasn't there a wider group of like-minded extremists led by those who used whatever psycho babble was available to foment the desired and planned violence and killing?

Why is it so hard to believe that the attack could have been a product of both terrorism *AND* the video?

-spence

It is not "so hard to believe" if the video and terrorism were connected, not separate motivations. If the video was a tool of terrorists, not a separate entity that in itself would cause such mayhem.

And besides, it has been admitted that the video was not the reason for the attack on the Benghazi consulate and the killing of Ambassador Stevens. It would be kind of . . . sort of . . . OK . . . so you really, actually, did believe that it was about the video. So when you went on about the video you weren't trying to mislead the American people before an election, you were, according to the best available analysis, assuming it was the video.

Except that the initial reporting on the ground did not mention a protest. Because there was no protest. Therefore no protest could be reported as happening either before or during the attack. It was reported immediately as an attack. Even a well coordinated one. And Brit Hume was correct in saying there was no evidence that the attack was a response to the video. Your little "hows" and "why's" are not evidence of why the attack took place. The comingling of terror with the video is the marriage of two separate things that don't go together. A spontaneous riot, if such a thing exists, in response to offensive words is an act of rage motivated by revenge. An Islamo-terrorist attack is a calculated offensive, more than a response, motivated by the desire to rid infidels from Islamic domains. Now, the terrorists can use, in this case, the video as a tool to inspire some to attack, but the reason for the attack is not a response to the video, but to terrorize and eliminate the infidel.

Which is why, when in Obama's press conference he talked about the Benghazi attack being a result of the video, then later in the speech mentioned terrorism, the attack is not specifically called an act of terror. By specifying one and mentioning the other, there is an implication that they are related, even that the attack was terrorism. The response to the video could not be terrorism unless it was an instigating tool used by terrorists rather than the reason for a spontaneous "protest" gone bad.

And that's why the talking point in the new memos is so damning:

"To underscore that these protests are rooted in an internet video, and not a broader failure of policy."

If the "protests" were rooted in the video, not in terrorism, especially in Al Qaeda and its affiliates terrorism, then it is not to be presumed as a "broader failure of policy." So it had to be underscored that it was about a spontaneous reaction to the video, even when there was no such specific evidence. On the contrary, the evidence indicated terrorism, jihadism, the Al Qaeda brand. And policy was "rooted" on the notion that terrorism and Al Qaeda were not a viable threat.

Since it has been found that the attack was not "rooted" in the video, but was actually rooted in terrorism, and the rise of Al Qaeda, ergo, it WAS the failure of policy.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

. . . OK . . . so you really, actually, did believe that it was about the video. So when you went on about the video you weren't trying to mislead the American people before an election, you were, according to the best available analysis, assuming it was the video.

Except that the initial reporting on the ground did not mention a protest. Because there was no protest. Therefore no protest could be reported as happening either before or during the attack. It was reported immediately as an attack. Even a well coordinated one. And Brit Hume was correct in saying there was no evidence that the attack was a response to the video. Your little "hows" and "why's" are not evidence of why the attack took place.


And that's why the talking point in the new memos is so damning:

"To underscore that these protests are rooted in an internet video, and not a broader failure of policy."

If the "protests" were rooted in the video, not in terrorism, especially in Al Qaeda and its affiliates terrorism, then it is not to be presumed as a "broader failure of policy." So it had to be underscored that it was about a spontaneous reaction to the video, even when there was no such specific evidence. On the contrary, the evidence indicated terrorism, jihadism, the Al Qaeda brand. And policy was "rooted" on the notion that terrorism and Al Qaeda were not a viable threat.

Since it has been found that the attack was not "rooted" in the video, but was actually rooted in terrorism, and the rise of Al Qaeda, ergo, it WAS the failure of policy.

seems as though the video was and is a "conspiracy theory" of sorts.....and you are right, the new memos are incredibly damning and there are apparently more that the most transparent, honest and open administration in history has not been forthcoming with....

funny to watch him attack others as conspiracy theorist, haters, biased manipulators of facts, timelines and language to political ends


Classic .....Kevin Williamson

"Where’s the scandal?”....Bill Maher shouted, and if you want the voice of the incoherent and self-satisfied progressive id, you could do worse than to take the temperature of Bill Maher. The scandal, if you don’t know, is the White House’s maliciously misleading the American public about four dead Americans killed by preventable al-Qaeda attacks on the anniversary of 9/11 in order to serve its own narrow political purposes. The scandal itself is not very difficult to understand, unless you have a personal commitment to not understanding it. Such commitments frequently are rooted in partisanship and ideology, but in the case of our supine media and Democrats occupying the commanding heights of culture, it may be simple shame. They were intentionally misled by an administration that holds their intelligence in light esteem even as it takes for granted their support."

"But for politicians of President Obama’s genus, truth is simply another multiple-choice proposition, and he and his people chose the version that best suited their immediate needs. One of the many problems with having a government dominated by law-school graduates is that lawyers suffer from a collective delusion that clever argument has a truth of its own, a unique moral weight independent of the facts."

" In other words, the Obama administration did not mislead the American public about Benghazi out of political necessity; it misled the American public out of habit. And why wouldn’t it? From the economic effects of the stimulus bill to the GM bailout to blaming last quarter’s poor economic numbers on the fact that it is cold during the winter, the Obama administration has an excellent record for wholesaling fiction to the American electorate, which keeps enduring it. There is apparently enough collective intelligence in the Obama administration to hold in general contempt the wit and attention span of an American public that has elected it twice. Or perhaps the administration is fooling itself, too. A good huckster knows that he is a huckster, but a great huckster comes to sincerely believe in his own shtick, and perhaps somebody at the White House has read Good to Great."

[buckman]

What spence fails to recognize is the apologizing for the video and then nonstop blaming of the video incited the violence over the video after the attack .
Hell nobody even heard about the YouTube video until the Obama administration decided to make it into what it wasn't. They should be held responsible for that violence too along with total incompetence over the security.
It's pathetic that there are apologist that will put their commonsense on the line to protect this group of elitist thugs and morons. At least they are in the minority in this country. The rest of his supporters are just waiting for a free ride.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

What spence fails to recognize is the apologizing for the video and then nonstop blaming of the video incited the violence over the video after the attack .
Hell nobody even heard about the YouTube video until the Obama administration decided to make it into what it wasn't.

Totally untrue, keep that white knuckle grip going.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Totally untrue, keep that white knuckle grip going.

-spence

Wasn't the video produced by an American citizen? What about that, Spence? Obama's job is to represent that citizen. And what does Obama do? Throws him under the bus, and informs jihadists all over the world that this American citizen made an anti-Islamic vodeo. Isn't that putting a target on that guy's head? Is that in Obama's job description - "rather than admit that you got caught looking the wrong way, better to blame an innocent civilian who you are supposed to be representing, even if it puts his life at risk"?

Am I wrong on that?