New Disclosures on Benghazi - Part II

[TheL8Elvis]

The thinking film related rioting was related to the Benghazi attack would have been a minor blip in the scheme of things had not the GOP (led at that time by Darrell Issa) contrived an entirely fictitious narrative that the White House was trying to cover up the fact this was (or might have been) a terrorist attack. Obama proved that wasn't true with his very first mention of the attack as a terrorist attack in the Rose Garden the next day.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...b65b83e-bc14-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_blog.html

Immediately after the attack, the president three times used the phrase “act of terror” in public statements:

“No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.”
— Obama, Rose Garden, Sept. 12
...
Some readers may think we are dancing on the head of pin here. The Fact Checker spent nine years as diplomatic correspondent for The Washington Post, and such nuances of phrasing are often very important. A president does not simply utter virtually the same phrase three times in two days about a major international incident without careful thought about the implications of each word.

On a separate note, I find your italicizing quotes instead of using the quote function hard to parse.

You find it hard to parse italics ? Odd. How so ?

Also, if you could sum up what your point is here, it would be helpful.

Talk about nuanced:I'd say that was pretty vague on its own face.

He didn't call it an act of terrorism, as you claimed. And as presidents pick their words carefully, there is a reason he chose the phrase he used.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You find it hard to parse italics ? Odd. How so ?

Was it that hard to use the quote function? Yes, your walls of italics are annoying.

He didn't call it an act of terrorism, as you claimed. And as presidents pick their words carefully, there is a reason he chose the phrase he used.

Are you claiming your out of context highlight means something?

“No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation,"

Yeah, how is that "No acts of terror?"

What else is he referring to in your supposed weaseled message?

Honestly, you are grasping at straws.


Fox News of course, is going on nit picking details out of Clinton's emails to fit the GOP narrative.

 

[wareyin]

Was it that hard to use the quote function? Yes, your walls of italics are annoying.

It's much easier to respond to an italicized quote of a statement outside this forum than when someone simply uses the quote function. The italicized quotes come through while quote boxes do not. The disappearing quote boxes are especially difficult when one is using Tapatalk.

I appreciate the italics.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Was it that hard to use the quote function? Yes, your walls of italics are annoying.

T.S.

Are you claiming your out of context highlight means something?

Only if you are trying to be factual. As you seem to want to take others to task when you claim they are not being factual, I inferred you would appreciate the same.

Yeah, how is that "No acts of terror?"

What else is he referring to in your supposed weaseled message?

Honestly, you are grasping at straws.

This is me grasping at straws:

Obama’s claim he called Benghazi an ‘act of terrorism’


Right ... grasping at straws ...

Fox News of course, is going on nit picking details out of Clinton's emails to fit the GOP narrative.

If and when they do, feel free to point it out.

 

[DavidJames]

Republicans key to success is the abundance of people who can be persuaded by simplistic, childlike arguments. Most recently, it's the failure to use the term "Radical Islam", here we see it's using the word terrorism.

As long as there are enough gullible people to swallow the nonsense, it will continue. This is what passes for political discourse

 

[A'isha]

Republicans key to success is the abundance of people who can be persuaded by simplistic, childlike arguments. Most recently, it's the failure to use the term "Radical Islam", here we see it's using the word terrorism.

As long as there are enough gullible people to swallow the nonsense, it will continue. This is what passes for political discourse

Remember, only Godless, America-hating secret Muslims call an attack an "act of terror". Real, true, patriotic Jesus-loving Americans use the term "act of terrorism" instead.

 

[marplots]

Suppose I accept the narrative that says Hillary and Obama were outright lying about what happened in Benghazi. What were the lies supposed to accomplish? In other words, what is thought to be the point of lying at all?

 

[Foolmewunz]

Republicans key to success is the abundance of people who can be persuaded by simplistic, childlike arguments. Most recently, it's the failure to use the term "Radical Islam", here we see it's using the word terrorism.

As long as there are enough gullible people to swallow the nonsense, it will continue. This is what passes for political discourse

Hey, you gotta cut us some slack here. This is a four-year production. The GOP has been leading on their willingly gullible shills that they were going to get ALL THE DIRT. I don't even fault some of the loons in Congress - they can't help themselves and very likely actually believed they were going to find the huge pieces of damning evidence. Issa comes to mind. He's not merely a vicious attack dog ready to strike out in any direction - except towards the right - but he actually believes in his bible-thumping heart that LOL Libruls are dangerous and are trying to hand the country over to Satan or the UN or the Rooskis or Ay-rabs. He's just nuts.

You see a lot of that in posters, too. They are so convinced that Hillary is evil that any amount of time and any amount of money is justified. Not solely because it hurts her campaign and by logical extrapolation helps the GOP cast of Minions II, but they actually believe that the personification of evil simply must have done something, well, "evil". It is beyond their ken that they are simply slurping at the bias trough and that when examined under a microscope, war-time or crisis actions of any party will raise questions as to what was done wrong vs right and what could have been done better and particularly what could have been done to prevent it from happening at all.

They won't admit it, but the HDS brigade here really believed they were going to find evidence of dastardly deeds. Orders from Obama saying, "Whoa, general. Those are my Islamic people. Stand down.".... An email from Hillary saying she didn't give a **** about the dead Americans.... A radio intercept from a dying soldier saying, "Help us.... Why did Hillary pull the guards off the embassy....

Instead, what do we have.... "act of terror" vs "terrorist act" vs "terrorist attack". That's the upshot? Defense, through the Executive, is responsible for troop deployment. Should that too-distant strike force have been based closer? Are there insufficient forces in the area? Should they have had more forces in place in and around Benghazi or even have been in Benghazi in the first place? All of those are legitimate questions that should be reviewed. But that could've been done with one stinking committee, working with the Executive Branch and the Pentagon, and not with the pollsters and the latter day versions of C.R.E.E.P.

 

[The Big Dog]

Remember, only Godless, America-hating secret Muslims call an attack an "act of terror". Real, true, patriotic Jesus-loving Americans use the term "act of terrorism" instead.

Oh! Look who is back!

Remember when you polluted this forum with your claims that it was not ansar al sharia?

But it was ansar al sharia? It was a muslim terrorist group? and hillary clinton knew it was ansar al sharia before those *********** scumbags killed Americans at the annex?

Remember?

 

[Meadmaker]

the latter day versions of C.R.E.E.P.

Ahhh....memories.

 

[The Big Dog]

Suppose I accept the narrative that has Hillary and Obama were outright lying about what happened in Benghazi. What were the lies supposed to accomplish? In other words, what is thought to be the point of lying at all?

Huh, you ask Obama why they lied? Reelection.

 

[marplots]

Huh, you ask Obama why they lied? Reelection.

Is it your opinion that the lie, had it held up, would have helped Obama get reelected? Or, equivalently, the lie, as exposed, hurt his chances of getting reelected?

I'm not seeing this as a real pivot point.

 

[Meadmaker]

Huh, you ask Obama why they lied? Reelection.

The theory I heard is that, somehow, the existence of a terrorist group in Libya would have damaged Obama's election chances, whereas the existence of an angry mob that grew so out of control that they killed four people over a movie would make the administration look much better.

I can't pretend to understand the American electorate. After all, they just nominated Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Nothing they do makes sense to me. However, it never made much sense to me that the administration would cover up a terrorist attack by blaming it on an internet inspired angry mob.

I guess that's what their focus groups told them to say, but it never made much sense to me.

 

[The Big Dog]

The theory I heard is that, somehow, the existence of a terrorist group in Libya would have damaged Obama's election chances, whereas the existence of an angry mob that grew so out of control that they killed four people over a movie would make the administration look much better.

I can't pretend to understand the American electorate. After all, they just nominated Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Nothing they do makes sense to me. However, it never made much sense to me that the administration would cover up a terrorist attack by blaming it on an internet inspired angry mob.

I guess that's what their focus groups told them to say, but it never made much sense to me.

I guess it does not make sense to you! Obama and Clinton lied and you can't make sense of it!

Super. My suggestion to you is yahooligans!

 

[A'isha]

Oh! Look who is back!

Sorry, I've been busy battling cancer lately, so I haven't always had time to deal with rehashed stale partisan nonsense.

Remember when you polluted this forum with your claims that it was not ansar al sharia?

But it was ansar al sharia? It was a muslim terrorist group? and hillary clinton knew it was ansar al sharia before those *********** scumbags killed Americans at the annex?

Remember?

I remember when it was reported in the immediate aftermath of the attack that eyewitnesses interviewed on the ground in Benghazi talked about a protest over the video motivated the attack, the Ansar al-Sharia leader responsible for the attack said it was motivated by the video barely a month after the attack happened (something which even Fox News admitted when he was captured two years later), Ansar al-Sharia initially denied official involvement right after the attack, and that it was the CIA which was hesitant about including the mention of Ansar al-Sharia's responsibility and first wrote the protests over the video into the talking points memo.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's much easier to respond to an italicized quote of a statement outside this forum than when someone simply uses the quote function. The italicized quotes come through while quote boxes do not. The disappearing quote boxes are especially difficult when one is using Tapatalk.

I appreciate the italics.

All you have to do is cut and paste any part of the quote you want to keep.


The quote function is there for a reason. It's makes it clear who is saying what.

A wall of italics text is not the normal convention for a reason. It's confusing. Either we all use italics or we all use the quote function. It's stupid to have multiple conventions.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

T.S.



Only if you are trying to be factual. As you seem to want to take others to task when you claim they are not being factual, I inferred you would appreciate the same.



This is me grasping at straws:

Obama’s claim he called Benghazi an ‘act of terrorism’
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_5004457731bc61079c.jpg[/qimg]

Right ... grasping at straws ...



If and when they do, feel free to point it out.

I see nothing in that nitpick citation that supports the claim Obama wasn't clear. Nor do I find this supposed coverup very convincing. It would also seem that after how many committee investigations and millions of dollars, the GOP could not support their faux cover up charge either.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Republicans key to success is the abundance of people who can be persuaded by simplistic, childlike arguments. Most recently, it's the failure to use the term "Radical Islam", here we see it's using the word terrorism.

As long as there are enough gullible people to swallow the nonsense, it will continue. This is what passes for political discourse

QFT

 

[The Big Dog]

Sorry, I've been busy battling cancer lately, so I haven't always had time to deal with rehashed stale partisan nonsense.



I remember when it was reported in the immediate aftermath of the attack that eyewitnesses interviewed on the ground in Benghazi talked about a protest over the video motivated the attack, the Ansar al-Sharia leader responsible for the attack said it was motivated by the video barely a month after the attack happened (something which even Fox News admitted when he was captured two years later), Ansar al-Sharia initially denied official involvement right after the attack, and that it was the CIA which was hesitant about including the mention of Ansar al-Sharia's responsibility and first wrote the protests over the video into the talking points memo.

Lolz, the thing I do remember is how you claimed it was not ansar al sharia after I posted proof time and again that it was ansar al sharia and it was ansar al sharia and that Hillary and the Administartion knew it was ansar al sharia before ansar al sharia attacked the annex and that the talking points memo was written to show that it was not a failure of policy, except that of course it was.

It was the FBI who said not to mention ansar al sharia because they knew it was ansar al sharia.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Suppose I accept the narrative that says Hillary and Obama were outright lying about what happened in Benghazi. What were the lies supposed to accomplish? In other words, what is thought to be the point of lying at all?

Why a Nixon-esque cover up, of course.