Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
Well, substantial number of Americans did buy into Change & Hope...
Merged State Department admits there was no protest at Benghazi consulate
- Thread starter Cylinder
- Start date
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2005
- Messages
- 96,955
Maybe the degree of change and hope wasn't as much as some of us hoped for, but there's no way you can say Obama is not a change from Bush.
So are you one of the CT believers in this case?
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
Oh, there has been plenty of change, with more to come.. And I do have hope.. I'm an optimistic in a cynical way, kind of person.
No. For me ' Conspiracy ' implies some kind of intelligent effort to deceive..
When this thread first broke, I was ready to believe the White House intentionally lied, but since then it just looks like some kind of Chinese fire drill, where no one knew what anyone else was doing..
IMO the State Department totally failed with regard to embassy security .
No. For me ' Conspiracy ' implies some kind of intelligent effort to deceive..
When this thread first broke, I was ready to believe the White House intentionally lied, but since then it just looks like some kind of Chinese fire drill, where no one knew what anyone else was doing..
IMO the State Department totally failed with regard to embassy security .
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2005
- Messages
- 96,955
It's not even that bad. The Republics tried to make up some motive and a cover-up when nothing happened. They didn't like the language used? As has been said now by many, including Obama on the first day, it was a terrorist act. Anytime people shoot RPGs at an embassy, it's a terrorist act. What are the Republics complaining about? That the terrorists weren't named on the first day? That the name al Qaeda wasn't used fast enough?
Who cares if it was planned or spontaneous? What's the difference as far as some motive Obama would have to claim the latter?
This reminds me of projection. Bush lied and covered up so much, and McCain defended most of it, that now they just assume the Obama admin must be lying about everything.
Everything is obvious in hindsight.
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
There was still the lame suggestion regarding the inflammatory video, by Obama in his UN address, and others under his leadership..
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2005
- Messages
- 96,955
Why is it such a lame suggestion? There were coincidental reactions to the video elsewhere.
Wrong, sure, in hindsight. But lame, no.
balrog666
Eigenmode: Cynic
- Joined
- May 24, 2004
- Messages
- 2,974
Who do you work for within the Ohole campaign/administration and how much do they pay you for your efforts here?
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2008
- Messages
- 18,095
The CT cry of 'government shill!' I'm surprised it took this long.
balrog666
Eigenmode: Cynic
- Joined
- May 24, 2004
- Messages
- 2,974
These days people are reluctant to cry out even over the most egregious of speech offenses - thank the Commie-Political-Correctness that seeks to control thought over actions.
It's just sad ...
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2008
- Messages
- 18,095
Care to unpack that?
SezMe
post-pre-born
Very clever, balrog666, but not quite good enough. We all can see that you're a disinfo agent. Your posts on this topic are so ridiculous that you are clearly trying to discredit the loyal opposition. So, now that you've been outed, just tell us what GS level you are. Or maybe you're an independent contractor. Are there disability benefits?
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 35,138
The administration said that they didn't fully know what was going on, but mentioned possibilities that this was either a product of the hate movie, or a terrorist act that took advantage of the protests that were a product of the hate movie. The fact that they didn't say that Al Queda did it, without fully knowing what was going is, is bad?
davefoc
Philosopher
That was in a nut shell exactly what the situation is. Unfortunately, it is accepted practice to attempt to gain political advantage by the use of an organized disinformation campaign to discredit your political opponents even when the event involves the murder of an ambassador.
Here's a link to an interview of US Representative going through mental gymnastics to defend the indefensible practice of attacking Sandy Rice for stating what she believed the situation to be:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/15/soledad-obrien-joe-heck-susan-rice_n_2138101.html
I notice in this thread that that the partisans attempting to justify the attacks on the Obama administration over the Benghazi attacks have resorted to name calling and silly conspiracy theories. That says a lot about how little substance there is to defend this partisan clap trap.
One of the things that hasn't been mentioned in all this is that ambassadors on occasion take some risks to go out and personally assess the situation. It is just an obvious fact that if the ambassador stayed holed up in the embassy he'd be safer. Ambassador, J Christopher Stevens, chose to take a risk to do his job and with all the nonsense about the evil Obama administration that has been pushed by various Republican partisans the heroism of his actions in that regard has hardly been mentioned.
I already believed that partisan politics is a deeply cynical business. This incident really brings home just how little partisan politicians care about the country when they sense an opportunity for political gain. Screw them.
Last edited: