Merged State Department admits there was no protest at Benghazi consulate

[Cylinder]

...seriously why does it matter if it was due to a protest or a terrorist attack?...

Really?

 

[ravdin]

Disgusting hypocrites try to make completely irrelevant aspect of tragic death (seriously why does it matter if it was due to a protest or a terrorist attack?) in order to try, and fail, to smear Obama.

And all this does is make me hate conservatives even more. And I didn't think that was possible. Congratulations you monsters.

You cannot possibly be serious that it does not matter.

 

[Puppycow]

NSFW - Graphic image of corpse

[qimg]http://imageshack.us/a/img51/4751/stephens.jpg[/qimg]

Oh, good grief, you cannot be serious.

They just pulled the body out of the window of a burning building. That is not a picture of them "dragging the corpse through the streets". And why would the attackers take the body to a hospital?

Can you just admit that you were wrong?

 

[A'isha]

NSFW - Graphic image of corpse

[qimg]http://imageshack.us/a/img51/4751/stephens.jpg[/qimg]

What about that image? How does it prove, or even support, your claim? How does it relate to the video described in the links I posted?

 

[A'isha]

They were definitive enough when it came to blaming The Innocence of Muslims,

Where?

even though many of us were saying all along there was obviously no connection.

At 4:354 PM Central Time on 9/11/12, I said this in the thread about the Cairo embassy attacks, one post after the first announcement of what happened in Benghazi. Note how the rest of the thread proceeds to talk about the film...including you.

 

[manofthesea]

Here's a timeline of statements (some eyepoppers missing):

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/01/politics/libya-attack-statements/index.html?iref=allsearch

September 18 -- Jay Carney:

"Our belief based on the information we have is it was the video that caused the unrest in Cairo, and the video and the unrest in Cairo that helped -- that precipitated some of the unrest in Benghazi and elsewhere. What other factors were involved is a matter of investigation."

September 20 -- President Obama at a town hall meeting organized by the Spanish-language Univsion Network, responding to a question about the possible involvement of al Qaeda:

"What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests."

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Disgusting hypocrites try to make completely irrelevant aspect of tragic death (seriously why does it matter if it was due to a protest or a terrorist attack?) in order to try, and fail, to smear Obama.

And all this does is make me hate conservatives even more. And I didn't think that was possible. Congratulations you monsters.

Who is being hypocritical, and about what ?

Are you saying it doesn't matter if the president of the United States is lying ?

Oh, and it might have mattered if the consulate had received the increased security they requested and were denied..

 

[applecorped]

Obama lied, people died.

 

[manofthesea]

This is from Sept. 17:

Jen Psaki, the Obama campaign’s traveling press secretary, argues that the violent protests in Benghazi, Libya broke out in response to the American-made anti-Islamic film despite claims of several politicians that the attack was a premeditated and coordinated effort.

“Unfortunately, this is a response to a video that we had nothing to do with that is disgusting and we have repudiated strongly,” Psaki says.

http://startingpoint.blogs.cnn.com/...-of-our-people-serving-abroad/?iref=allsearch

Note, at this point we already had the gloves off in the Mohammed film thread.

 

[Puppycow]

Where?



At 4:354 PM Central Time on 9/11/12, I said this in the thread about the Cairo embassy attacks, one post after the first announcement of what happened in Benghazi. Note how the rest of the thread proceeds to talk about the film...including you.

I had this thought on Sept. 12:

So here's what I'm wondering now:

Did these simultaneous attacks in two countries begin on 9/11 or 9/12? It's 9/12 where I am, but is there a 9/11 connection here? If so, were these an al-Qaeda planned attacks, or just a random mob of angry Muslims? The Ambassador was killed by a rocket-propelled grenade, which is not a weapon you would expect a civilian to have.

If that's the case, maybe this film is just a handy cover story.

Let's not blame the filmmakers or Terry Jones for this. Let's recognize it for what it is: an unjustifiable act of murder. No words or film cartoon, however offensive some people might find them, can justify murder. Freedom of speech means the freedom to offend.

There are some limits to freedom of speech, like libel, slander or incitement to violence, but simply being offensive or blasphemous in the eyes of some should fall within the scope of protected speech.

I have to say though that Susan Rice's interview with Jake Tapper on the 16th does not look very good, especially given the latest statement from the State Dept. Some of questions Tapper asked seem dumb (like "Why is the US so impotent?") but the statement Rice gave at the beginning of the interview that the attacks were not premeditated is just very hard to defend. I don't think there was any consensus in the government even at the time that this was true. I heard news reports before that saying otherwise. Here's one example:

http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-09-14/friday-news-roundup-international/transcript

LANDAY
11:24:39
One of the things that we don't -- one of the things though that seems to be apparent is that there was no protest outside the embassy when this took place. One of my colleagues who's there -- a reporter who's there talked to a guard who survived the attack. And he said there wasn't even an ant outside the compound and that about 150, 120, 150 people stormed at this place. The landlord, who we also spoke to, said the same thing, came from two directions firing RPGs and weapon -- and small arms and overran the compound pretty easily.

 

[balrog666]

It's interesting to see how Omniscient some people think the president is, when they're trying to kick up discontent and rouse the rabble against him.

Not at all. It just that "the buck stops there" whether the weenie in office wants that or not.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Obama lied, people died.

And just exactly how do you figure this?

I'm trying to feel the outrage and, sorry, I just can't. The ambassador to Libya was killed in an al Qaeda related attack. The need for more security was underestimated.

OK, that's unfortunate. It appears to be coming out now that Congress, in particular the Republics in Congress, may be responsible for denying requested funding for said security, but that's another thread.

The issue here is what? The first reports coming out of Libya were wrong? Is there really some coverup scandal here? Is it supposedly incompetence? I don't get it. What is the outrage supposed to be about?

 

[This is The End]

New report on this whole argument:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1892821134001/can-the-white-house-be-believed-whats-the-truth/



It's from foxnews, so I doubt they even considered what I proposed:

I wouldn't be surprised if one office just didn't get some memo. Or didn't read a memo. Or misread a memo. Or some other mistake happened.

 

[Puppycow]

This is from Sept. 17:



http://startingpoint.blogs.cnn.com/...-of-our-people-serving-abroad/?iref=allsearch

Note, at this point we already had the gloves off in the Mohammed film thread.

Out of context it's not clear what "this" in her quote refers to.

ETA: also "the violent protests in Benghazi, Libya" presupposes that there were "protests", which we now know didn't happen. The "protests", where they did occur, were over the film.

 

[manofthesea]

Out of context it's not clear what "this" in her quote refers to.

ETA: also "the violent protests in Benghazi, Libya" presupposes that there were "protests", which we now know didn't happen. The "protests", where they did occur, were over the film.

rofl

 

[A'isha]

How Critics of Obama's Libya Response Profoundly Misunderstand Intelligence

EDIT: And the Office of the Director of National Intelligence says,

In the immediate aftermath, there was information that led us to assess that the attack began spontaneously following protests earlier that day at our embassy in Cairo. We provided that initial assessment to Executive Branch officials and members of Congress, who used that information to discuss the attack publicly and provide updates as they became available. Throughout our investigation we continued to emphasize that information gathered was preliminary and evolving.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

And just exactly how do you figure this?

I'm trying to feel the outrage and, sorry, I just can't. The ambassador to Libya was killed in an al Qaeda related attack. The need for more security was underestimated.

OK, that's unfortunate. It appears to be coming out now that Congress, in particular the Republics in Congress, may be responsible for denying requested funding for said security, but that's another thread.

The issue here is what? The first reports coming out of Libya were wrong? Is there really some coverup scandal here? Is it supposedly incompetence? I don't get it. What is the outrage supposed to be about?

The outrage is over the Administration ( The president Of The United States ) attributing the attack on the consulate and the resulting deaths, to outrage over the video, when it was actually a planned terrorist attack.

The need for further security was not underestimated by the people who requested it; that would also have been a failure of the Administration .

 

[A'isha]

The need for further security was not underestimated by the people who requested it; that would also have been a failure of the Administration .

With a little help from the GOP, who insisted on massive cuts to embassy security funding.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

You would really need to show that the recent request for increased security at the Libyan embassy was denied on the basis of " we don't have money to do that ", rather than a failure to justify the need..

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The outrage is over the Administration ( The president Of The United States ) attributing the attack on the consulate and the resulting deaths, to outrage over the video, when it was actually a planned terrorist attack.

The need for further security was not underestimated by the people who requested it; that would also have been a failure of the Administration .

This is a complete GOP hoodwink. They want to claim there's been no progress against al Qaeda. They need to milk this incident to market that narrative. So they contrive outrage. Gee, the admin got it wrong, must be a cover up. That's ludicrous. What cover up do you see here? None.

Maybe the admin should have taken the threat more seriously. Mistakes are made. On the scale of things this one does not require OUTRAGE!!!

Terrorist acts against the US, including acts by the remnants of al Qaeda are waaay down in numbers and in casualties. Citations were posted recently, many more US citizens died in foreign attacks under Bush with is his so-called 'kept America safe' claim than under the Obama admin.

This incident is unfortunate. I imagine the admin will learn from it. Things could have been done better.

But OUTRAGE? Sorry, that's contrived though the GOP is trying real hard to stir some up, and some people are primed to be outraged. But this thing does not have the legs Darrell Issa is trying so hard to make it have.