http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/13/w...a-were-focused-on-tripoli.html?pagewanted=all "The requests were denied, but they were largely focused on extending the tours of security guards at the American Embassy in Tripoli — not at the diplomatic compound in Benghazi, 400 miles away. And State Department officials testified this week during a hearing by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that extending the tour of additional guards — a 16-member military security team — through mid-September would not have changed the bloody outcome because they were based in Tripoli, not Benghazi."
This is more what I was looking for: <object width="640" height="360"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6oOxAyU8QwM?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6oOxAyU8QwM?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="640" height="360" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object> This interview is from 9/16/12, five days after the attack. She prefaces her comments with the investigation is on-going and nothing yet is definitive. She also distinguishes the protesters who initially were outside the embassy walls from the "armed extremists" who joined in and then eventually attacked. Another story from Reuters on 9/28/12 gives a possible explanation for what you call a "coverup": http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/28/us-usa-libya-intelligence-idUSBRE88R1EG20120928 [rquoter]Shawn Turner, spokesman for Clapper's office, said that in the immediate aftermath of the attack, U.S. agencies came to the view that the Benghazi attack had begun spontaneously after protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo against a short film made in California lampooning the Prophet Mohammad. Turner said that as U.S. intelligence subsequently learned more about the attack, "we revised our initial assessment to reflect new information indicating that it was a deliberate and organized terrorist attack carried out by extremists." He said it remained "unclear" if any individual or specific group commanded the attack. U.S. agencies nonetheless believe that some of the militants involved in the attack were "linked to groups affiliated with, or sympathetic to al-Qaida." In an apparent reference to a series of contradictory statements by some top Obama administration officials, Turner said intelligence agencies' "initial assessment" had been passed on "to Executive Branch officials and members of Congress, who used that information to discuss the attack publicly and provide updates as they became available."[/rquoter]
Only a day after the attack. You talked about a time frame of 2 weeks. Obama clearly distinguishes the protesters from the "extremists" that committed the attack. Yes, referenced in my other post. She also makes a distinction between the protestors and the armed extremists who joined in later and took it to another level. She says she believed it was spontaneous, but also said that the investigation was on-going.
Yes, you said this... Because if it is a protest that got out of hand then their is little action for the president to take. If it's a terrorist attack that happened on OBama's watch then a) he has some explaining to do A protest that got out of hand? It sounds like you believe it's possible that protesters carry RPG's and assault rifles. I'm not surprised by your inability to imagine the situation being more complex than simply a protest or simply a terrorist attack and it taking some time to gather information considering we couldn't have our own people come in on the ground to investigate properly. You want to play parsing games about who said what and when however the President said on day one that it was an act of terror. Period. The rest of that is just noise. The President's responsibility to the safety of American personnel in other facilities that are at risk for attack for any reason including a dumbass video outweights his responsibility to kiss your ass.
This seems to provide a balanced overview of what transpired and what it means: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/10/16/the_ground_truth_from_benghazi Susan Rice's remarks about protestors being outside the Benghazi embassy are evidently flatly wrong. Was it deliberate misinformation or her own ignorance of the details of the on-going investigation? There were apparently plenty of reports suggesting there were both armed and unarmed "protesters" at Benghazi. This was also helpful (for me, who wasn't following the timeline of events so closely): http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...6105782-0826-11e2-afff-d6c7f20a83bf_blog.html
Don't buy it. He was referring to the murder as an act of terror. A protest where someone gets riled up and kills four people is the act of terror he referred to. There were no protests. There was a persistent and long effort to kill American diplomats. If it's under investigation, you shut up and wait for the conclusion of said investigation. You don't say something then have it repeated by various members of your administration like clockwork if you are as uncertain about the facts as he is purporting. At best, he made a claim to politicize the death of 4 people.
Definition of TERROR 1: a state of intense fear 2 a : one that inspires fear : scourge b : a frightening aspect <the terrors of invasion> c : a cause of anxiety : worry d : an appalling person or thing; especially : brat 3: reign of terror 4: violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands <insurrection and revolutionary terror> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terror So, what does an "act of terror" means to you?
All of the above and more. That's not the point. The point is both of the following can be called acts of terror: 1) Protests developed and some of those protestors, maybe extremists, get too heated up and kill 4 people. 2) Armed terrorists pre-plan an assassination and assault using missiles in the complete absence of protestors. By calling it the generic "Act of Terror" and the rest of the time saying and implying that it had to do with protests (there were no protests) and the video (which had nothing to do with this planned assassination), the speaker intentionally misled the public. As an example, let's say that a Canadian and an American are detained lawfully according to an archaic law in Afghanistan. Protests break out in front of the Afghan embassy in Canada with some vandalism reported. Americans and Canadians take to social media and complain furiously of the unfair law. Subsequently, a terror cell in America plans and carries out an attack assassinating 4 Afghan embassy staff on the anniversary of the murder of American soldiers in Afghanistan by a rogue Afghani officer. Now, Karzai comes out and says: "Our citizens were great people. They were killed by an act of terror. This is unacceptable. We will find these people and bring them to justice." (>> Nevermind that the US is a sovereign nation entrusted with policing its own state.) Subsequently, the head of the judiciary is detained for bailing on a parking ticket. Karzai and 2-3 of his admin come out and say that the protests in North America somehow led to the murder of the 4 Afghans. All the while, Karzai is fully informed of what they already know on the ground (presumably, images and reports). An investigation is ongoing. Investigation determines that there is absolutely no way anyone could possibly conclude that there were protests when THERE WERE NOT PROTESTS. It determines that the weapons used could not be attributed to civilians or small-time extremists. It determines that employees of the Pakistani embassy had also been targetted earlier. It was determined that the staff of the Afghan embassy communicated that safety is at least somewhat compromised and the country is less secure for them than it was before. In this example, did Karzai mislead people or not? Is there any conceivable way that he would have concluded that it was even vaguely linked to protests that occurred in Canada? or is he BSing his way out of his responsibility by combining vague facts regarding North America and creating a target for people to project their blame? Come on now. As I said from the start, it may very well be that R's are blowing this out of proportion and politicizing it, but Obama's people screwed up and he lied (or someone lied to him) and then he tried to cover it up by turning his staff into accomplices in this PR damage control campaign.
Well, I happened to believe that is the point because of what I'm reading from the other commenters: that it should have been specifically called terrorist act. I'm just pointing out it's the same no matter how you slice it. How it was used and as part of the speech, there is no dispute what its intended meaning are. Even in the 2 scenario (not Karzai) that you mentioned, terrorist act or act of terror are both applicable, precisely because the meaning of the root word terror is the same for both of them. And this is equally so for the Benghazi attack. You are pre-occupied with what "actually happened" and how to term it accordingly (with your pre-set definition). Thus the cover-up/lying. I am of the position that whatever scenario in this case cause it, it can be called either or both - as one of the dictionary definition said so. Hence, no cover-up/lying. Karzai hypothetical scenario. Not the same. Obama said: "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," I don't know how they can spin it to something else. You misled, I mean your Karzai misled. No protests? Not undisputable fact even at this time. Sources nearer or with people on the ground stood by their accounts. That there was. On the whole, my opinion is that the buck should sit squarely and equally on the lap of Clinton and the congressmen who reduced the budget for embassy security.
No, you are isolating one part of the issue to side with one specific party against another specific party. Obama did call it an act of terror the very next day. You win on that one. Here's a nice pat on the back. You got em on that point. Done. On the general topic of whether Obama misled people: All the combined statements that were made by Obama & Co. implied one or both of these things: it was an act of terror and it was a reaction to the video. based on the facts we know now, there is no way that Obama or whoever was reporting to Obama believed that this attack was linked to the video. Even if the terrorists happened to slip in a line stating that they were pissed off at the video. To be brutally clear, for Obama & Co. to make the statements they made, they should have known that there was a protest and the attackers should have announced that the attack was purely/mainly as retalitation for the video. None of these things were true at the time, they are not true now, and from what we know they are unlikely to be true once everything has been investigated. This is being obtuse. You are right, I'm pre-occupied with what ACTUALLY HAPPENED and how it was communicated. Again, you are correct in saying that Obama didn't lie if you mean that he did not say it is not an act of terror. You can be misleading, both intentionally and unintentionally, in many many other ways without actually lying. To be brutally clear, for Obama to be honest he would not have made an assertion for which there is no evidence (protests) and he would have labelled it more accurately to demonstrate the facts known at that time. Again, this is misleading and intentionally misleading at that. They knew enough at the time to not have to make a statement which implied that there were video protests in Libya and that they were somehow linked to harmful acts against US foreign interests occurring in another country. Also, the extremists would not use the protests as an excuse. They may use it as a cover. They may use it as a distraction. He said "WERE" used. That's plural. It refers to the word "PROTESTS" in that sentence, not the word "video". Are you seriously implying that extremists came out and said "because of the protests which people are engaging in, we are going to commit harmful acts against US interests"? This is a preposterous claim to say the least. There were no protests where the 4 were killed. They did not do it because of the video or because of protests with which they agreed. They did it because they are terrorists, they pre-planned it, it was 9/11, they planned the same against other diplomats of the "coalition of the willing". There is no evidence of protests. Nothing. Zilch. Nada. Except from the people who have everything to lose if there were no protests. There is a blatant conflict of interests there. Clinton or Obama doesn't matter, Clinton reports to Obama and takes orders from Obama. She would not be the one who orchestrates the PR strategy in such a high profile issue. As for the congressman who reduced the budget, this is no excuse. A reduced budget doesn't mean everyone is exposed to risk. It means that the budget for each embassy has to be allocated with risks taken into consideration. Safe to say the budget of the Libyan embassy, from a risk perspective, should have not been cut 1 dime. The congressman who reduced the budget did not dictate which embassy would receive less. The congressman dictated a smaller overall budget. It then falls in Obama/Clinton's lap to decide where to make cuts. Beyond a shadow of a doubt, the Libyan embassy in Benghazi should have been assessed as one of the most risky and therefore should have seen little or no cuts. Especially in light of linked events which took place in the country, and requests for additional security in the country.
Darrell Issa was on Maher last week. He said that the $300 Million cut was very bipartisan. As I recall 197 Republicans voted for it and 195 Democrats voted for it. You seem to be referring to a congressman here...
I'm not aware of the process frankly, I said "a congressman" because pahiyas referred to a congressman. The point is that budget cuts don't mean that security in one of the most dangerous countries in the world gets reduced. If you have a security budget for your supermarkets and that gets cut by 50%. You have a branch in Islamabad and you have a branch in Amsterdam. Dems are implying that such a budget cut would reduce the budget (and hence security) of both these branches by 50%. In reality, you would heavily weight these cuts to maintain as much security as possible in the more dangerous location. If your guy in Islamabad calls you up and says "they're shooting up Western supermarkets in Pakistan" you send more security, even if you have to shift from Amsterdam. But even more important, the premise that there's not enough money for something so basic as the security of embassy staff in war-torn countries is unacceptable. Your country. My country. Any country. I bet the oil fields were well protected though.
any congressman who comes out as critical of the lack of security for embassies should be referred to and called out. Any congressman that voted for the cut, but isn't critical of lack of security for the embassies doesn't need to be called out.
Regardless of whether it was an act of terrorism or simply an "act of terror", the State Department (and, by extension, the Obama administration) messed up in not providing more security given the heavy militia presence there. This is what Obama opponents should be focusing on, and that's what I felt almost immediately after the attack happened. Instead, the focus has been on the "don't apologize for America" controversy, and now its the "coverup" controversy (which amounts to a 1-week period of spin control while all the facts were being pieced together). This strikes me as manufactured for political purposes and totally hypocritical coming from the Republicans.
By politician standards, its not a lie if you preface it with "Investigation is on-going, nothing is definitive, here is what we think we know". I would call it "spin control". And this is something both parties shamelessly engage in on a regular basis, especially in election season, and the Republicans are certainly no better about it than the Democrats.
It's a lie if you know it isn't true when you say it. The White House knew there was no protest. They have cameras at the embassy showing no protests. They knew immediately, from those video tapes, that no protest took place.
Where was it reported that it was immediately known from the footage that there was no protest? Did the footage have enough clarity and coverage of the area around the embassy to clearly debunk the myriad independent reports that there were unarmed protesters? Did the officials who spoke within the first week of a protest at Benghazi (anybody, other than Susan Rice?) review the camera footage first? Were they briefed on its contents first? -- Edit: Here's another article on the video footage from Benghazi, and the intelligence gathering process during the first couple weeks: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...enghazi-consulate-shows-organized-attack.html [rquoter] ... The Daily Beast first reported that the intelligence behind the initial public assessment that the attack was a spontaneous reaction to an anti-Islam film was based in part on a single intercept between one of the attackers and a middle manager in al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, the group’s North African affiliate. In the call, the alleged attacker said the locals went forward with the attack only after watching the riots that same day at the U.S. embassy in Cairo. But that intercept was one of many that suggested an al Qaeda link to the attack, none of which were mentioned in the initial eight days. In addition to the intercept, the Central Intelligence Agency based its first assessment on open press reports and statements from Libyan politicians with jihadist sympathies. A U.S. intelligence official said there was also information from one of the Libyan nationals saying there was a protest that evening. ... [/rquoter]
Since were done with the "act of terror", OK, let's do the missing protesters. :grin: I read news sources which came out a day or two after the fact. Those sources have people on the ground or they themselves are near the ground. It was almost simultaneous to the event that it should be uncorrupted by partisanship in the US election in which this issue suddenly becomes an "issue". I don't know where you based your bold assertions but I can certainly compare it what I read which to this day, those organizations has stood by their report. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/12/us-libya-usa-attack-idUSBRE88B0EI20120912 "The attackers were part of a mob blaming America for a film they said insulted the Prophet Mohammad." http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/13/w...bya-is-reported-killed.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0 But Tuesday night, a group of armed assailants mixed with unarmed demonstrators gathered at the small compound that housed a temporary American diplomatic mission there. http://observers.france24.com/conte...ambassador-libya-ansar-al-sharia-film-muslims "Meanwhile in Benghazi, angry demonstrators gathered in front of the US consulate. During the evening, armed men managed to get inside the building and open fire on the consulate’s security forces, forcing them to evacuate the building. The US ambassador to Libya, J. Christopher Stevens, and three other American employees were killed during the attack." Notice that they were almost unanimous about the unarmed mob and armed group. Obama was correct. The terrorists may have used the protesters as excuse or cover.
Nope, I did not say that. I did not even refer to them by party. That is why I said Clinton and the congressmen who reduced the security budget should be holding the bucket right now.
