So then, should I wax indignant? You have these parents who I can only assume want to find the truth and hold those at fault responsible, if anyone. You have republicans that want to leverage them to hang as much responsibility as possible on Hillary Clinton to neuter any 2016 presidential campaign she may mount. And, you have democrats trying to minimize as much as possible the damage these republicans can do to Clinton. Then there's the partisans like you that go around telling everyone they should be offended by what the democrats do in defending Clinton and your democratic correllary telling everyone they should be offended by what the republicans are doing to tear her down. And, I should insert myself into this mess by looking down on one faction or the other? I read the summary of what their testimiony was -- the government hasn't been forthcoming with information on the circumstances of the deaths of their sons. I empathize with the parents. But, I don't think they'll find justice or the truth because its been turned into a political football. The State Dept should tell the parents what they know, but they won't be willing to until after the next presidential election, at the earliest. It sucks.
The parents, friends, and loved ones of those killed in Benghazi care a lot. All Americans should care about Benghazi.
What? No pithy retort from our conservative brothers? Can we finally acknowledge and agree that Benghazi was nothing more that a sad tragedy? That there was no conspiracy and no cover up?
So why would the administration say in the days after the attack that they believed it was a protest gone awry? That's my biggest problem with the whole debacle; misleading the public into thinking it was something that it wasn't. I just think the whole thing was poorly handled. Declare it terrorism, go and find who instigated it, and bring them to justice. So far, the only part of that they've done is declare it terrorism, and it took weeks for them to do even that.
No one was misleading anyone. The administration came forward with the information the CIA provided to them. We now know that info was incorrect. Yes there were mistakes made but there was no concerted act to mislead anyone. The president called it an act of terrorism the next day. It wasn't weeks. Just ask Romney. They are looking for the people who orchestrated the raid and hopefully they will be brought to justice.
Oh really? A week later.... September 18 http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...the_president_said_about_benghazi_116299.html
What is your point? According to your article, this is what he said on Sept 18: OBAMA: Making fun of the Prophet Mohammed. And so, this caused great offense in much of the Muslim world. But what also happened, extremists and terrorists used this as an excuse to attack a variety of our embassies, including the one, the consulate in Libya. Generally, when terrorists attack someone, it's a terrorist attack, no?
My point is that: 1. he didn't say it in the Rose Garden on SEPT 12. 2. he still wants to lay the motive at the feet of the movie 3. there was mounting ample evidence about what was really going on, yet he trots out his fairy tale that had already secretly and would soon publicly unravel
By posting an article about what he said on Sept 18? That doesn't even make any sense. Again, the CIA suggested that was the motive - there are memos documenting this. As the person you quoted was saying, there were lots of theories and bad information going around. It's easy to see after the fact which parts turned out correct, but the White House was stating what it was initially being told - all the investigations have confirmed that. The GOP has tried everything possible to blame Obama for a conspiracy here, and yet every time they release the results of one of their numerous investigations, none of the attempted claims hold up.
1. He pretty much did. 2. What he said on the 12th was based on information given him by the CIA. Where were you when the official CIA documents came out and proved that was the information they gave the whitehouse? 3. He trotted out the intel provided by the CIA. Please get a grip. ::edit:: I should have read it through all the way to the end. I see Major already responded. I just saw your post and realize that you didn't have a grasp on what actually happened and posted without reading the rest of the thread.
So the DOD knew it was terrorism but the CIA thought it was a video? That doesn't add up IMO. And it wasn't just one person saying it was the video. Clinton and Obama both said it in addition to several others. Then there was the public arrest of the producer of the video...Regarding the Rose Garden, it sounded to me like he said Americans were terrorized more so decrying it as an act of terror. Again, just my opinion and how I perceived it. Something just doesn't add up. I'm not saying it was a Watergate style coverup...but something stinks about the whole thing given the upcoming election & all. For the record, I don't trust any politician regardless of affiliation, so I don't have an agenda in my comments.
The point is what he was still saying a week later on September 18th... contrary to the claim the he "cut to the chase" on September 12 in the Rose Garden. Yes, he used the word "terror" but they use that same word in all the ads for haunted houses around Halloween. It's not the same as "terrorism." I'm not so concerned about what he said on the 12th (although I think his remarks were carefully crafted because they did not want it to be what it was... they wanted it to be some freakish occurrence. I'm more concerned about the story line the administration-friendly storyline that was being perpetuated for a long time after more facts were known. If there are lots of theories going around, why did the Admin take a stand on the one that is the flimsiest? It was self-serving... which is a natural response, I suppose. I'd like to see how far the timelilne extends before they stopped blaming the movie.
So with the myriad of reports and studies that have been done and come to the same conclusion you just "feel" like something happened but have no evidence to support your feelings? you sound like giddy
Well he did say it, for anyone with what I believed was a minimal comprehension level and knowledge of the way communication works. But apparently some people don't get it. When he talked about "No act of terror" I believed most people would understand that he was talking about terrorism. Some folks were unable to understand that apparently. Were you one?
You were the one who brought up the Rose Garden in this thread. So I responded to it. Hopefully you understand that the phrase "act of terror" is different than just using the word terror, but perhaps I gave you too much credit.
Benghazi is only a thing because it is a political wedge that the opposition party can beat on to create dissent rather than offering real political alternatives that might attract voters. If you can get people to vote FOR you, see if you can get people to vote AGAINST them. It's just propaganda.
