Major Nikon (6,384 posts)
31. His response was carefully crafted
He didn't emphatically say it was terrorism, because they probably weren't absolutely sure it was at the time. So the response was designed to mention terrorism because they were reasonably sure it was, without pointing fingers at anyone which would have been a foreign policy flop had it turned out later that it wasn't.
It was absolutely the best response that could have been made at that point in time. Anyone who wants to make political bones out of it is an asshole, IMO.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021562758
Feel free to explain the careful crafting of the denials of repeated requests for additional security from BEFORE the attack.
Seriously! Who the **** thought this was a GOOD ****ING IDEA?!?! :banghead:
Seriously! Who the **** thought this was a GOOD ****ING IDEA?!?! :banghead:
Plaid Adder
2) I would like to know who crafted that speech because it is a masterpiece.
I am not being sarcastic. If you read that speech closely, you will realize that it is so constructed that whether the attacks turned out to be spontaneously motivated by the film or whether they turned out to be a calculated terrorist attack, retroactively that speech will prove that Obama was right.
Because early in the speech, Obama asserts that while they deplore the denigration of anyone's faith there is categorically no excuse for "senseless violence." Then, later in the speech, he links the Benghazi attack to September 11 and says, "No acts of terror will weaken our resolve," etc. He does not explicitly say "the Benghazi attack was an act of terror;" but it is so strongly implied that virtually anyone, looking back after the fact, will agree that this is what he meant. He also does not explicitly say that the attacks were motivated by outrage over the film. But, had it turned out that they were, the speech implies that strongly enough that he's covered there too.
The one thing that is absolutely clear is that it is always referred to as an "attack" and the people who carried it out are always referred to as "attackers"--never as 'protestors.'
This tells me that at the time that speech was written, nobody was entirely sure what the story was--but it also tells me that there was a strong suspicion that this was not going to turn out to be a spontaneous event. It also tells me he's got people on his team who are really good at what they do, which oddly enough I find very reassuring.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021561826
He also does not explicitly say that the attacks were motivated by outrage over the film.
I guarantee you -- guarantee -- that if someone here has the ability to search Skin's island regarding what the primitives were saying after the attack, you'll find them saying it was caused by the Youtube video and it was NOT an act of terrorism. And the reason they were saying it is because that's what Dear Leader was telling them to believe.
.
dipsydoodle (28,324 posts)
New picture emerging of "terrorist attack" in Benghazi
Source: Reuters
(Reuters) - Thu Sep 20, 2012 6:21am BST
The U.S. Consulate in Benghazi apparently was not troubled at first by a smattering of protesters on the anniversary of the September 11 attacks last week, but that changed abruptly at 9:35 p.m. when it sent a message that the building was under heavy assault, U.S. government sources said.
New information emerging a week after attackers launched rocket-propelled grenades and mortars and killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens, suggests that the protests at the outset were so small and unthreatening as to attract little notice.
While many questions remain, the latest accounts differ from the initial information provided by the Obama administration, which had suggested that protests in front of the consulate over an anti-Islamic film had played a major role in precipitating the subsequent violent attack.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/09/20/uk-usa-libya-consulate-idUKBRE88I1IS20120920
Read more: http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/09/20/uk-usa-libya-consulate-idUKBRE88I1IS20120920
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further down the article the claim made that Blackwater had the security contract appears to be contradicted.
blm (88,482 posts)
1. The terrorists saw the opening with the anti-Islam film protests and TOOK it.
They ginned up the violence to do exactly what the film-maker and many RW extremists here want - a prolonged, violent confrontation with the Muslim world - coincides with what Bin Laden wanted, too.
RW extremists are the minority in all these countries want to drag the rest of the world into waging the battles and genocides THEY envision - including the crazies in this country, like those who made that film and publicly post disgusting, incendiary posts on Facebook and YouTube.
johnfunk (5,933 posts)
5. "Terrorists"? I smell a "loyal Gadhafi-ies" militia... OK, pretty much the same thing.
And I know I'm not alone in my suspicions.
liberallibral (272 posts)
3. Not Good...
The President's Administration, and especially Susan Rice were adamant about the attacks being due solely to the video...
Now they have to back-track...
Awful! Romney is a complete buffoon, and keeps giving us the gift of GAFFES that keep on giving - and we can't seem to put him away..... Very annoying and scary!!!
glacierbay (1,099 posts)
4. Yep.
I've been saying this from the first time I saw Susan Rice on Sun. adamantly insisting that this was a spontaneous attack, and not a pre-planned attack. I was shaking my head thinking does she honestly think that the vast majority of americans, or the world for that matter, believe that?
I truly hope this doesn't bite the Admin. in the ass too hard.
Awful! Romney is a complete buffoon, and keeps giving us the gift of GAFFES that keep on giving - and we can't seem to put him away..... Very annoying and scary!!!
He does not explicitly say "the Benghazi attack was an act of terror;" but it is so strongly implied that virtually anyone, looking back after the fact, will agree that this is what he meant.
Seriously! Who the **** thought this was a GOOD ****ING IDEA?!?! :banghead:
Hint: He is not a buffoon, they are not gaffes and your POS Lightbringer is lying through his pleasant baritone.
That help?
Oh, words have specific meaning and consequences? Guess it depends on if it was terror terror,
....or not.
Some unknown person fires some type of a gun at an Obama campaign center and it's terrorism, but Muslims attack our embassy and it's just Muslims, being Muslims, but not a terrorist attack. That is how the DUmmies think, isn't it?
In reality, it doesn't matter whether there was a riot about some video or not, Muslims attacked a US embassy, how can that be called anything but an act of terrorism? The only thing I see that matters is finding those responsible and bringing them to justice. Preferably a slow painful death, but quick loud explosions would work.
No one has more contempt for the muslim and the Hildebeast than I, but I fail to see any political significance in the Libya tragedy.
The argument about "planned terrorism vs. nuts reacting to the Youtube clip" is just splitting hairs and is just a distraction from our catastrophic unemployment rate, our exploding deficits, our economy-destroying energy policy, and the risk of a socialist Supreme Court for the next thirty years.
As long as we have people on muzzie soil, the savages can isolate and kill a small number of them at any time, regardless of security precautions and regardless of who is in charge.
All the time spent on this is a gift to the jug-eared Kenyan.
I dunno. It sure as hell shows how inept the current regime is on foreign policy.
Until we get serious about bein' attacked, this shit is gonna keep happenin'! You kill 4 of us, we kill 400 of you! Until we do that we might as well close up our embassies so to not put our people in danger.
I'm all for "planting mushrooms" in the Mideast. President Romney would have to do that once.
(Anyone got the 'nuclear finger' pic?)