Who really killed our Ambassador to Libya?

[rigney]

What happened on 9/11/2012 is that an organized military strike took place on our embassy in Benghazi. This attack took place in the absence of any protest by local Libyans anywhere near our Benghazi embassy. This was known by the State department within 24 hours of the strike as was given in testimony in House hearings. With this knowledge UN ambassador Susan Rice went on weekend talk shows telling the American people that the our embassy was overrun by mob violence resulting from protests stemming from the Mohammad video. John Cuthber provides a video where President Obama links the Benghazi attack to disrespecting the religious beliefs of others and calls it a terrible act. Why make this linkage? On the anniversary of 9/11/2001 a military strike in the absence of protests takes place on our embassy and the President blames this military strike on mob violence? Then on September 25 the President goes before the UN and goes on and on about the Mohammad video and its linkage to the Benghazi embassy attack. But the State Department said they knew with 24 hour that there was no protest that turned to mob violence against our embassy.

 

If you don’t see a lie in the above you have cotton in your ears.

 

Tonight on John Stuarts show you can hear the President of the United States say “When four Americans get killed, it’s not optimal.” Shocking. Not only that, it wasn’t just four Americans. Our ambassador was assassinated in a military strike on our embassy by al Qaeda linked terrorists on the anniversary of 9/11/2001. I think “not optimal” is a bit of an understatement.

It's amazing how the "optimal silence of truth" can be heard above a din of lies and deceit, making this Snipe Hunt just about over. Edited October 19, 2012 by rigney

[iNow]

Tonight on John Stuarts show you can hear the President of the United States say “When four Americans get killed, it’s not optimal.” Shocking. Not only that, it wasn’t just four Americans. Our ambassador was assassinated in a military strike on our embassy by al Qaeda linked terrorists on the anniversary of 9/11/2001. I think “not optimal” is a bit of an understatement.

You know what's a bit more interesting? Reviewing the comments... hold on... wait for it... I know this is hard for some of my right-wing friends... reviewing the comments IN CONTEXT:

 

Watch the video where he actually made the comment: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-october-18-2012/barack-obama-pt--2

 

You should note how it was Jon Stewart who introduced the term "optimal," and the president was quite clearly building on/connecting his point back to Stewart's words when offering his response.

 

The relevant exchange begins about four and a half minutes into the video.

[rigney]

You know what's a bit more interesting? Reviewing the comments... hold on... wait for it... I know this is hard for some of my right-wing friends... reviewing the comments IN CONTEXT:

 

Watch the video where he actually made the comment: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-october-18-2012/barack-obama-pt--2

 

You should note how it was Jon Stewart who introduced the term "optimal," and the president was quite clearly building on/connecting his point back to Stewart's words when offering his response.

 

The relevant exchange begins about four and a half minutes into the video.

That is a fantastic summation. My ignorance would have likely never let me figured it out. Thanks.

[iNow]

That is a fantastic summation. My ignorance would have likely never let me figured it out. Thanks.

You're welcome. I am glad I was able to help you avoid the traps of quote mining and reading comments out of context.

[Phi for All]

That is a fantastic summation. My ignorance would have likely never let me figured it out. Thanks.

I hope that's sincere, because it sounds like something a person who is just a little right of center would readily admit.

[John Cuthber]

This was known by the State department within 24 hours of the strike as was given in testimony in House hearings.

 

If you don’t see a lie in the above you have cotton in your ears.

 

 

What I really don't see is evidence for the bit I have highlighted.

Don't get me wrong, I accept that the evidence might exists, it's just that I'd like you to cite it if you are going to rely on it.

 

Now, if we can just get Rigney to answer the question, we will be making progress.

[waitforufo]

What I really don't see is evidence for the bit I have highlighted.

Don't get me wrong, I accept that the evidence might exists, it's just that I'd like you to cite it if you are going to rely on it.

 

Now, if we can just get Rigney to answer the question, we will be making progress.

 

Is this proof enough for you John?

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57538689/emails-detail-unfolding-benghazi-attack-on-sept-11/?tag=AverageMixRelated

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/24/us-usa-benghazi-emails-idUSBRE89N02C20121024

 

Do you see any mention of a video in these emails?

Edited October 24, 2012 by waitforufo

[CharonY]

From what I see it does not appear that the White House actually issued a lie.

 

From the Reuters link

The official added, however, that the initial analysis of the attack that was presented to legislators was mixed.

"Briefers said extremists were involved in attacks that appeared spontaneous, there may have been a variety of motivating factors, and possible links to groups such as (al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and Ansar al-Sharia) were being looked at closely," the official said.

 

It rather seems that there was a bit of uncertainty and someone may have (for whatever reason) made a connection with the video (possibly because of the twitter message before as well as during the attack).

[ydoaPs]

From what I see it does not appear that the White House actually issued a lie.

 

From the Reuters link

 

It rather seems that there was a bit of uncertainty and someone may have (for whatever reason) made a connection with the video (possibly because of the twitter message before as well as during the attack).

 

There's also the bit where Obama's staffers told him at the intelligence briefings that it was spontaneous. Giving the case to the best of your knowledge and being wrong can hardly be called a lie.

 

What are you accusing the Obama administration of with regards to the Benghazi Embassy incident, in clear, unequivocal terms?

 

I'm just requoting this for rigney. Got an answer yet?

[Moontanman]

It's amazing, six pages and more than one hundred posts centering around whether or not The President intentionally lied or was given faulty information to base his response on something he had no personal control over and might very well have lied due to reasons of National Security.

 

Yet his opponent has demonstrably lied about nearly everything in his campaign and no one seems to care, just get Obama out at all costs...

 

I have already voted and this year has seen 10x the political signs of other years, the streets where I live are practically coated with political signs. The TV ads are founts of lies and spin. One jackass actually has his grandma telling everyone she knows her grand son will be a good congress critter as though that recommendation is somehow relevant. How bad a person would you have to be for your grandma not to endorse you?

 

I really wish i had the capability to record some of the local ads i am seeing, they would make for great you tube videos...

 

Oh yeah, one more thing, if I have to hear one more time how being a man of faith is important to being in government I think I'll puke...

Edited October 24, 2012 by Moontanman

[waitforufo]

What are you accusing the Obama administration of with regards to the Benghazi Embassy incident, in clear, unequivocal terms?

While this question was not asked of me, I'm give you my answer.

 

Mr Obama is running for a second term as President. Part of his campaign rhetoric is that "al Qaeda is on the run" and that the regime change in Libya is a signature example of President's foreign policy.

 

A planned attack of our Benghazi embassy on the anniversary of 9/11 by an al Qaeda linked terrorist group casts doubt on both of these claims. Al Qaeda appears to have us on the run in Libya. Does the President want his signature on a Libyan al Qaeda proxy state?

 

Also by claiming that the Benghazi attack was the result of a spontaneous transition of a peaceful protest to mob violence, the President avoids questions about general competence. While the American people may understand the unpredictability of spontaneous mob violence, these same people may not be so forgiving about missing a planned al Qaeda linked attack on an American embassy and the assassination of our ambassador on the anniversary of 9/11/2001.

 

Finally, blaming the Benghazi attack on an American made video places blame on America and on American free speech. Why do this when it is not true?

 

Why is the President doing this? Why does he cling to this BS about a spontaneous mob attack resulting from a C- grade video? I guess because he is in too deep to quit now. Perhaps narcissism prevents him from seeing how dishonest his response to the Benghazi attack makes him appear. How would he explain his September 25 speech to the UN? At this point the backlash from admitting the truth might cost him the election. On the other hand trying to wait out his deception may do the same.

 

Are my terms unequivocal enough?

[Moontanman]

While this question was not asked of me, I'm give you my answer.

 

Mr Obama is running for a second term as President. Part of his campaign rhetoric is that "al Qaeda is on the run" and that the regime change in Libya is a signature example of President's foreign policy.

 

A planned attack of our Benghazi embassy on the anniversary of 9/11 by an al Qaeda linked terrorist group casts doubt on both of these claims. Al Qaeda appears to have us on the run in Libya. Does the President want his signature on a Libyan al Qaeda proxy state?

 

Also by claiming that the Benghazi attack was the result of a spontaneous transition of a peaceful protest to mob violence, the President avoids questions about general competence. While the American people may understand the unpredictability of spontaneous mob violence, these same people may not be so forgiving about missing a planned al Qaeda linked attack on an American embassy and the assassination of our ambassador on the anniversary of 9/11/2001.

 

Finally, blaming the Benghazi attack on an American made video places blame on America and on American free speech. Why do this when it is not true?

 

Why is the President doing this? Why does he cling to this BS about a spontaneous mob attack resulting from a C- grade video? I guess because he is in too deep to quit now. Perhaps narcissism prevents him from seeing how dishonest his response to the Benghazi attack makes him appear. How would he explain his September 25 speech to the UN? At this point the backlash from admitting the truth might cost him the election. On the other hand trying to wait out his deception may do the same.

 

Are my terms unequivocal enough?

 

 

I have to ask "Why is it so important to keep beating the president with this one thing?" Mistakes were obviously made, I can't see how any president or his administration or the government or whatever body is responsible for the prevention of these can be expected to never get it wrong.

 

This one thing does not show Obama to be incompetent, it's not even particularly surprising, terrorist attacks are as varied as they are difficult to prevent. I doubt Obama being wrong about this incident, on purpose or by accident, is as earth shattering as you seem to want it to be.

 

In the greater scheme of things how is this any worse than the outright fabrications being asserted by Romney and crew over and over in this campaign...

 

More importantly is there any reason to think Romney would have done better?

[rigney]

I have to ask "Why is it so important to keep beating the president with this one thing?" Mistakes were obviously made, I can't see how any president or his administration or the government or whatever body is responsible for the prevention of these can be expected to never get it wrong.

 

This one thing does not show Obama to be incompetent, it's not even particularly surprising, terrorist attacks are as varied as they are difficult to prevent. I doubt Obama being wrong about this incident, on purpose or by accident, is as earth shattering as you seem to want it to be.

 

In the greater scheme of things how is this any worse than the outright fabrications being asserted by Romney and crew over and over in this campaign...

 

More importantly is there any reason to think Romney would have done better?

Yes!

[Moontanman]

Yes!

 

 

What reason would that be?

[John Cuthber]

The allegation is that Obama lied.

Rigney's contention is that Romney would have done that better.

It's plausible enough.

Romney has had more practice at lying.

[rigney]

The allegation is that Obama lied.

Rigney's contention is that Romney would have done that better.

It's plausible enough.

Romney has had more practice at lying.

Initially they were only questions John, not allegation as you suggest when I asked who really killed our Ambassador to Libya? And yes, they were questions that should have been answered honestly not glazed over, (lied about) by the entire democratic staff. I just hope this latest fiasco is enough to put Obama in mothballs. And if I may ask, why is a European liberal so interested in our one party American system of politics? And you will never read where I have called your Queen a liar.

[iNow]

I have to ask "Why is it so important to keep beating the president with this one thing?"

Because they've got nothing else on him, really. For all the bluster about him being the worst president ever, his foreign policy and foreign policy team has been exceptionally strong and effective. Since reality is against their narrative, they need to find that one tiny sliver of potential weakness and beat on it like a dead horse or war drum.

 

It's a lot like the climategate emails, IMO. No real story there, but the denialists had nothing better to attack so they grabbed a hold tightly to that one and wouldn't let go.

[Sergeant Bilko]

And you will never read where I have called your Queen a liar.

 

 

I suppose its just as well that he never accused you of calling the Queen a liar, he merely asked you to justify the statements that you did make.

 

However, you really should know that the Queen has nothing to do with "European" politics, she is purely a ceremonial head of state, and an excellent tourist attraction.

[waitforufo]

I have to ask "Why is it so important to keep beating the president with this one thing?" Mistakes were obviously made, I can't see how any president or his administration or the government or whatever body is responsible for the prevention of these can be expected to never get it wrong.

 

This one thing does not show Obama to be incompetent, it's not even particularly surprising, terrorist attacks are as varied as they are difficult to prevent. I doubt Obama being wrong about this incident, on purpose or by accident, is as earth shattering as you seem to want it to be.

 

Because they've got nothing else on him, really. For all the bluster about him being the worst president ever, his foreign policy and foreign policy team has been exceptionally strong and effective. Since reality is against their narrative, they need to find that one tiny sliver of potential weakness and beat on it like a dead horse or war drum.

 

If the president would have simple admitted that this was a terrorist attack that got by our vigilant efforts to stop such attacks and then responded against terror camps in Libya, this would have all blown over in a week.

 

Yes, now his political opponents have one "on him" and they will continue to exploit it, and why shouldn't they? The President and his staff continue with their dishonesty.

 

It's important because the American people don't like dishonesty. They also don't like our country projecting weakness. Projecting weakness isn't good foreign policy.

[rigney]

I suppose its just as well that he never accused you of calling the Queen a liar, he merely asked you to justify the statements that you did make.

 

However, you really should know that the Queen has nothing to do with "European" politics, she is purely a ceremonial head of state, and an excellent tourist attraction.

Thanks for clearing that up for me. As rich as the queen is, it's easy to think the House of Windsor might have something to do with politics?

 

If the president would have simple admitted that this was a terrorist attack that got by our vigilant efforts to stop such attacks and then responded against terror camps in Libya, this would have all blown over in a week.

 

Yes, now his political opponents have one "on him" and they will continue to exploit it, and why shouldn't they? The President and his staff continue with their dishonesty.

 

It's important because the American people don't like dishonesty. They also don't like our country projecting weakness. Projecting weakness isn't good foreign policy.

Have you by chance watched the DVD video 2016, by D Souza? Edited October 25, 2012 by rigney

[waitforufo]

One other unseemly aspect of blaming this terrorist attack on a movie review gone wrong is that such an explanation encourages Islamaphobia. By blaming the attack on the video, the president might as well have said “well you know the Muslims have a blood lust when it comes to insults to Mohammad and sometimes that blood lust even leads to killing the liberators of their oppression.

[Sergeant Bilko]

Thanks for clearing that up for me. As rich as the queen is, it's easy to think the House of Windsor might have something to do with politics?

 

 

Do you ever read what you have written? Are you suggesting that the Queens financial situation is in some way connected to her influence in politics?

 

If so why does that make it easy to think that the House if Windsor has something to do with Politics?

[ydoaPs]

One other unseemly aspect of blaming this terrorist attack on a movie review gone wrong is that such an explanation encourages Islamaphobia. By blaming the attack on the video, the president might as well have said “well you know the Muslims have a blood lust when it comes to insults to Mohammad and sometimes that blood lust even leads to killing the liberators of their oppression.

 

What part of "that is what he was told at his intelligence briefings" do you not understand? Or is it that you do understand and just would prefer that he actually had lied?

 

I just hope this latest fiasco is enough to put Obama in mothballs.

 

Again, in clear words, what is the "fiasco" apart from FOX lying and spinning at the speed of light?

 

It's a lot like the climategate emails, IMO. No real story there, but the denialists had nothing better to attack so they grabbed a hold tightly to that one and wouldn't let go.

 

That seems to be about the gist of it.

 

If the president would have simple admitted that this was a terrorist attack that got by our vigilant efforts to stop such attacks and then responded against terror camps in Libya, this would have all blown over in a week.

 

Like he did the day after the attack and the day after that?

[rigney]

What part of "that is what he was told at his intelligence briefings" do you not understand? Or is it that you do understand and just would prefer that he actually had lied?

 

 

 

Again, in clear words, what is the "fiasco" apart from FOX lying and spinning at the speed of light?

 

 

 

That seems to be about the gist of it.

 

 

 

Like he did the day after the attack and the day after that?

In all honesty, a rurricane couldn't blow the stink off of this Benghazi thing. And perish the thought that a democrat would lie!

[ydoaPs]

In all honesty, a rurricane couldn't blow the stink off of this Benghazi thing.

 

Still missing: rigney saying what the "stink" is.

 

And perish the thought that a democrat would lie!

 

Please, quote for me where Obama lied about this.