The Lybian gov.t said the next day it was terrorism. We continued with days and days of our position that it was spontaneous protest & objectional video as well as an 78 million dollar apologetic video in Packistan -- (saying it was the objectional video that caused this )--- basically making the Lybian govt a liar.
Nope. The very next day, Obama called it terrorism.
He says act of terror which, if memory serves, is deliberate. I know it is semantics, but I swear there was even a conversation here. (not being snarky)
He says act of terror which, if memory serves, is deliberate. I know it is semantics, but I swear there was even a conversation here. (not being snarky)
Oh, I quit. I don't direct that at you, Tef, but I just can't.
He says act of terror which, if memory serves, is deliberate. I know it is semantics, but I swear there was even a conversation here. (not being snarky)
Oh, I quit. I don't direct that at you, Tef, but I just can't.
Wait, why? Am I incorrect in this memory of why the President says act of terror and not terrorism for a reason?
ETA: I thought the reason was because terrorism was premeditated (or something...I am trying to find, but national review is my only somewhat reasonable source so far)
He says act of terror which, if memory serves, is deliberate. I know it is semantics, but I swear there was even a conversation here. (not being snarky)
By this logic, 9/11 wasn't terrorism and George Bush didn't call it terrorism.
Really, what is the difference? And why does terrorism/terror matter??
I still want an answer to my question about how lives would have been saved if the government had immediately made public that the motive behind these attacks was terrorism rather than anger over a video. How would that have changed things?
He says act of terror which, if memory serves, is deliberate. I know it is semantics, but I swear there was even a conversation here. (not being snarky)
By this logic, 9/11 wasn't terrorism and George Bush didn't call it terrorism.
Really, what is the difference? And why does terrorism/terror matter??
You got me, but since we try to right lys. Boston he said act of terrorism because it was a bomb against civilians. The President is a very smart man and chooses words carefully. I would say that is the difference. Even if Candy Crawley was all fact-checky on it in the debate, I really did think it was because of the statement it was not planned.
And, sidenote, but all I can see is you shaking your hands like Hillary every time you say "what is the difference". It is making me giggle.
I learned something new today. All the other countries knew that Saddam had WMD's.. Fucking fascinating lys. Why don't you tell that to Hans Blix who had to take his WMD inspectors out of Iraq after finding NOTHING because Bush needed his hard on for Saddam satisfied.. Gag me.
When that phone rings at 2 am and Hillary answers it - will she handle national security the same was as Benghazi? We still have no information as to who ordered the military to stand down, when we DID have people available to help? We still have no information as to why there were changes in the original statement eliminating all references to terrorist attack, Alqaeda links etc and making this about a video/protest (3rd revision) when they knew at that tine that was not the truth. Those changes were not stylistic, but totally changed the "information" given. We still do not have any information on the wherabouts of Obama for 7 hours (and Bush was raked of the coals for continuing reading to the kids for 7 minutes when 911 attack occurred) We have no information as to the communication between Hillary and Obama during the attack. The story we were given about Benghazi is full of holes and no one wants them filled.
The timing was bad for Obama and the 2012 election - as this would have been bad for him to admit that Alqaeda was still alive and well, we failed at protecting our embassy (why, when more security was repeatedly requested in the previous mmonths and it was going to be 911?) So was this purely a political coverup to keep the lead? Obama criticised Romney for his comment after the attack, but the facts coming out show that Romney was right-- I doubt we will ever get the full story, nor will there ever be enough evidence in Syria for Obama to take any action. Bush may have been wrong on Weapons of Mass Destruction, but he acted on information, the same information that was given to many nations. They all bellieved that they existed. It was not a cover up. Why does it matter? The truth always matters. And if there are things that we need to fix in our State Dept. or in communications, information gathering, we need to know where the problems exist so thay can be fixed.
You do understand the purpose of the locations attacked, right? And who the majority of people at and working with those locations do for a living, right? And why giving out too many details on those people, what they were doing, who they where working with, and who was on site and who wasn't on site and had to find their way out in the next 24-48 hours might endanger the lives of others, right? And you do understand how attacks on those locations are very different than attacks on a privately owned/occupied business building on American soil, right? And you do understand the military has no responsibility for protecting either type of location, right? You do understand that the American public doesn't have the "need to know" or security clearances required to know the bulk of the details, right? And that the bulk of the idiots we dumbasses have elected to Congress wouldn't be able to pass the reviews to get the level of clearance required either (both Rs and Ds), right?
Again, if the Rs in Congress actually gave a rats ass about security in these locations and in actually preventing future incidents, they would be screaming for budget increases in specific areas and would have been for a very long time now.
The real problem that needs to be solved here is that Congress has chopped the budgets needed to provide adequate security to the bone. And to the point that terrorists know they can successfully attack these types of locations, not just in Libya, but around the world. The problem that needs to be fixed isn't that Hillary didn't get a memo, or answer a phone call, or talk to Obama, or answer a plea for more resources at the last minute, or that someone in the DoD told a rescue team to stand down after the attacks had started, or who knew what when--the REAL problem is that the needed resources aren't already there, in place, 24x7x365(6) because Congress isn't willing to pay the bill. Talking about anything else here being The Problem, or frankly even A Relevant Problem, that had anything at all to do with allowing the attacks to happen is a load of BS.
By this logic, 9/11 wasn't terrorism and George Bush didn't call it terrorism.
Really, what is the difference? And why does terrorism/terror matter??
You got me, but since we try to right lys. Boston he said act of terrorism because it was a bomb against civilians. The President is a very smart man and chooses words carefully. I would say that is the difference. Even if Candy Crawley was all fact-checky on it in the debate, I really did think it was because of the statement it was not planned.
And, sidenote, but all I can see is you shaking your hands like Hillary every time you say "what is the difference". It is making me giggle.
lol
OK, fair enough, they're different. But how does whatever difference between "terror" and "terrorism" affect the outcome of the situation? I think it's a bit obtuse to claim that Obama "lied for days on end" because he called it an "act of terror" instead of "terrorism."
After skimming, a couple of questions: TTT, where are you getting that Obama corrected the misinformation in 14 hours? (ETA: Do you mean because he called it terrorism/an act of terror?) He and other key people continued to cite the video as the cause for many days after the incident. In a UN speech 14 days after the attack, Obama continued to suggest that the video was related to the attack. Withholding information is one thing. Why not just say, "The investigation is ongoing. We are still working to identify who was behind the attack and why." Why muddy the waters with the incessant talk of this video?
Septimus, why should you care? I dunno. You don't have to care. I don't think this is some giant scandal. But it's worth a look, no?
Here is a timeline that I have not independently verified (and I have no idea who Doug Ross is, he claims to have formed this timeline with help from the House Oversight Committee testimony). But since people are quoting Mother Jones (and not even Mother Jones...comments on Mother Jones) in this thread, it seems to be a free for all. I was searching for a timeline for Benghazi, and found this.
/signed, NOT a Republican. And I like Hilary, FWIW.
Post by pedanticwench on May 10, 2013 10:19:54 GMT -5
Someone done fucked up. So, they need someone to blame.
Do I think it should be Hilary? I can't say that with certainty.
But it does make me angry that Stevens asked for better security and the Libyan government even warned us there would be an attack and they were BOTH ignored.
And of course this being brought up for purely political reasons and not out of any sense of really trying to find out what happened and where we screwed up. Because then both sides would be to blame.
I have all the books I could need, and what more could I need than books? I shall only engage in commerce if books are the coin. -- Catherynne M. Valente
Pedanticwench, Exactly. And if this timeline is correct, the requests for more security even predate Stevens' post in Libya. Looks like the previous guy, Gene Cretz, was already concerned as of March 2012.
Thank God I'm "without party." Because I don't feel obligated to defend anyone in particular and distract from the issue at hand. Why are we talking about Bush in this thread? Or White Water? Eye on the ball, people.
If the net result of this is better communication between departments and adequate funding/security for embassies, then it's worth the hassle of a thorough investigation.
I have all the books I could need, and what more could I need than books? I shall only engage in commerce if books are the coin. -- Catherynne M. Valente
No one finds it the least bit concerning that there were numerous changes made to the talking points by the State Department, despite White House claims that they made one change? One? If you actually care about transparency in government, you should care.
And it's not just Fox and the Republicans now questioning the Benghazi issue. It's ABC, CBS, the White House Press Corps, etc.
I don't know if we're dealing with a cover-up, if we're dealing with basic CYA during election time, or what. But I do think there are some more questions that should be answered about Benghazi. We shouldn't limit our questions to only those that could've "changed the outcome." Unless you only care about what your government says and does when it's not your people on top.
No one finds it the least bit concerning that there were numerous changes made to the talking points by the State Department, despite White House claims that they made one change? One? If you actually care about transparency in government, you should care.
And it's not just Fox and the Republicans now questioning the Benghazi issue. It's ABC, CBS, the White House Press Corps, etc.
I don't know if we're dealing with a cover-up, if we're dealing with basic CYA during election time, or what. But I do think there are some more questions that should be answered about Benghazi. We shouldn't limit our questions to only those that could've "changed the outcome." Unless you only care about what your government says and does when it's not your people on top.
Raising my hand as another person who doesn't belong to a party who is concerned about what happened. Following KA's point above, that is one reason.
Another reason - if that timeline posted by vanessadoof is accurate, Stephens asked for additional security - ignored. Another request - ignored. A request for a personal bodyguard - ignored AND his security detail is ordered by the State dept to leave.
That seems a lot like retaliation - not only will we not give you MORE security, we are taking away what you have, sucker.
Then Rice, who was the next in charge after Stevens was killed, questioned the reasons for the statements being given to the public. shortly thereafter he was given a review and told his management style was poor and was therefore pulled from the field and demoted to a desk job at headquarters. Retaliation, again.
We'd be screaming and stomping up and down if this happened to someone at their regular safe day job in America. But this guy died. He asked for additional security and not only was that denied, his security detail was stripped from him. So he got out of dodge, but then he was sent back to meet with the Turkish diplomat. Other reports are coming in that the CIA and Stevens didn't know about some other military invasions that were happening in a different part of Libya, and the attack was in retaliation for those invasions. So not only did Stevens get treated inappropriately when repeatedly asking for increased security, but he was sent into a hotbed that the whitehouse should have been aware of, without him OR the CIA even knowing about it so they could prepare properly.
It is almost like they wanted him killed. And if that is true, it is a coverup that needs exploration.
OR, less sinister but more politically damaging for Hillary - perhaps she was tired or ill and made a few really poor judgment calls in August/September because she had too much on her plate. And maybe that is the simple fact, and she feels horrible about him being killed over it, but there is no way in hell she could say she was suffering from exhaustion or she forgot to loop someone in on something because the men in politics would jump all over that and say a woman doesn't have the stamina or ability to be president.
Remember, she was hospitalized for a blood clot after incurring a concussion. She might have had some neurological issues affecting her then - and she looked damn tired the second half of 2012. Now Republicans say that her hospitalization was bunk and she was avoiding testifying. But my tinfoil hat theory is maybe she had something going on that needed to be treated and because of exhaustion and being overworked she made some bad calls - not intentionally to get stevens killed - but calls that resulted in his death. And that is why she was so defensive and asked, "what does it matter!?!" and that is why there was a coverup until they could get their story straight. I think she probably had so many balls in the air she or someone in her office 'forgot' about the military plans in Libya at that same time and accidentally authorized Stevens's visit, and when she and Obama found out he was attacked it probably went something like, "Hillary - why was Stephens there - you know we are attacking [insert whatever]. Clinton: Oh fuck - I thought that was scheduled for next month. Oh my God. Oh my GOD Barack. Obama: Hillary you need to get your story straight about this - we can use this video thing and say it might have been a protest for a couple of days, but you have got to get your story straight, and if this costs me the election you are going down. Clinton: I know Barack. Fuck. Ok. Lemme call you back. Obama: Hillary - another thing, if this doesn't cost me the election, you are going to resign. You need to get some rest and get your shit together, but you can't be on my team in the next term. Clinton: I know Barack. I understand. I'll call you back."
And even though men make worse mistakes than that as Presidents, Secretaries of State, etc., she would never be forgiven because she is a woman and she would have been seen as weak and unable to keep up with the stamina and stress that comes with being President.
So I want to know - whythehell did they lie to us for SO long, after other countries were saying, "uh... no, that isn't what happened?" And whythehell was Stevens's security detail taken from him after he asked for MORE security? And why was Hicks demoted for questioning the lies? And has anyone else been retaliated against?
I am concerned about what happened, but I honestly don't care about splitting hairs about "terror" vs "terrorism." I don't believe the public has a right to know immediately all of the details, security be damned, and I don't see how knowing "terrorism" vs "they were mad about a video" makes a damn difference here.
But I am very concerned about the lack of security at embassies and consulates - not just in this particular case. And I do think there absolutely needs to be an investigation into why help was not sent immediately, assuming that it wasn't. Somebody had to make that call, and I am definitely interested in knowing who it was and why they made that call.
I don't give a rat's ass what Obama labels an attack: terror vs terrorism vs attack by unknown extremists. There are 2 problems with Benghazi. One is that the gov't did know in advance the situation in Benghazi was deteriorating because of terrorists and they didn't do enough to prevent American lives from being lost. It also doesn't appear that they responded correctly when the attack was happening, but that is contested. Even assuming they screwed up the military response, is that criminal? IMO no*. Our gov't effs up all the time and no one should expect them to get everything right 100% of the time because that's impossible. But they should own their mistakes and learn from them so it doesn't happen again, which leads to problem #2. They lied about what happened.
When it was becoming obvious they lied, they lied about lying and started blaming other people. There is no evidence they lied for national security reasons. There wouldn't be, would there, when the administration has not admitted that it lied at all. Their recently-published reasons for the editing out of terrorism references (aka creating the false narrative) in their talking points are either political (people could beat up the state dept if they knew this) or more lies (we just wanted to make sure our spokespeople only delivered accurate info). The defensive finger pointing (umm ummm it was the CIA's fault) and the rewriting of history (we actually DID tell everyone it was a terrorist attack) doesn't inspire confidence that this administration thinks embassy security is an ongoing problem that needs to be addressed, or even just a Libyan-specific screw up that should be studied to learn how to respond better in the future. If it were up to them, the public would never know what really happened, which means there would have been no political pressure to shape up security overseas/responses to attacks and hopefully save future lives. Are we supposed to blindly trust that within the administration they know they screwed up and will now fix this error elsewhere, even while they continue to deny it all publicly? I don't have that much faith in my 2 year olds.
*Or I should say, most likely not. There is a theory that security in libya was purposefully lessened in order to make Libya appear to be a less hostile environment, for political purposes during the election. But we have no evidence to support that, and there are plenty of other explanations so I don't believe that's what happened at this point.