Obama let this terrorist go and rejoin the battlefield.
Al Qaeda, ex-Gitmo detainee involved in consulate attack, intelligence sources say
The more we learn, the more it looks like yet another false flag attack.
To what end?
To what end?
Every false flag attack has a twofold purpose: to perpetuate war and to grow government.
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
You have absolutely no evidence of that whatsoever.
No evidence that you will accept.
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Obama let this terrorist go and rejoin the battlefield.
Al Qaeda, ex-Gitmo detainee involved in consulate attack, intelligence sources say
If you read the article, rather than just the headline, you will notice that he was released in 2007. If you want to blame a president, that would be President Bush.
To what end?
Every false flag attack has a twofold purpose: to perpetuate war and to grow government.
Yes - I understand the basic theory, but in this case, what motive would the US Government have in wanting to perpetuate the war (given that it has no positive outcomes beyond enhanced national security, which this event diminishes), and grow the government in what sense? And how do you propose that this was done? Was the US Government behind the film, or did they plan and execute this global set of events in multiple foreign countries in the short period after the trailer was released?
Yes - I understand the basic theory, but in this case, what motive would the US Government have in wanting to perpetuate the war (given that it has no positive outcomes beyond enhanced national security, which this event diminishes), and grow the government in what sense? And how do you propose that this was done? Was the US Government behind the film, or did they plan and execute this global set of events in multiple foreign countries in the short period after the trailer was released?
He'd explain it to you, but you wouldn't accept it. ;)
Gee, look what's being ignored. The Obama Admin has been caught in a massive lie and is in full blown panic mode.
Susan Rice: These were spontaneous acts based on the video. It was not planned.
Carney: These attacks were not directed at the U.S, its policy or the administration.
Clinton: It was the video
State Department: Just kidding, we knew it was terror all along. Also, there was no protest at all.
Jay Carney, apparently on a two week vacation without telling anyone.
Carney: We never claimed we didn't know it was terrorism. (File under "What The Fu....??")
The Administration knew it was terror within 24 hrs.
Obama on The View: Won't call it terrorism. We're still investigating.
Hearings: State Dept/Admin did not provide enough security.
That's just a little sampling. The bottom line is this is a shit storm now, and it's all been created by the Obama Administration itself. This is what happens when you're more concerned with an election than saving American lives.
pasted-
"What Darrell Issa isn’t telling you is that he, along with Paul Ryan, voted to cut security at American embassies.
For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department’s Worldwide Security Protection program — well below the $2.15 billion requested by the Obama administration. House Republicans cut the administration’s request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012.
If there was inadequate security at the American embassy in Libya, neither the State Department or President Obama are to blame.
If you’re going to blame anyone, you should blame the Republicans who were too caught up in obstructing the president’s agenda and fetishizing deficit reduction to consider the consequences of their actions.
The only time Republicans stop to consider American personnel overseas is when they can be used as campaign props or cannon fodder."
"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".
~ William Hazlitt
"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".
~ William Hazlitt
pasted-
"What Darrell Issa isn’t telling you is that he, along with Paul Ryan, voted to cut security at American embassies.
For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department’s Worldwide Security Protection program — well below the $2.15 billion requested by the Obama administration. House Republicans cut the administration’s request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012.
If there was inadequate security at the American embassy in Libya, neither the State Department or President Obama are to blame.
If you’re going to blame anyone, you should blame the Republicans who were too caught up in obstructing the president’s agenda and fetishizing deficit reduction to consider the consequences of their actions.
The only time Republicans stop to consider American personnel overseas is when they can be used as campaign props or cannon fodder."
I love how you ignore when people point out the obvious flaws in your argument, only to repost the same argument in another thread. Can you show these cuts (if they even were cuts...cutting growth is not cutting) had ANY impact on the availability of personnel for security purposes?
pasted-
"What Darrell Issa isn’t telling you is that he, along with Paul Ryan, voted to cut security at American embassies.
For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department’s Worldwide Security Protection program — well below the $2.15 billion requested by the Obama administration. House Republicans cut the administration’s request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012.
If there was inadequate security at the American embassy in Libya, neither the State Department or President Obama are to blame.
If you’re going to blame anyone, you should blame the Republicans who were too caught up in obstructing the president’s agenda and fetishizing deficit reduction to consider the consequences of their actions.
The only time Republicans stop to consider American personnel overseas is when they can be used as campaign props or cannon fodder."
There is an interesting Washington Times article you may want to read.
The State Department under Hillary Clinton has necessary funds to purchase Chevy Volts and a charging station for them in Austria, but you claim that the Republicans funding cuts are to blame for poor security in Libya. From June 2011 thru July 2012 there were 48 security incidents in Bengazi alone and yet it wasn't deemed appropriate to enhance security on the anniversay of Sept 11? Honestly, why in the world would we even have a presence in Libya if we aren't allowed to protect it as agreed to by Hillary Clinton with not allowing Marine security details in Libya?
You want to point the finger, point it at State Department policy in Libya which practically invited this kind of attack.
You want to point the finger, point it at State Department policy in Libya which practically invited this kind of attack.
Our mere presence in that region of the world is inviting these kinds of attacks. It's time to come home and put the money and resources into repairing and rebuilding our own country.
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Our mere presence in that region of the world is inviting these kinds of attacks. It's time to come home and put the money and resources into repairing and rebuilding our own country.
Spoken like a true Ron Paul supporter.
I suppose we should just bring home all of our forces everywhere in the world regardless of treaty obligations or commitments to our allies. To heck with the rest of the world.
Spoken like a true Ron Paul supporter.
I suppose we should just bring home all of our forces everywhere in the world regardless of treaty obligations or commitments to our allies. To heck with the rest of the world.
"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none." ~ Thomas Jefferson
We have a military presence in more nations around the world than at any other time in our history. We have 900 military bases around the world. It's time to stop this interventionist policing of the world and return to the Constitution. Bring the troops home now.
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Obama, White House knew it was a terrorist attack hours after it occurred.
Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show....
....A third email, also marked SBU and sent at 6:07 p.m. Washington time, carried the subject line: "Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack."
True, but while verification is taking place, you don't go around inciting the entire Muslim world by blaming the whole thing on an obscure YouTube video.
The bottom line here is that a (relatively small) terrorist attack occurred on Obama's watch and his administration wasn't up to the task. Security was lacking after resources were requested and turned down. They immediately knew they were vulnerable on the file, so they tried to hang the blame on someone else.
That's why this is a big deal. Bad things can happen during any administration, but it's the response to the situation that has sunk them.
Hillary's 3am phone call argument has proven to be blindingly accurate.
Let's get real M. The White House wasn't pedaling a narrative that involved everyone keeping calm while they went and got the right facts because there suspicion was it was an attack by a terrorist group, but they didn't know which terrorist group.
They pedaled a specific narrative that involved an spontaneous uprising related to protesting a video. That was a load of bunk. They knew it was a load of bunk from the beginning.
It's inexcusable. On top of that, the filmmaker has been arrested and "detained" for a month.
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell
Let's get real M. The White House wasn't pedaling a narrative that involved everyone keeping calm while they went and got the right facts because there suspicion was it was an attack by a terrorist group, but they didn't know which terrorist group.
They pedaled a specific narrative that involved an spontaneous uprising related to protesting a video. That was a load of bunk. They knew it was a load of bunk from the beginning.
It's inexcusable. On top of that, the filmmaker has been arrested and "detained" for a month.
I'm was not defending the handling of the situation - just pointing out that a claim of responsibility without verification does not equal knowledge of who perpetrated the act. If we are going to criticize then we at least need to ensure that we are rigorous in our presentation of the facts.
True, but while verification is taking place, you don't go around inciting the entire Muslim world by blaming the whole thing on an obscure YouTube video.
The bottom line here is that a (relatively small) terrorist attack occurred on Obama's watch and his administration wasn't up to the task. Security was lacking after resources were requested and turned down. They immediately knew they were vulnerable on the file, so they tried to hang the blame on someone else.
That's why this is a big deal. Bad things can happen during any administration, but it's the response to the situation that has sunk them.
Hillary's 3am phone call argument has proven to be blindingly accurate.
Agreed in part, but I don't see how the identity or affiliation of the perpetrators changes the issue of a lack of security if that turns out to be a major factor here. Suggesting that the video, rather than general hatred of the US, was the cause doesn't in any way let them off the hook if they screwed up and allowed inadequate security to lead to this outcome, so seems an unlikely motive for deliberately spreading disinformation.
Agreed in part, but I don't see how the identity or affiliation of the perpetrators changes the issue of a lack of security if that turns out to be a major factor here. Suggesting that the video, rather than general hatred of the US, was the cause doesn't in any way let them off the hook if they screwed up and allowed inadequate security to lead to this outcome, so seems an unlikely motive for deliberately spreading disinformation.
Lack of security would be related to lack of foresight on the matter. They have pedaled the video narrative because it creates a cause that is outside their control and thus they could not be responsible for predicting or protecting against it. In otherword it gives the administration an out by their reasoning.
Declaring that terrorist groups, no matter which one might undertake an action against U.S. interests and act up on the anniversary of 9/11 is something that common sense would say to address and thus there should have been action, planning and counteractions in those areas. There is no out from responsibility. All the variables were understood. The point is they aren't off the hook but desperately want to be because the last Democratic one-term president saw his chances go down the drain when a crisis at an embassy showed he didn't deserve a second term. History is close to repeating itself.
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell
Agreed in part, but I don't see how the identity or affiliation of the perpetrators changes the issue of a lack of security if that turns out to be a major factor here. Suggesting that the video, rather than general hatred of the US, was the cause doesn't in any way let them off the hook if they screwed up and allowed inadequate security to lead to this outcome, so seems an unlikely motive for deliberately spreading disinformation.
Lack of security would be related to lack of foresight on the matter. They have pedaled the video narrative because it creates a cause that is outside their control and thus they could not be responsible for predicting or protecting against it. In otherword it gives the administration an out by their reasoning.
Declaring that terrorist groups, no matter which one might undertake an action against U.S. interests and act up on the anniversary of 9/11 is something that common sense would say to address and thus there should have been action, planning and counteractions in those areas. There is no out from responsibility. All the variables were understood. The point is they aren't off the hook but desperately want to be because the last Democratic one-term president saw his chances go down the drain when a crisis at an embassy showed he didn't deserve a second term. History is close to repeating itself.
I don't think we are disagreeing here on the events, but I still don't get why you think that blaming the video could be construed as a way to avoid taking responsibility. Whether it was the video or not, a terrorist attack is outside our control, but preparing for it is not in either case. If lack of preparation is the issue, then it is an issue whatever the cause of the attack and whoever carries it out, and responsibility cannot be avoided. So even if the video were the cause or trigger, it doesn't alter responsibility. So why blame the video if they knew it was not the cause - that doesn't actually make it any better.
I don't think we are disagreeing here on the events, but I still don't get why you think that blaming the video could be construed as a way to avoid taking responsibility. Whether it was the video or not, a terrorist attack is outside our control, but preparing for it is not in either case. If lack of preparation is the issue, then it is an issue whatever the cause of the attack and whoever carries it out, and responsibility cannot be avoided. So even if the video were the cause or trigger, it doesn't alter responsibility. So why blame the video if they knew it was not the cause - that doesn't actually make it any better.
It's called a strawman. It's a logical fallacy. It doesn't have to make sense. The Obama administration uses them as standard operating procedure. You don't need to convince everyone, just give your core supporters something on which to hang their bias and something they can repeat to the low information voters.
You're making it about logic. They are making it about winning an election. The two aren't necessarily the same.
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell
I don't think we are disagreeing here on the events, but I still don't get why you think that blaming the video could be construed as a way to avoid taking responsibility. Whether it was the video or not, a terrorist attack is outside our control, but preparing for it is not in either case. If lack of preparation is the issue, then it is an issue whatever the cause of the attack and whoever carries it out, and responsibility cannot be avoided. So even if the video were the cause or trigger, it doesn't alter responsibility. So why blame the video if they knew it was not the cause - that doesn't actually make it any better.
It's called a strawman. It's a logical fallacy. It doesn't have to make sense. The Obama administration uses them as standard operating procedure. You don't need to convince everyone, just give your core supporters something on which to hang their bias and something they can repeat to the low information voters.
You're making it about logic. They are making it about winning an election. The two aren't necessarily the same.
So you think maybe they are just hoping to sow some confusion to deflect attention from the security angle? Maybe so.
I'm obviously not explaining this at all well - I keep saying that I am not disagreeing or arguing about what was said, or disputing that they blamed the video for inflaming public opinion over there, but the responses keep coming back as if I were.
I'm curious why they said it, and while the idea that they might just have been obfuscating could make sense, I do not agree that it looks any better for the administration when presented as an angry mob than as a planned terrorist attack - it's obviously anti-USA either way. That, we appear to disagree on.
The right have been pushing and twisting this issue purely for political gain. Even in a forum that hardly anyone reads, these views are still pushed. The only reason I can see for that is to annoy Democrats or to vent some deeply troubling personal animosity towards the left.
"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".
~ William Hazlitt
"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".
~ William Hazlitt
I could argue it both ways, and each could be argued as worse for different reasons, so my conclusion is that there is not much to choose. And either way, in comparison to the possibility of a significant failure to provide adequate security in a known trouble area, focusing on the source of the trouble seems to me to distract from, rather than reinforce, the major issue.
I could argue it both ways, and each could be argued as worse for different reasons, so my conclusion is that there is not much to choose.
I've not heard anyone argue that demonstration gone bad would be worse. In fact, I can't see any coherent argument supporting that point. Care to give it a shot?
False dilemma. The inadequate security is another issue entirely, and exists regardless of the "cause" issue. Regardless of whether or not you understand why the administration would focus on a cause they knew to be false, the fact is they did.
I could argue it both ways, and each could be argued as worse for different reasons, so my conclusion is that there is not much to choose.
I've not heard anyone argue that demonstration gone bad would be worse. In fact, I can't see any coherent argument supporting that point. Care to give it a shot?
False dilemma. The inadequate security is another issue entirely, and exists regardless of the "cause" issue. Regardless of whether or not you understand why the administration would focus on a cause they knew to be false, the fact is they did.
I was thinking that a mob reaction would more clearly suggest a continuing public dislike or distrust of the US, which would more obviously represent a failure of the attempts to engage with moderate Islam. Terrorists with extreme views have always existed, and are never going to be our friends, but do not generally represent public opinion.
The second point is not presented as a dilemma, false or otherwise - I just think that when one has a clear and simple case (in this case the security lapse), it is a mistake to complicate it with more complex and possibly contentious issues (in this case what Obama was referring to when he said "acts of terror) that allow your opponent to deflect from the harder question.
I have no explanation for what he said, other than to note that whatever he said and whomever he blamed he was likely to include the statement that the event was not a criticism of US policy. At this point I'm not sure what was behind the confused and incorrect information, and I don't really think it matters much compared to the implied security lapse. If they really were deliberately trying to mislead then I think that was misguided and, worse still, futile.
I have no explanation for what he said, other than to note that whatever he said and whomever he blamed he was likely to include the statement that the event was not a criticism of US policy. At this point I'm not sure what was behind the confused and incorrect information, and I don't really think it matters much compared to the implied security lapse. If they really were deliberately trying to mislead then I think that was misguided and, worse still, futile.
But how could they NOT be misleading? The evidence is clear. It was clear in real time and within hours of the attack.
I have no explanation for what he said, other than to note that whatever he said and whomever he blamed he was likely to include the statement that the event was not a criticism of US policy. At this point I'm not sure what was behind the confused and incorrect information, and I don't really think it matters much compared to the implied security lapse. If they really were deliberately trying to mislead then I think that was misguided and, worse still, futile.
But how could they NOT be misleading? The evidence is clear. It was clear in real time and within hours of the attack.
One thing I can tell you is that it is clear that you, and many others, have a tendency to impose the clarity of hindsight on your judgement of past events and then, in the light of that judgement, presume motives for the actions that were taken. Another thing I can tell you is that you will almost certainly reject that assertion.
I weigh the evidence that I have and attempt to explain it. With insufficient evidence I wait for more. I have insufficient evidence on this issue and so at this stage I have no more to add to the discussion.
One thing I can tell you is that it is clear that you, and many others, have a tendency to impose the clarity of hindsight on your judgement of past events and then, in the light of that judgement, presume motives for the actions that were taken. Another thing I can tell you is that you will almost certainly reject that assertion.
I weigh the evidence that I have and attempt to explain it. With insufficient evidence I wait for more. I have insufficient evidence on this issue and so at this stage I have no more to add to the discussion.
1. To be fair, everyone does that to an extent. It's human nature.
2. I notice that you do that, and I appreciate your polite, thoughtful posts. However, I simply don't understand how you look at what we know and conclude anything other than, at best, the White House spun this event to make themselves look better a month before a close election. Or, at worst, they lied. I'd ask you to look at what we know:
Now looking at the above, you're claiming we just don't know what happened? Come on. It doesn't pass the smell test.
