Asked about the initial reports of the protests, the official said that while "others" in the administration may have said there were protests, the State Department did not.ADDED: Lots of links at Instapundit (which sounds like the most generic teaser ever, but specifically on this story, check it out).
"That was not our conclusion," the official said. "I'm not saying that we had a conclusion."
October 10, 2012
The State Department tells the Benghazi story — devoid of mobs angry at that video.
ABC reports:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
323 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 323 of 323Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans’ proposed cuts to her department would be “detrimental to America’s national security” — a charge Republicans rejected.
Hey you fat dumbshit, why don't you tell us how the "proposed cuts" actually worked out in terms of federal outlays.
Come dummy, I'm sure you know all about it. So tell us.
T-t-t-two-two-two Inga/Allie/Whatever's in one:
You need to quit getting so personal.
vs.
it's making you look demented....again.
You Methadras, truly are amoral. Or you are insane.
...you really ARE a whore...you have no morals at all.
...and so on.
Here's some cruel neutrality:
Liberals 'could be' douchebags.
I just love the STRAINING, the WHEEZING, the STAMMERING by the trolls here to excuse/explain our sorry ass representatives in government.
The dem mascot? An ass.
Maybe it should be a squirrel.
For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department’s Worldwide Security Protection program
I love how you think an reduction in the growth by $40 million on $2 billion is an argument or a response.
Why, it is almost as if you're stupid or something.
A telling timeline, pt 1:
April 6: IED thrown over the fence of the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi.
April 11: Gun battle erupts between armed groups two-and-a-half miles from the U.S. Consulate, including rocket-propelled grenades.
April 27: Two South African contractors are kidnapped by armed men, released unharmed.
May 1: Deputy Commander of U.S. Embassy Tripoli’s Local Guard Force is carjacked, beaten, and detained by armed youth.
May 1: British Embassy in Tripoli is attacked by a violent mob and set on fire. Other NATO embassies attacked as well.
May 3: The State Department declines a request from personnel concerned about security at the U.S. Embassy in Libya for a DC-3 plane to take them around the country.
May 22: Two rocket-propelled grenades are fired at the Benghazi office of the International Committee of the Red Cross, less than 1 mile from the U.S. Consulate.
June 6: A large IED destroys part of the security perimeter of the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi. Creates hole “big enough for 40 men to go through.”
June 10: A car carrying the British ambassador is attacked in Tripoli. Two bodyguards injured.
Late June: The building of the International Red Cross attacked again and closed down, leaving the U.S. flag as the only international one still flying in Benghazi, an obvious target.
August 6: Armed assailants carjack a vehicle with diplomatic plates operated by U.S. personnel.
September 8: A local security officer in Benghazi warns American officials about deteriorating security.
September 11: Protesters attack the U.S. Cairo embassy. U.S. Embassy releases statement and tweets sympathizing with Muslim protesters/attackers.
September 11: U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya is attacked, Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans are killed.
A telling timeline, pt 2:
September 12: Secretary Clinton and President Obama issue statements condemning both the video and the attacks.
September 12: U.S. intelligence agencies have enough evidence to conclude a terrorist attackwas involved.
September 13: Press Secretary Jay Carney condemns video and violence at a news conference.
September 14: Carney denies Administration had “actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent.”
September 14: The bodies of slain Americans return to Andrews Air Force Base. President Obama again blames the YouTube video.
September 16: U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice appears on Sunday talk shows and says the attacks were provoked by the video, exclusively.
September 16: Libyan President Mohamed Magarief says, “no doubt that this [attack] was preplanned, predetermined.”
September 17: State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland refuses to call attacks an act of terror.
September 19: CNN reports having found Ambassador Stevens’s diary, which indicates concern about security threats in Benghazi.
September 19: Director of the National Counterterrorism Center Matthew Olsen tells Congressthe attack in Libya was “terrorism.”
September 20: Carney tries to back up Olsen, says it was “self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.”
September 20: Obama refuses to call attack terrorism, citing insufficient information.
September 21: Secretary of State Clinton, at meeting with Pakistani Foreign Minister, says, “What happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.”
September 25: On ABC’s “The View,” Obama says, “we don’t have all of the information yet so we are still gathering.”
September 25: To the U.N. assembly, Obama blames “A crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world.”
September 26: Libya’s Magarief on the “Today” show says, “It was a preplanned act of terrorism directed against American citizens.”
September 26: Published reports show U.S. Intel agencies and the Obama Administration knew within 24 hours that al-Qaeda affiliated terrorist were involved.
September 27: Innocence of Muslims filmmaker Mark Basseley Youseff (aka Nakoula Basseley Nakoula) is arrested and denied bail on the charges of “probation violation.”
September 28: Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper, Jr., issues a statement backing the Obama Administration’s changing story about the Libyan attack. Says facts are evolving.
October 2: Carney declines to comment on reported requests from diplomats in Libya for additional security, citing the State Department’s internal investigation.
Teabaggers cut budget for embassy security. Embassies get attacked. Teabaggers blame Obama.
Nobody could have predicted.
garage,
I'd love to see Obama use a budget excuse for his culpability in the Benghazi deaths. I hope it comes up in the debates. So he made a decision to go to war in Libya without congressional approval and then sent people to embassies there without adequate security...because...no budget for it??
Whose fault would that ultimately be, do you think? Think hard.
Jay,
Why don't you tone it down? Even when you're right on substance you're still wrong. Doesn't that matter to you?
How does your claim make any sense when the Democrat-controlled Senate hasn't passed a budget in more than 3 years, garage?
A budget has to be passed to have any effect. By unilaterally preventing the passage a budget for more than 3 years, Dem Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats are 100% responsible for spending levels since 2009.
Bu bu but ______________???????
garage mahal said...
Teabaggers cut budget for embassy security. Embassies get attacked. Teabaggers blame Obama.
The buck stops.....over there!
Hey fatshit, why don't you tell us why $2 billion isn't enough in embassy security?
Marshal said...
Jay,
Doesn't that matter to you?
Um, no.
See, these morons deserve all the ridicule they can get.
And more.
Darcy said...
garage,
I'd love to see Obama use a budget excuse for his culpability in the Benghazi deaths. I hope it comes up in the debates. So he made a decision to go to war in Libya without congressional approval and then sent people to embassies there without adequate security...because...no budget for it??
Whose fault would that ultimately be, do you think? Think hard.
That in effect would be the equivalent of saying that a city won't prosecute murders anymore because it costs to much money. Guess what happens?
garage mahal said...
Bu bu but ______________???????
Hysterical.
$2 billion to the Obama Administration for embassy security and wittle garagie is left talking about a $40 million dollar cut.
Hey fatshit, why don't you tell us what % 40 million is of $2 billion?
Well, garage?
How can the Tea Partiers have cut the budget when spending has been at the level since the last budget was passed in 2009?
Are you lying again?
Or do you just not understand govt at all?
My guess is: both.
Nathan Alexander said...
How does your claim make any sense when the Democrat-controlled Senate hasn't passed a budget in more than 3 years, garage?
A budget has to be passed to have any effect. By unilaterally preventing the passage a budget for more than 3 years, Dem Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats are 100% responsible for spending levels since 2009.
Well, he'll just blame it on republicans and their filibusters and stuff.
garage links: [GOP vice presidential nominee Paul] Ryan, [Rep. Darrell] Issa and other House Republicans voted for an amendment in 2009 to cut $1.2 billion from State operations,..]
Funny how just those two names come up in the linked article.
Also, garage, I wasn't aware that a budget had been passed and signed, but go ahead and try and pass the blame.
Jay said...
garage mahal said...
Bu bu but ______________???????
Hysterical.
$2 billion to the Obama Administration for embassy security and wittle garagie is left talking about a $40 million dollar cut.
Hey fatshit, why don't you tell us what % 40 million is of $2 billion?
That would require math and for a leftard, math is hard. Don't believe me? Look at what it takes to crash an economy in 4 years looks like.
The funds were too much! SLASH.
There weren't enough funds!
Darcy is hitting them out of the park today!
Jay said...
See, these morons deserve all the ridicule they can get.
When you overshoot either on substance or in tone your ridicule is ineffective. Victory isn't achieved by the volume of ammunition fired, it's determined by the amount hitting the target.
Shouting Thomas said...
Methadras, cool it.
Inga is not evil. She's afraid. She's afraid for her daughter. She's caving in our of fear.
That doesn't entirely account for her stupidity, but it does ameliorate it, somewhat.
Not to me it doesn't. It's just histrionic, maudlin nonsense.
Thanks, chickelit. (And thank you for the other compliment too!)
ST and Inga/Allie Oops/Allie in a death match. I can throw in Jerry Sandusky and carbohydrates and have them both stroke out.
How did you like that sentencing yesterday, ST?
The Tigers need Darcy behind Prince in the order.
There weren't enough funds
Obama's going to need funding for a bigger bus.
However, in the days after the attack Mr Obama’s ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, initially described it as a “spontaneous” one that arose out of a protest against the film.
Well, see, now the party line is that the Cairo protests were spontaneous while the Benghazi attack was planned...but was inspired by the Cairo protest. Except that our UN Ambassador said that there was a spontaneous protest in Benghazi, but our SecState says they never -- NEVER -- believed the "spontaneous mob" spin. But State put it out on the Sunday talk shows anyway.
Were they lying then or are they lying now? Getting everyone under oath and on the record should sort things out.
BTW, regarding the mother and Romney story: Mrs Lydia Bixby was said to loathe President Lincoln before and after he wrote her his famous letter of consolation. History was not kind to Mrs. Bixby.
Also, has anyone heard lately from the other mother of the Seal killed in Benghazi who wanted answers? Cheryl Croft Bennett?
Two grieving mothers...one of them meddles in the campaign, the other just wants the truth.
Another timeline:
1. The administration abandons our Egyptian allies and even declares victory as Egypt transitions to Muslim Brotherhood rule.
2. The Muslim Brotherhood exports terror as terrorists strike Israel from the Sinai, and “foreign fighters” begin to infiltrate newly liberated Libya from Egypt.
3. Benghazi grows ever more dangerous, our consulate is attacked, and the British ambassador survives assassination attempts.
4. As Libya descends into (greater) chaos, the State Department decreases security.
5. Multiple officials, including security officials, protest the decreased security, express concern for their safety, and request more resources.
6. The State Department denies their requests and instead relies on a local militia of shopkeepers to protect our ambassador — an unpaid militia that receives only a food stipend.
7. On September 11, terrorists launch an “unprecedented” complex attack on our consulate.
8. During the course of that attack, (if current reports are accurate) the United States not only loses track of our own ambassador, we find out that he was taken to the hospital by a local mob.
9. Despite knowing almost immediately that the United States suffered one of the worst terrorist attacks on its diplomats in its history, the administration publicly denies this reality and blames the violence on a YouTube video made months before.
10. Days later, the amateur filmmaker is very publicly detained for questioning and ultimately arrested for a probation violation.
Does that sum things up?
The Libyan scandal is the perfect storm for President Obama’s foreign policy — at one stroke demonstrating the consequences of his failures in Egypt, the continuing capability of the jihadists he’s crowed about defeating, the incompetence of his own administration as it stripped security from Libya, and the corruption and cynicism that compelled officials to lie and spin in the face of obvious truths.
One final note: It’s often said that in Washington, the cover-up is typically worse than the crime. And for a long time, we’ve focused on the cover-up (“what did Obama know, and when did he know it”). In this case, the “crime” of abandoning our public servants in their hour of maximum need is far, far worse than the administration’s ensuing spin and lies.
Ha-ha, Garage, nice try:
The [State Dept] officials said the number of U.S. and local security guards at the compound was consistent with what had been requested by the post.
"We had the correct number of assets in Benghazi at the time of 9/11," said Charlene Lamb, the deputy secretary of state for diplomatic security in charge of protecting American embassies and consulates around the world.
Hey, garage, why won't you answer how the Tea Party could have cut funding when the Democrat-controlled Senate has blocked any new budgets for more than 3 years?
The Democrats own the funding amounts.
SecState Hillary Clinton could have saved money in all sorts of areas to make sure there was enough funding in Benghazi, too.
Unless you have evidence that the GOP got a budget passed within the last 3 years that specifically cut funding for Embassy security in Libya, you are complicit in their deaths by trying to help Obama cover up his failure of leadership.
Yes, because a modest overall budget cut, a global or universal cut, to be allocated wherever and however an administration might best see fit (including cutting wasteful spending of various kinds, at whatever embassies the administration thinks suitable), is equivalent to the specific active decision, the judgment in this particular case and these circumstances, to refuse the additional protection asked for by this particular embassy, given the particular intel at the time, around that particular date.
Conflation. It's what's for dinner.
Hey, garage, why won't you answer how the Tea Party could have cut funding when the Democrat-controlled Senate has blocked any new budgets for more than 3 years?
Continuing resolutions. It's not if the government was shut down right?
Nor is it likely to change anytime soon. In the 2011 continuing resolution, Congress, at the insistence of the House of Representatives, slashed the president’s request for embassy security and construction and forced another cut in fiscal year 2012. Altogether Congress has eliminated $296 million from embassy security and construction in the last two years with additional cuts in other State Department security accounts.
Sequestration required under the Budget Control Act of 2011 will take more than $100 million more out of the program in 2013 if the current Congress does not overcome the impasse over budget cuts and tax revenues by yearend. Those cuts are largely the result of the draconian and unrealistically low budget caps placed by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) on all discretionary spending, falling particularly hard on the State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee with responsibility for embassy security. Link
I wonder this topic will come up tomorrow night?
I hope so, too, maybe we have too many embassies and can shut a few down?
It wasn't an embassy, per se, and we needed safehouses?
Seriously?
What's really interesting is where State chose to cut back, it looks like it's the equivalent of the typical dem threats, won't cut the brother-in-law's job, but police & firefighters, & teachers are the 1st to go.
garage, marshall & darcy:
There is another story that Mitt Romney tells about a soldier killed in Afghanistan, that is NOT about the Navy Seal killed in Bengahzi. Once he knew about the mom's feelings of the Navy Seal killed in Libya he stopped telling that story. I say big effing deal garage. He complied with the mother's wishes as soon as he knew what she wanted!
Here is the other story he mentions at events:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/grieving-widow-romneys-personal-story/story?id=17434211#.UHXU_PXsYgf
As I said, I hope it's brought up in the debate as well, garage.
Epic smackdown. Grapefruit over the plate.
So, GM, why don't you make the case for keeping more staff in Italy or some sunny tropical island spot than a hot spot?
Continuing resolutions just continue the spending already set.
Even if there were cuts, you still haven't pointed to where the GOP forced SecState Clinton to make those cuts in Libya.
Why are you helping the Obama administration cover this up, garage?
Do you approve of the way the Obama administration has lied repeatedly on this issue?
Via Insty:
MAYBE REWARDING SENIOR EXECS FOR SPENDING MORE TELLS US SOMETHING ABOUT WHY WASHINGTON SPENDING IS OUT OF CONTROL? More revelations from The Washington Examiner about the Department of Veterans Affairs, a federal bureaucracy with a management culture structured to spend as many tax dollars as possible. Meanwhile, nearly a million vets’ health and disability claims go unfinished for more than four months!
Garage. Are you arguing that the cuts in Embassy were done pro rata across all embassies and consulates or was our best government ever able to allocate resources on a more rational basis. Did we pull from Libya to keep Cyprus? Did we eliminate security in every embassy? Was the 1.6 million per embassy exacted in that or some other way?
You have no idea and neither does your lefty link
Ha ha, so it was the mean Reublicans fault that our embassy wasn't secured? Cause they had $1.9B to work with instead of the $2.1B they asked for?
Seriously? LOL.
garage, surely you're aware that no Federal agency gets every single dollar they ask for, right?
We're also mean to point it out.
Really, if this is the standard, then no Federal agency can ever be held accountable for anything.
chickelit said...BTW, regarding the mother and Romney story
Odd that. Last night a Boston tv station got a comment from the Seal's sister. She has started a memorial fund in his name. Despite a lead from a reporter who tried to set the tone as Romney disrespecting the Seal and family and constant pressure in the several questions she answered on camera, all she would comment was that she did not see this about politics, and appreciated Romney's tribute. She refused to be led into condemning Romney.
Granted this is now the mother and not the sister, and there is no upside for Romney to continue to talk about this if there is any hint of family disapproval.
Nonetheless based on last night's performance by at least one of the Boston media outlets - I do not know if it's the same one but that hardly matters in Boston - do not take this story without a large grain of salt.
Since no Federal agency gets everything they ask for, it's up to the agency leadership to prioritize resources effectively. Obviously, that didn't happen here.
Inga said... Oh Chip, perhaps you should be the first in my line, for a couple of things, one an apology, two to kiss my ass.
dummy gonna dum
Give and take with Congress is part of the Federal budget process, and Congressional marks should never be an excuse for a fiasco like this.
X, really? You don't really want to talk about four dead Americans at all, do you?
How many millions were cut? Gee, I wonder how many Solyndras are required to have paid for adequate embassy security.
Priorities. Do you have them?
Why ANYONE bothers any attempt at reason with the liberal trolls here is stupefying.
Never get into a pissing contest with a skunk.
The Administration didn't want to talk about them. It was OK then.
I think you owe some ass kissings dummy.
Seeing Red said...
The Administration didn't want to talk about them. It was OK then.
I remember Obama saying we hit speed bumps, doesn't that count?
Thanks for clarifying all this, garage!
It's really just awful how the Rethuglican teabaggers minority in Washington slashed the budget for desk calendars. This left the State Department and the White House completely unaware that September 11 was even coming this year!
And then Paul Ryan, in an attempt to conceal the rotten fruits of his muderous penny-pinching perfidity, somehow forced the President and the Secretary Of State to repeatedly refuse requests for even the most basic security, blame the people of the United States for being too godddamn mouthy for our own goddamn good, and lie repeatedly to everyone about everything!
Paul Ryan! What a douchebag!
TrooferAllie: You don't really want to talk about four dead Americans at all, do you?
I thought it was really nice how Pres. Obama provided six Marine pallbearers each for the four dead Americans -- exactly twenty-four more than he provided to protect them in the first place.
I owe NO ONE anything, but to be truthful and continue to state my own opinions, you are free to disagree. You X are a coward who hides behind a letter of the alphabet. YOU dont know why this consulate was attacked, to pretend you do makes you the dummy.
Furious, if you think you are getting a dig in to me by dissing Obama, you haven't been paying attention. I don't care about Obama, I care about the innocents over in that hell hole called the Mideast.
Innocent Americans.
I call bullshit, Inga. If you cared about the innocent Americans who reportedly begged for more security before their slaughter, you would have been furious at the right people. At least belatedly. NOT the filmmaker.
But he got arrested because of people who think like you do. No worries.
Solyndra!
garage mahal said...
Solyndra!
Non sequiturd! Diversionary tactics!
Reportedly. Think I caught that on Ace or Newsmax. Somewhere on the internet anyways.
Just finished viewing the hearings on CSPAN. The whistleblowers are Nordstrom, former State Department Regional Security Officer for Libya and Wood, former head of a U.S. Special Forces "Site Security Team" in Libya.
The ones in trouble are Lamb, deputy assistant secretary for International Programs in the Bureau of Diplomatic Security at the U.S. Department of State and Kennedy, under secretary for management at the State Department.
In the face of repeated requests for more security forces and despite a pattern of heightened violent activity in Libya, all documented and independently confirmed, Kennedy and Lamb would not provide the obviously needed security. Not only that, but Nordstrom says he was actually criticized for his requests for more security forces.
Today's hearings touched only tangentially on the cover up, that is, the question of Ambassador Rice's now ridiculous, but then credible, emphatic assertion that the Benghazi assassinations were the result of a spontaneous demonstration against an anti-Islam video. Rice painted herself into a corner on those five Sunday talk shows and is going to have to answer for it. Issa said he would try to set up a hearing for Rice in a week or two. Then we will find out who, if anyone, told her the video was the cause of the assassinations.
If heads roll for the fiasco, two of them will be Lamb's and Kennedy's.
House Republicans cut the administration’s request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012.
Untrue. As Issa pointed out, when some Democrats on the committee tried this same tactic, more Democrats than Republicans, voted to pass the bill in question, a detail ignored by the opinion piece quoted by the commentor. That makes it kind of difficult to hang this on the GOP.
Darcy, and you are now assuming I don't care or didn't care about any and all requests for added security, why have you jumped to such a conclusion, Darcy? I'm calling bullshit right back at ya. What you said is merely an assertion with no evidence behind it.
So the same people giggling at the pointlessness of ending the ~$400 million dollar subsidy to PBS are pretending a $40 million dollar spending reduction in embassy security results in the death of an ambassador.
Yes, you can't make that kind of stupid up.
So why was Benghazi chosen, Inga?
"Untrue. As Issa pointed out, when some Democrats on the committee tried this same tactic, more Democrats than Republicans, voted to pass the bill in question, a detail ignored by the opinion piece quoted by the commentor. That makes it kind of difficult to hang this on the GOP."
-- A fact I was unaware of and will have to remember to quote.
I guess I should have asked: How many Big Birds does embassy security cost instead of Solyndras.
Because Seeing Red it didn't have enough SECURITY, I have not disputed that this WAS the case. PLUS terrorists gotta be terrorists, it's in their nature, and they love "good" excuses.
Is Inga a large mouth bass? she seems to forget anything over 15 minutes old. it's hard to tell on the internet.
I bet the adoring Tea Party crowds just ate up the spending cut rhetoric though.
We'll show 0bummer! We read the bills!
"I bet the adoring Tea Party crowds just ate up the spending cut rhetoric though."
-- You can cut a lot of spending without, you know, abandoning people to die. You just have to be smart about what you cut.
X is simply too stupid to discuss this situation and prefers to make personal attacks and derail threads.
In short, it was a target for a long time. So why wait until 9/11? It could have been done at any time since security kept being denied.
then I guess I'll have to wait about 14 minutes to talk to Inga again.
Who knows Seeing Red? Maybe we will have to wait until
the investigation is completed and ALL the evidence has been examined. Jumping to conclusions is just a waste of time, we ALL are guilty of it.
Funny how we always have to wait for ALL the evidence before making tentative decisions only when those conclusions are damning to Democrats; but with Republicans, well, remember that affair McCain had with a lobbyist and how Ted Stevens was not railroaded by DoJ at all?
Oh, wait.
So, what if security was drawn down precisely to provoke an attack so that Obama could look strong in a response. The Islam video, the arrest, the whole mob story was really neatly put together in a quick narrative right away. Everyone was speaking with a common message.
Fast and Furious MidEast style?
Is that too conspiratorial?
I would say yes, except that its very common in certain kinds of thinking to see the sacrifice of the few as necessary for the accomplishment of bigger goals.
...is simply too stupid to discuss this situation and prefers to make personal attacks and derail threads.
...by which Allie, in a matter/anti-matter reaction, describes and then rebuts herself.
at least we know she's not skynet.
Jumping to what conclusions?
At this point, you're still willing to believe the BS put out?
We may never know.
'sup Inga.
I'm not believing anything anybody says until the investigation is complete and all the pieces of the puzzle have been worked. There's nothing wrong with us discussing what we believe may have happened, but to assert our theories are 100% correct and then get all irate and attack others who may not believe the same theory is simply an exercise in futility.
Is that too conspiratorial?
Dunno about you, but I prefer my conspirators to be less irresolute and more on-message.
garage mahal said...
I bet the adoring Tea Party crowds just ate up the spending cut rhetoric though.
Notice the projection here.
You're the silly stupidshit carrying on about a 0.00000002 % proposed cut in embassy security funding.
You're eating it up, fatso.
Like it was the video?
Hey, Inga. Stop. Please. You cannt put the toothpaste back in the tube. Own. It.
Garage. Did the tea party cuts come from one, many or all embassies? From their dinner party budget or their security budget? Did they cut travel? En tertainment? Or just security?
I hope ,indeed, they talk about this tomorrow because Ryan will tear him a new asshole.
Again, what was the cause of the protests in Egypt and all the unrest that followed for weeks afterward? Yes, I've heard they were yelling "Obama, we are Osama", but what precipitated the protest in Egypt, which occured on Tuesday after the Saturday that the film was aired on Egytian TV, with translation?
No.Connection. What. So. Ever?
Michael, own what?
So you're saying it only took 3 days to plan the attack then?
Seeing Red,
Who knows? It wouldn't seem possible, but who knows?
It was 9/11, why would a video make a difference?
Why was the film aired in Egypt with translation on the Saturday before 9/11, when it was on the Internet for months before that? Coincidence?
Inga,
X, I said the attack on Benghazi and the demonstrations in Egypt on the SAME day, could've been a direct result of the film, I'm not saying anything new here. If new info proving the attack wasn't related to the film is uncovered, I have no reason to believe otherwise. You ALL are guessing that the film had nothing to do with either Benghazi or Egypt, we ALL are guessing, none of us know for sure...yet.
Yes, "we all are guessing." It's reprehensible for the frakkin' US State Department to "guess" repeatedly on television and repeat its guesses as fact.
As guesses go, if there are a bunch of attacks that just happen to occur on 9/11, and the film that's supposed to be the imminent cause was released in July, I am not persuaded. Oh, hell, I think it's a bunch of grade-A cowpucky.
Inga, my evidence is that now that it looks like the Libyan consulate murders are the fault of inadequate security in the wake of several warnings of terror attacks and several pleas for help...NOW you want to wait for all the facts!
Have you changed your mind on wanting the filmmaker investigated to the hilt for whatever they could find and his free speech limited?
The film was released to the internet in July, yes, the film was aired on Egytian TV the Saturday before 9/11 with translation, again, simply coincidence?
Darcy, the filmmaker still needs to be investigated, of course. What if he had ties to the people who planned the attack, to the peole who aired the film in Egypt on the Saturday before 9/11? Without invesitgating how could we know? If it was proven later that he was involved and he wasn't investigated promptly, oh my gosh what an outcry of negligence there would be.
If he is innocent of any charges, he walks free, it's still a free country with laws.
And Darcy, you are ignoring that yes, it was looks as if there was inadequate security, but again for the umpteenth time, WHY was it attacked? NOT JUST because there was inadequate security, there was inadequate security for MONTHS.
Inga, for God's sake, do you realize that we (this administration) bombed these people? Do you not know that our objectives were to replace the last administration in Libya with, well, what? We didn't know then, and this administration doesn't know now what they wanted. And yet, you wonder why they try to kill our ambassadors? WTF?
So the answer to my question is to you is no.
Btw, it is not an "of course" situation to me. Never has been. I was never on board with declaring a point of view expressed on film the reason why crazy people rioted.
Allen, the U.S. HELPED the rebels overthrough the Libyan government, that was the objective of the bombing. It was Al Qaeda (last I heard) that was responsible for the attacks on the consulate, and they always enter countries that are in turmoil, where there is a vacuum in power.
And who in the hell created this vacuum in power?
Yes Darcy, I know where you stand, that is your right.
The rebels and the U.S helped them.
Allen, do you think I am defending the US for getting involved in the Libyan conflict? If so, you would be mistaken. We need to keep our nose out of Libya and out of Syria and out of Egypt. I didn't agree with the US's involvement in other nation's civil wars.
You see how it is folks. It's like arguing with a rubber band. Make a point, and she flexes and twangs outta the way with a convenience, a silly little rhetorical vehicle of devil's advocacy to give the appearance of moderation and thoughtfulness. You can never pin her down after she makes a quip because she will never own it and because it is anathema to her ideology. It's like watching garage stammer out non-sequitors as if he was trying to say something pithy and poignant only to end up looking like the largest retard the earth ever produced to date.
At least Bagoh isn't here to make an attempt at shaming himself in an show of white knight defense of this pig. But hey, you guys keep on chugging away. She knows what she is. I've already told you what she is. Let's see how long it takes any of you to finally come to that conclusion.
Methadras, yes just keep showing the conservatives here what a fine upstanding example of a conservative you are, that you speak for them all, no matter how toxic or repulsive you are to liberals and moderates, you have a following here, I'm sure Whoresoftheinternet just loves you.
My White Knight
"What if he had ties to the people who planned the attack, to the peole who aired the film in Egypt on the Saturday before 9/11?"
-- What if you have ties with those people? We should stop everything and investigate and turn your life inside out. Maybe your posting here is to increase distrust and distract from the actual investigation.
What, you think that's silly? Well, maybe it is, maybe it isn't. We can't decide that till we frog march you.
To re-answer Inga's question on why it was attacked:
Because after multiple probing attacks, including an IED attack in June, they saw that security was actually lowered, they saw that the hired mercenaries were going unpaid and hungry, and they knew the armed Americans were not allowed to be as heavily armed as they could be.
So, they saw a soft target get softer with a ready and able bribe-able mercenary crew waiting for an excuse to look the other way.
In short, Benghazi was attacked because the administration screwed up.
Consider this a lesson in choosing your questions carefully.
(PS: They picked 9/11 for the same reason terrorists have increased chatter and thought about attacking on 9/11 every year since... uh, 9/11. Symbolism.)
Hey, any movies about drive bys recently? I hear that they may be responsible for an embassy attack in Yemen.
garage mahal said...
The funds were too much! SLASH.
There weren't enough funds!
Then why were they sent there?
Uh oh, reality hits fat garagie in the face:
It has been suggested that budget cuts are responsible for a lack of security in Benghazi, and I’d like to ask Miss Lamb,” said Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R., Calif.). “You made this decision personally. Was there any budget consideration and lack of budget which lead you not to increase the number of people in the security force there?”
“No, sir,” said Lamb.
How's reality working out for you, dumbshit?
LA Times: Able to interview people who were on the scene. Sure glad that the government focused on doing this investigation instead of insisting there was a riot ready to break out and not getting boots on the ground to investigate.
Oh, wait.
Ah, apparently the FBI got to them sometime last week or so. Good to know we were... wait, last week isn't Sept. 12 or 13, you know, when the most important intelligence could have been found. That's... odd.
"At times, the militiamen say, the FBI agents' questioning was hostile. At one point, one agent suggested to one militiaman that if he didn't tell the truth, U.S. forces would invade Libya to avenge the attack.
"The Marines could enter your country, and then you'd have a lot of problems here like in Iraq and Afghanistan," says the militiaman, who was interviewed in Tripoli.
Neither he nor his comrade were injured in the attack, but he is traumatized. He laments the death of Stevens, whom he admired. And he says that two days after the attack, men riding in a car without license plates drove through his neighborhood asking for him by name."
-- Winning hearts and minds. Imagine if this were a story about Bush.
Inga said:
You X are a coward who hides behind a letter of the alphabet.
So you have made your full name and contact information fully available every time you post here, right?
Because you would never hide behind a pseudonym, right?
Oh, wait. You got angry and threatened someone who revealed your real name, because you enjoyed being a coward who attacked from anonymity.
Hypocrite.
Doubly so because after posting the above personal attack, you then posted this:
X is simply too stupid to discuss this situation and prefers to make personal attacks and derail threads.
Good job staying on topic and avoiding personal attacks!
The administration's insistence on broadcasting apologies for the video to the islamic populace now make perfect sense.
They wanted to reinforce the pedestrian uproar over the video as much as possible to support their insistence that the video created the violence that killed the ambassador. The 'apology' was really just a method of making sure that every Al-Jazeerah watching middle eastern citizen knew about the video and could start with their ululating cries of incoherent rage as quickly as possible.
They more they could steer the international conversation towards free speech, insulting islam and so on, the better, or so they believed.
They believe they won't be seen as weak on defense or have to admit that AQ is still very much a threat so long as everyone is talking about 'that awful, reprehensible video, tsk tsk.'
Inga said...
Methadras, yes just keep showing the conservatives here what a fine upstanding example of a conservative you are, that you speak for them all, no matter how toxic or repulsive you are to liberals and moderates, you have a following here, I'm sure Whoresoftheinternet just loves you.
ROFL!!! Hey folks, a show of hands if I speak for any of you? LOL!!! What a moron you are, Inga. I mean, just grade A fundamentally stupid. However, I am toxic to leftards like you and I'm glad that I'm your poison.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQXAX8X9bYg
Post a Comment