Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[mainiac]

How do you go vote for a dude that lied about the causes of an attack that killed four Americans?

Lied about the causes?  Sorry, but we have no evidence so far that when he spoke about the attack he was relaying the information that he had.  And if it's a cover up it's a very unusual one since it was the White House quickly spoke about the nature of the attack once more information was had.

Furthermore the sheer chutzpah of this is shocking.  We are, in case you don't remember, just getting out of a war in Iraq that claimed nearly 5k american lives and caused 100k civilian deaths by the lowest estimates.  This war was a war of choice launched by a republican president who was repeatedly caught lying about the causes of the war before the invasion began.  So when you act as if honesty regarding foreign affairs is a problem for democrats the message rings more then a little hollow.  It's the kettle calling the snow black.

Obama spoke for a couple days before getting more information and hurt nobody.  Bush lied deliberately for months and ended up killing countless thousands and displacing far more.

[Montague]

Voting's not a one issue thing, unfortunately, and gods only know if I had a legitimate third option I wouldn't be voting for either of the bastards running right now, but the system's mostly broke and, welp. Lesser of evils is still evil, but only stupid is certainly the lesser of insults spat out by the pair, if you're using personal slights as your heuristic for voting. Which would be a fairly odd thing to be using as heuristic but whatev'.

I prefer stated and demonstrated policy and while it's still pretty terrible in both cases, the distribution of terrible is different. I'll be voting for the one that least bothers me, y'know? Which is unfortunately Obama, since th'Reps decided to proffer up what's basically a caricature of the worst of capitalism and the income divide in our country

This is kind of my point. When you look at them closely, they are pretty similar. Romney is a 'moderate' Republican and Obama hardly does anything extremely partisan either. It sort of reminded me of the last election McCain and Obama were saying much of the same kinds of things. "Let's not raise anybody's taxes" "Let's just raise taxes a little for rich people". Only issue that set them apart for me was Obama's stance on nuclear energy and liked McCain just because he supported such things, but both talked alot about energy independence. They just varied a bit on how they wanted to achieve that.

Of course, the energy independence issue is moot in most voter's minds because gas is less then 4$ a gallon now. So it's all about non-issues anymore.

[Reelya]

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1836772696001/timeline-of-attacks-on-american-diplomatic-outposts/

FOX's timeline on the libya attacks. The first statement by Hiilary Clinton was:

"This was an attack by a small and savage group". No word about protests, films etc. But unlike Romney etc, Clinton has a job in the government to investigate the killers. She can't just "blab" whatever it is that did know, that was part of the ongoing investigation.

[Trollheiming]

No they didn't ask the white house, i linked a FOX News source above, which makes the same claim, and does not reference the White House, except for a comment by Hillary Clinton saying no film could justify violence.

This story on FOX never questioned whether the film was to blame, only Clinton was quoted showing any doubts.

What I said previously, Reelya. The White House does not get its information from the media. It gives information. It had immediate access to this intel that it was a pre-planned Al-Qaeda attack. It knew but kept repeating the false narrative. Pretty bold lies.

She can't just "blab" whatever it is that did know, that was part of the ongoing investigation.

The administration does not get the right to tell blatant untruths that cover its failures and lead to no discernible benefit other than in domestic politics.

[Reelya]

Show me one example of the white house spreading the false narrative.

The White House isn't the sole source of all knowledge, the media was reporting on the film to protests link well before the white house chimed in.

the BBC was also reporting the same thing. You think every news service in the world only uses "The White House" as their source?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19596026

14 September 2012
In the Egyptian capital, Cairo, police fired tear gas at about 500 protesters near the US embassy. Security forces and demonstrators also clashed in the Yemeni capital, Sanaa.

On Tuesday, protesters stormed the US consulate in Benghazi in Libya, killing the ambassador and three others.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon condemned the film, and the violence.

"Nothing justifies such killings and attacks," he said in a statement. "The hateful film appears to have been deliberately designed to sow bigotry and bloodshed."

'Wild actions'

Libya's new Prime Minister Mustafa Abu Shaqur has told the BBC he does not want the consulate attack to damage relations with the US.

In Benghazi, US and Libyan officials are investigating the possibility that heavily armed militants used the protest as a pretext for a co-ordinated assault.

- is "The White House" the source for the UN Secretary-General's statement for example?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Believe it or not, you actually have to confirm information before you go running your mouth if you're POTUS, and if you can't you have to go with what is known most about. The White House may have had some information suggesting Ansar al-Sharia could have been involved, but not immediately saying so is not malicious lying, it is smart.

That it took a few days to fully verify and announce through the President is not indicative of some crazy conspiracy by Obama. You're pulling that out of thin air.

[Lord Shonus]

Never forget that the only difference between CIA and CNN is that the CIA hides their spies. The news media is nothing less than a collection of private intelligence services, mostly extremely able ones. It's not unknown, or even particularly uncommon, for the media to get wind of a situation before government intelligence puts the pieces together, not least because they tend to get larger, more overt pieces of the puzzle. The idea that the government used the quite complete coverage from the media while the CIA and DIA scrambled to figure out what happened is quite plausible, even probable.

[Montague]

Yeah, the president can't just spew classified information in whatever routine speech he is giving about whatever outrage.

Wouldn't want al qaeda to know that they know that they were behind it. Blame it on angry rioting peasants instead.

After all, no political figure is obliged to tell the truth anyways. Yeah, he might have withheld information, but that isn't necessarily lying.

[EveryZig]

Never forget that the only difference between CIA and CNN is that the CIA hides their spies.

Unrelated to your actual point, but I am still compelled to mention that one of those organizations also deposes governments and assassinates people.

[Nadaka]

Never forget that the only difference between CIA and CNN is that the CIA hides their spies.

Unrelated to your actual point, but I am still compelled to mention that one of those organizations also deposes governments and assassinates people.

I thought that was Fox news? 

[Trollheiming]

Believe it or not, you actually have to confirm information before you go running your mouth if you're POTUS, and if you can't you have to go with what is known most about. The White House may have had some information suggesting Ansar al-Sharia could have been involved, but not immediately saying so is not malicious lying, it is smart.

Confirm information, huh? Confirm information like "it was caused spontaneously by a video"? Oh, wait, no need to confirm that whopper in advance!

He knew within 24 hours that there were no protestors and that it had nothing to do with the video. "May" has nothing to do with it. Either he was getting his intel briefs or he was neglecting them. There's no "may" in there. He could have said that his initial understanding was that it was a planned terrorist attack. There's no harm in telling that truth, no reason to hold it back... Oh... except it makes him look bad in an election.

That it took a few days to fully verify and announce through the President is not indicative of some crazy conspiracy by Obama. You're pulling that out of thin air.

A few days? A few days? Weeks, bro. Here's Obama after two weeks talking up the false "video" narrative at...  the United Nations of all places. He went to the United Nations after two weeks, when everyone inside the White House definitely had to know the real cause, and he imputed it to the video. Not a few days.

http://www.nytimes.com/video/2012/09/25/world/100000001806072/obama-to-warn-iran-on-nuclear-program.html

Turn to about 10:30 to skip the eulogy of Chris Stevens and hear the video remarks. Two weeks later. What have you got to say next?

Show me one example of the white house spreading the false narrative.

The White House isn't the sole source of all knowledge, the media was reporting on the film to protests link well before the white house chimed in.

I've told you two times already. The White House had the right information. You're failing the reading comprehension test if you think I said the White House was the sole sources of news. Nobody thinks that. You're picking a ridiculous strawman. But what I am really saying, and which is known for a fact, is that the White House had the correct story. It chose to spread the scapegoat theory because it didn't reflect as badly upon them.

You think every news service in the world only uses "The White House" as their source?

Having fun debating yourself on that point. I'm sure you'll manage to beat yourself eventually.

Meanwhile, I'm saying that the White House encouraged a false narrative and participated in spreading it. Never said it was the sole source. But it was a source. And the spooks did know in 24 hours that it was Al-Qaeda. there's no strategic reason to withold that detail, or at least say vaguely, "My preliminary information is that this is a planned terrorist attack unassociated with the video". No reason at all, except political gain. 

is "The White House" the source for the UN Secretary-General's statement for example?

Yeah, dude. The White House went before the Secretary-General and said that. Susan Rice initially informed the UN of the video angle, followed by Obama himself two weeks later. Didn't you know?

The UN doesn't have an intelligence network, so how else can it get briefed? The US has intelligence agents, and Benghazi was actually a CIA center, so it was well monitored... and Obama has direct access to that intel.

[Reelya]

Dude the secretary general said that sometime before 14th september. how is what Obama said 2 weeks later relevant? There's a little thing called "causation" to take into account. "before" and "after". Plus the fact that Obama's mention of the video made no mention of the Libya attack.

He does go on to justify something though ... why the video is legal under America's free speech laws.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/25/transcript-obama-address-to-un-general-assembly/

Spoiler: Relevant Trascript (click to show/hide)

At time, the conflicts arise along the fault lines of race or tribe, and often they arise from the difficulties of reconciling tradition and faith with the diversity and interdependence of the modern world.  In every country, there are those who find different religious beliefs threatening.  In every culture, those who love freedom for themselves must ask themselves how much they're willing to tolerate freedom for others.

And that is what we saw play out in the last two weeks, where a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world.  Now, I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity.  It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well.

For as the city outside these walls makes clear, we are a country that has welcomed people of every race and every faith.  We are home to Muslims who worship across our country. We not only respect the freedom of religion, we have laws that protect individuals from being harmed because of how they look or what they believe.

We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them.  I know there are some who ask why don't we  just ban such a video.  The answer is enshrined in our laws.  Our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech.

Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense.  Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs.  As president of our country, and commander in chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day, and I will always defend their right to do so.

Note, he doesn't even make any specific statement related to Libya in any of this. If you read "a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world" to mean "there was no coordinated attack in Benghazi" then that's you decisions to put words in the president's mouth.

Seriously is that the sole evidence you have that the Benghazi story was "orchestrated" by Obama?

[Moghjubar]

Its clear to me now! Due to all the lying, I have to support the completely honest alter... oh wait!

[Descan]

Wait, wait.

How is "A bunch of un-trained, un-led angry Libyans* managed to break into our secure embassy in a very recently hostile (and therefore a likely candidate for higher embassy security) country and kill 4 Americans over an incendiary video" better than "This attack was lead by known terrorist groups and was planned in advanced, from preliminary reports."

Granted, the latter might make them seem a little off-the-ball in covert ops, but the former makes them seem JUST as ill-equipped in other ways, with the added bonus of them lying too! Which would be found out and add fuel to the fire. AND it doesn't make the Libyans very happy, you know, the guys with the huge oil reserves that ya'll are trying to court? It probably isn't safe to risk making them unhappy being scapegoats.

They aren't idiots, man. They know they'd be found out like nearly everything has been found out in the last few years. They wouldn't risk THAT little kerfuffle over making one part of their security apparatus seem better than another part.

*Okay, granted, some of them might have been former rebels. But this was in Benghazi, basically held and pacified so very quickly. It is unlikely there were a great deal of rebels in the crowd.

Edit: I don't exactly know what my point is. I don't think I have one. I'm just pointing out that your idea that they were trying to save face is laughable.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Confirm information, huh? Confirm information like "it was caused spontaneously by a video"? Oh, wait, no need to confirm that whopper in advance!

As I stated in the post you ignored, he has to say something and try to get reigns on the situation almost immediately after an event this serious goes down. At least at first Obama was definitely working off of what he had.

He could have said that his initial understanding was that it was a planned terrorist attack. There's no harm in telling that truth, no reason to hold it back... Oh... except it makes him look bad in an election.

How does "Ansar al-Sharia is trying to trick us but we won't fall for it, freedom and liberty forever" make him look bad in an election? No politician could fail to spin this to their favor. Solidarity in the name of democracy is one of the most persuasive ideas in American culture. Bush had an approval rating in the 90s right after 9/11, he barely had to do anything to get it, and you're telling me that Obama couldn't get anything good out of a similarly-motivated attack that took place on the same fucking day?

Turn to about 10:30 to skip the eulogy of Chris Stevens and hear the video remarks. Two weeks later. What have you got to say next?

Firstly that two weeks is 14 days. Secondly that you look like you're trying to live up to your name. Thirdly that if you wanted to catch members of Ansar al-Sharia the best way to go about it would be to feign falling for their stupid plan so they didn't think you were onto them and would let their guard down while you had the CIA double-time trying to capture as many of them as possible for about two weeks before talking about what really happened to the public.


You've clearly got a pretty rabid dislike of Obama and you're letting it skew how you see all of this. I don't expect you to recognize that after saying what you've said already, but that does not make it untrue. If you can't recognize that deception is sometimes a necessary element of geopolitics then you are failing to understand it at a very basic level.