The Benghazi Incident

[classicman]

Yes, that one. She had the actual reports. She knew beforehand it was incorrect.
I'm not advocating her revealing classified info, but she blatantly knew what she was saying was not true. "We don't know, investigation underway" would have been better than the bullshit about blaming a video clip no one saw.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by classicman

would have been better than the bullshit about blaming a video clip no one saw.

What do you mean "blaming a video clip that no one saw"?

While the video didn't incite the attack in Libya, it did start protests in Egypt, Yemen, and about 10 other Islamic countries. It is not surprising that the video was initially blamed since it was known to be circulating in Islamic countries a few days before the attack.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

What do you mean "blaming a video clip that no one saw"?

Did it? We have been told that it had. How did all those people suddenly see this video all at virtually the same time? Why did they all riot on THAT same night? How was this "video" spread? Yep, I got my conspiracy hat on.

Note that all interest in those issues & incidents has been dropped. Nothing to see here, move along.
Look, I've got no more info than you or anyone else, but to blame a video that was out for MONTHS prior to all these incidents seems at least a little questionable.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by classicman

Did it? We have been told that it had. How did all those people suddenly see this video all at virtually the same time? Why did they all riot on THAT same night? How was this "video" spread? Yep, I got my conspiracy hat on.

There isn't much information about it but here is a theory:

In Egypt, the protest was organized by Wesam Abdel-Wareth, a Salafist leader and president of Egypt's Hekma television channel, who called for a gathering on September 11 at 5 pm in front of the United States Embassy, to protest against a film that he thought was named Muhammad's Trial.[40][41] However, Eric Trager, an experts at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, has said that the protest was in fact announced on August 30 by Jamaa Islamiya, to release Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman.[citation needed] After the trailer for the film began circulating, Nader Bakkar, the Egyptian Salafist Nour Party's spokesman, and Muhammad al-Zawahiri, the brother of al-Qaeda leader Ayman al Zawihiri, called for Egyptians to assemble outside of the American embassy.[42]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactio...nce_of_Muslims

I do remember hearing about the video before the attacks. I'm guessing it was discovered by these groups a few weeks before 9/11 and thought it would be convenient to spread the video throughout Egypt the week before an already planned protest.

I don't know whether Libya is related at all or it is just coincidence.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Not at all, some things sit on youtube for a long time before going viral. When this video became known in the Islamic world, Aljazeera and other TV, as well as youtube, is available in those countries.

BTW,

An Egyptian court Wednesday sentenced seven Coptic Christians to death in absentia for making the anti-Islam film, The Innocence of Muslims, which was filmed here in Southern California.

[BigV]

so you are saying she just sat there and lied? that she saw the reports said x and instead said y? That's not what I suggested. I'm saying she repeated what was in her briefing. You're saying she just made up some shit that was NOT in her briefing? I find that hard to believe.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by BigV

so you are saying she just sat there and lied? that she saw the reports said x and instead said y? That's not what I suggested. I'm saying she repeated what was in her briefing. You're saying she just made up some shit that was NOT in her briefing? I find that hard to believe.

Either I am not being clear or you are intentionally twisting what I posted.
I find the latter extremely difficult to believe. Please try rereading my post.

[Undertoad]

Fog of war applies.

Why would Obama lie about such a thing? What's the motivation, especially when more details were due to come out? It's been floated that the administration didn't want to admit that the "war on terror" is still a *thing*. But it's a much more likely explanation that someone speculated wrong early, and the explanation lingered awhile before the real details circulated to the top.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Fog of war applies.

Right! Fog of War!

Because we never heard of Al Qaeda in Libya, and we never knew that they might attack us on the anniversary of 9/11.

And we didn't have a recon drone there, watching the whole thing with a high resolution real time camera feed.

Oh, and we didn't receive those alarms and those phone calls, and those emails from the Consulate, saying that they were under ATTACK.

Right -- Fog of War!

You'd have to be in a coma to believe that, my friend.

Why would Obama lie about such a thing? What's the motivation, especially when more details were due to come out? It's been floated that the administration didn't want to admit that the "war on terror" is still a *thing*. But it's a much more likely explanation that someone speculated wrong early, and the explanation lingered awhile before the real details circulated to the top.

Because Obama got a boost from killing Bin Laden - and this Benghazi incident took place just shortly before the election. If he has to admit that it was Al Qaeda that killed our Ambassador, that means he's not the Commander in Chief many thought he was.

If it comes out before the election, that he let our Ambassador and a few other service personnel die, because he wouldn't send in the troops, he loses still more votes. Now he would be broadly seen as a creepy un-American Commander in Chief, who won't support our Embassy personnel, when they are under attack.

For those readers of a younger generation, this is a classic strategy. BTW, that Al Qaeda is using. We used the same one against the Japanese in WWII.

Think of our Embassies like islands in the Pacific. And this time, we're the ones on those islands. It's easy to focus military force against ONE island at a time, and overrun it. The Japanese don't know which island will be hit next - although some are obvious (like Iwo Jima and Okinawa). Same with our Embassies. We don't know which one will be attacked next, and it's easy for Al Qaeda to focus their force against just one Embassy, and overrun it.

It's made that much easier if the "security relief force" only has a dozen or so guys on it, and they take 15 hours to get there - although they're just one hour away, by air.



Totally

[Griff]

Kool Ade, Brother, quit drinking it and focus on serious questions of policy. You'll find that UT is pretty conservative in the WoT department. You go far to the right of him and you slip out of reality.

[BigV]

look at you and your occam's razor.

[Undertoad]

Adak, my first rule of business in these kinds of threads is, if you lead with the sarcastic snark, ya got nothing. You need to be able to argue seriously, not just play slap-battle. Anybody can do that, and it's a childish game, not for serious thinkers. Up your game.

Fog of war always applies, and you don't get to reject it based on the facts that came out to everyone well after the event. That is, by definition, how fog of war works: the facts are not immediately and perfectly available to all parties. Conjecture gets elevated to temporary fact since explanations are required.

If you feel differently, you may point me to the post you made on 9/12 saying that since this happened on 9/11 you are suspicious that it wasn't due to the video. In fact I'll be generous and allow you up to 9/14 to have thought of that. You don't have to be certain, just suspicious.

If you feel that all this was possible because the media was carrying water for Obama -- and they often have done so, certainly -- you must ask yourself why they stopped, since the first explanation was eventually rejected and that was quite harmful to the administration at a really bad point in time.

Lastly embassies are attacked all the time (26 attacks on US embassies in history), and in fact the worst such attack happened under Reagan. To make such an enormous amount out of this one is clearly partisan... and thus, causes us unforced errors in the WoT. Which is why I say partisanship politics, on any side, makes one dumber. And this is true of everyone. Up your game.

[Lamplighter]

Fox News

Has US diplomat Gregory Hicks suffered political retaliation
for revealing details of the lethal terrorist attack in Benghazi,
Libya, last Sept. 11?
That’s a big question raised by Wednesday’s House Committee
on Oversight and Government Reform.

This is the latest question the Republicans are pushing on to the American public.

But regardless of the FOX NEWS spin, Hicks testified yesterday that
he had been told to NOT meet with House investigators,
and yet he did ... [meet with them]...and spoke out about his opinions of the decisions made in D.C.

I was instructed not to allow the RSO [Regional Security Officer],
the acting deputy chief of mission and myself to be personally interviewed
by Congressman Chaffetz.

He is now whining that because he did go ahead and meet with the Congressman,
he has been "effectively demoted to a desk job"

From my experience, this is pretty much SOP for any government employee
that does not follow what his superiors have already ordered him to do or not do.

The rest is partisan (Republican) politics.

[richlevy]

I seem to remember a few members of the GW Bush administration ducking a congressional subpoena.

[Griff]

I've been following this story and it looks like a great attack for Republicans in safe congressional districts. It will get the angry retired voter to the polls. When we get to the national election it will bite them in the ass. Hillary actually had a nice run as Sec. of State and a GOP focus on this single event may leave voters with a bad taste in their mouths.