Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
- No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
- Times and dates in your local timezone.
- Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
- Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
- Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/24 16:31:55
Subject: WH Was Told That The Benghazi Attack Was A Terrorist Attack Within Two Hours
|
 |
Imperial Admiral
|
Ouze wrote:
As delighting as the prospect of engaging in hypothetical discussions of what I might have done in an imaginary situation are, the last line there clearly indicates you already know what imaginary-Ouze would do in these same hypothetical situations. It does not seem my presence is actually required for this "discussions" you're having with "me", and you seem to be having fun, so I see no reason to spoil your narrative with answers. Enjoy yourself, buddy!
Alright, let's abandon hypotheticals, as they frighten you so.
What are your thoughts on an administration that tells the American people an incorrect version of an attack on Americans despite having intelligence that confirms the true version, well after they've confirmed it?
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/24 16:34:57
Subject: WH Was Told That The Benghazi Attack Was A Terrorist Attack Within Two Hours
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Seaward wrote: Ouze wrote:
As delighting as the prospect of engaging in hypothetical discussions of what I might have done in an imaginary situation are, the last line there clearly indicates you already know what imaginary-Ouze would do in these same hypothetical situations. It does not seem my presence is actually required for this "discussions" you're having with "me", and you seem to be having fun, so I see no reason to spoil your narrative with answers. Enjoy yourself, buddy!
Alright, let's abandon hypotheticals, as they frighten you so.
What are your thoughts on an administration that tells the American people an incorrect version of an attack on Americans despite having intelligence that confirms the true version, well after they've confirmed it?
Keep in mind that "having intelligence that confirms the true version" includes emails saying "there are guys on Facebook saying 'we did that'"...
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/24 16:38:12
Subject: WH Was Told That The Benghazi Attack Was A Terrorist Attack Within Two Hours
|
 |
Imperial Admiral
|
d-usa wrote:Keep in mind that "having intelligence that confirms the true version" includes emails saying "there are guys on Facebook saying 'we did that'"...
Includes, but is not exclusive to. Washington Post reporting a couple of weeks after the event quoted administration officials saying they had locations on confirmed attackers within twenty-four hours.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/24 16:40:27
Subject: WH Was Told That The Benghazi Attack Was A Terrorist Attack Within Two Hours
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Seaward wrote: d-usa wrote:Keep in mind that "having intelligence that confirms the true version" includes emails saying "there are guys on Facebook saying 'we did that'"...
Includes, but is not exclusive to. Washington Post reporting a couple of weeks after the event quoted administration officials saying they had locations on confirmed attackers within twenty-four hours.
Great, so your proposal would be this:
Obama giving speech: We know who did this and we know where they are.
Bad guys: let's split....
You guys might want the administration to live-tweet to the bad guys everything we know about them, but to me that sounds like a pretty dumb idea.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/24 16:44:00
Subject: WH Was Told That The Benghazi Attack Was A Terrorist Attack Within Two Hours
|
 |
Imperial Admiral
|
d-usa wrote:Great, so your proposal would be this:
Obama giving speech: We know who did this and we know where they are.
Bad guys: let's split....
You guys might want the administration to live-tweet to the bad guys everything we know about them, but to me that sounds like a pretty dumb idea.
Nah.
My proposal would be not to go around for a week afterward having your spokesfolks telling anyone who'll listen that it was a protest that got out of hand, and really it's all this horrible film's fault when you know perfectly well that isn't true.
I'm confused why that seems so unreasonable.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/10/24 16:44:16
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/24 16:45:45
Subject: WH Was Told That The Benghazi Attack Was A Terrorist Attack Within Two Hours
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Seaward wrote: d-usa wrote:Great, so your proposal would be this: Obama giving speech: We know who did this and we know where they are. Bad guys: let's split.... You guys might want the administration to live-tweet to the bad guys everything we know about them, but to me that sounds like a pretty dumb idea.
Nah. My proposal would be not to go around for a week afterward having your spokesfolks telling anyone who'll listen that it was a protest that got out of hand, and really it's all this horrible film's fault when you know perfectly well that isn't true. I'm confused why that seems so unreasonable. Because you want our administration to say it was an attack when we don't know 100% who did it and why they did it, and if we do know who did it you want them to tell the bad guys what we know about them? Laying our cards on the table for everybody to see sounds like a pretty dumb game of poker.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/10/24 16:45:52
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/24 16:48:14
Subject: WH Was Told That The Benghazi Attack Was A Terrorist Attack Within Two Hours
|
 |
Imperial Admiral
|
d-usa wrote:
Because you want our administration to say it was an attack when we don't know 100% who did it and why they did it, and if we do know who did it you want them to tell the bad guys what we know about them?
Laying our cards on the table for everybody to see sounds like a pretty dumb game of poker.
Where did I say that?
I'll say it again: My proposal would be not to go around for a week afterward having your spokesfolks telling anyone who'll listen that it was a protest that got out of hand, and really it's all this horrible film's fault when you know perfectly well that isn't true.
Could you tell me where you got the bit about telling the bad guys what we know about them from that?
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/24 16:52:41
Subject: WH Was Told That The Benghazi Attack Was A Terrorist Attack Within Two Hours
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Seaward wrote: d-usa wrote:
Because you want our administration to say it was an attack when we don't know 100% who did it and why they did it, and if we do know who did it you want them to tell the bad guys what we know about them?
Laying our cards on the table for everybody to see sounds like a pretty dumb game of poker.
Where did I say that?
I'll say it again: My proposal would be not to go around for a week afterward having your spokesfolks telling anyone who'll listen that it was a protest that got out of hand, and really it's all this horrible film's fault when you know perfectly well that isn't true.
Could you tell me where you got the bit about telling the bad guys what we know about them from that?
So we say "we know nothing" or "we know stuff but it is top secret"?
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/24 16:53:22
Subject: WH Was Told That The Benghazi Attack Was A Terrorist Attack Within Two Hours
|
 |
Imperial Admiral
|
d-usa wrote:
So we say "we know nothing" or "we know stuff but it is top secret"?
I'd go with a generic, "We do not yet know who is responsible, but mark my words, by the power of Greyskull, we will find them and bring them to justice."
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/24 16:55:09
Subject: WH Was Told That The Benghazi Attack Was A Terrorist Attack Within Two Hours
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Seaward wrote: d-usa wrote:
So we say "we know nothing" or "we know stuff but it is top secret"?
I'd go with a generic, "We do not yet know who is responsible, but mark my words, by the power of Greyskull, we will find them and bring them to justice."
So you are going with the "we don't know anything" answer.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/24 16:57:10
Subject: WH Was Told That The Benghazi Attack Was A Terrorist Attack Within Two Hours
|
 |
Last Remaining Whole C'Tan
|
Seaward wrote: Ouze wrote:
As delighting as the prospect of engaging in hypothetical discussions of what I might have done in an imaginary situation are, the last line there clearly indicates you already know what imaginary-Ouze would do in these same hypothetical situations. It does not seem my presence is actually required for this "discussions" you're having with "me", and you seem to be having fun, so I see no reason to spoil your narrative with answers. Enjoy yourself, buddy!
Alright, let's abandon hypotheticals, as they frighten you so.
What are your thoughts on an administration that tells the American people an incorrect version of an attack on Americans despite having intelligence that confirms the true version, well after they've confirmed it?
I'm not scared of hypotheticals. I'm not scared of anything, except bees, wasps, clowns, the dark, Michael Myers, and the that troll from the movie where he sucks the breath out of sleeping people until a cat fights him off.
|
lord_blackfang wrote:Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote:The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/24 16:57:39
Subject: WH Was Told That The Benghazi Attack Was A Terrorist Attack Within Two Hours
|
 |
Imperial Admiral
|
d-usa wrote:
So you are going with the "we don't know anything" answer.
It might have had the benefit of actually being the truth.
Again, one of two things: either they didn't listen to their intel, or they listened to their intel and decided to tell a different story that would have reflected better on them had it held. If you're comfortable with that, so be it. I'm not.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/24 17:04:41
Subject: Re:WH Was Told That The Benghazi Attack Was A Terrorist Attack Within Two Hours
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
I think it was a combination of working with intel they had, not knowing everything, and not wanting to show their cards to the bad guys right away. I don't think they handled it all that well, and there are still lots of answers that need to be found with everything leading up to the attack. What did we know of the threats, what about the requests for security (the "republicans cut funding" excuse might be a part, but if so it is not a complete answer), etc...
This thing is a black eye and we need to make it right.
But I don't think there was a coverup and planned attempt to fool the public and sweep dead Americans under the rug to get a second term.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/10/24 17:05:27
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/24 17:44:01
Subject: Re:WH Was Told That The Benghazi Attack Was A Terrorist Attack Within Two Hours
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
You al crack me the hell up at times  .........that damn troll...
|
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog
Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/24 20:52:10
Subject: Re:WH Was Told That The Benghazi Attack Was A Terrorist Attack Within Two Hours
|
 |
Depraved Slaanesh Chaos Lord
|
d-usa wrote:There is so much legit things to critizise Obama on, but the level at which Republicans are trying to stick certain things to him in desparation (how many things from 2008 are we seeing again?) is just sad.
I would personally like to see Obama be grilled about signing the bill for the NDAA. That would be a real issue to talk about.
Seaward wrote:If Bush's administration had given public statements for days afterwards that blatantly contradicted their internal knowledge in an effort to downplay the seriousness of an attack on the United States in order to make themselves appear stronger for reelection, a lot of the folks in this thread would be having strokes.
Yeah, good thing he instead choose to finish reading My Pet Goat instead.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/24 23:20:06
Subject: Re:WH Was Told That The Benghazi Attack Was A Terrorist Attack Within Two Hours
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
d-usa wrote:I heard republicans paid off the terrorists and they wanted the hostage. After Obama lost they would order the hostage released on the day Romney gets sworn in so that the could all proclaim with tears in their eyes "It's like Reagan all over again".
Let's not forget that Bush engineered 9/11
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/25 00:06:53
Subject: Re:WH Was Told That The Benghazi Attack Was A Terrorist Attack Within Two Hours
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)
Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!
|
Relapse wrote: d-usa wrote:I heard republicans paid off the terrorists and they wanted the hostage. After Obama lost they would order the hostage released on the day Romney gets sworn in so that the could all proclaim with tears in their eyes "It's like Reagan all over again".
Let's not forget that Bush engineered 9/11
Er...what?
I know there were truther who claims that was an inside job... even though we had recorded tapes of the planes hitting the tower....
|
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/25 00:25:29
Subject: WH Was Told That The Benghazi Attack Was A Terrorist Attack Within Two Hours
|
 |
[DCM]
Dankhold Troggoth
|
I don't know why this is so partisan... I am not tied to either candidate, and am very concerned about why it took so long for us to admit that what happened was actually terrorism.
I don't like the motivation for doing so in an election year... it's damn irresponsible imo, whether or not there was any ill intent. At the minimum, they could've toned down the rhetoric about the freaking internet video. That got parroted by every news agency and seems to have been bogus. That sucks.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/25 00:25:36
Subject: Re:WH Was Told That The Benghazi Attack Was A Terrorist Attack Within Two Hours
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
whembly wrote:Relapse wrote: d-usa wrote:I heard republicans paid off the terrorists and they wanted the hostage. After Obama lost they would order the hostage released on the day Romney gets sworn in so that the could all proclaim with tears in their eyes "It's like Reagan all over again".
Let's not forget that Bush engineered 9/11
Er...what?
I know there were truther who claims that was an inside job... even though we had recorded tapes of the planes hitting the tower....
That was one of the things I heard along with the tale that it was a missle fired into the Pentagon. The rumor mongers are like flies to gak whenever something like this happens.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/10/25 00:29:11
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/25 02:10:55
Subject: Re:WH Was Told That The Benghazi Attack Was A Terrorist Attack Within Two Hours
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)
Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!
|
Relapse wrote: whembly wrote:Relapse wrote: d-usa wrote:I heard republicans paid off the terrorists and they wanted the hostage. After Obama lost they would order the hostage released on the day Romney gets sworn in so that the could all proclaim with tears in their eyes "It's like Reagan all over again".
Let's not forget that Bush engineered 9/11
Er...what?
I know there were truther who claims that was an inside job... even though we had recorded tapes of the planes hitting the tower....
That was one of the things I heard along with the tale that it was a missle fired into the Pentagon. The rumor mongers are like flies to gak whenever something like this happens.
@Relapse... ah... gotcha  Sorry, not all my synapes are firing today...
Back on topic... this is getting attention even from BLACKFIVE:
Without a doubt, there are more consequences than are listed here, and we certainly should understand why certain decisions were made to do nothing, to reduce security, and, for weeks, to blame the enchillada on radical youtube video...
First of all, we lost four very good men during the attack. Men that are irreplacable.
Second, we know now that the President, the VP and the SecDef knew what was happening within a relatively immediate timeframe. The way it should have worked was that the SecDef should have given the President options. Of course, one option is to do nothing. Apparently, even after knowing what was happening and having drone footage ~2 hours into the fight, the President decided on nothing. This is problematic if you work for State in the ME. You know now that the President won't help you in times of dire need. You will either stop taking any risks or you will decide to use more force than might be necessary. Either way, it's not good for our State people over there.
The President made the decision to not use F18s (even in a flyover to shake the resolve of the terrorists). The President made the decision to go to Vegas to a campaign dinner.
So what is worse than our State people now knowing that the President will do nothing if they are attacked?
Al Qaeda knows that now, too.
Dang...
|
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/25 02:12:11
Subject: Re:WH Was Told That The Benghazi Attack Was A Terrorist Attack Within Two Hours
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
So they knew Bush would do nothing either?
I miss the good old days during Bush Jr when any criticism of a sitting president after 'merica was attacked meant you were a treasones America-hating bastard who just needed to get the hell out of this country.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/10/25 02:14:50
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/25 02:27:29
Subject: Re:WH Was Told That The Benghazi Attack Was A Terrorist Attack Within Two Hours
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)
Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!
|
d-usa wrote:So they knew Bush would do nothing either?
I miss the good old days during Bush Jr when any criticism of a sitting president after 'merica was attacked meant you were a treasones America-hating bastard who just needed to get the hell out of this country.
So... D... given all that, what's your take on this then:
September 14: White House spokesman Jay Carney had this exchange with ABC News Chief White House Correspondent Jake Tapper:
TAPPER: Wouldn’t it seem logical that the anniversary of 9/11 would be a time that you would want to have extra security around diplomats and military posts?
CARNEY: Well, as you know, there — we are very vigilant around anniversaries like 9/11. The president is always briefed and brought up to speed on all the precautions being taken. But let’s be -
TAPPER: Obviously not vigilant enough.
CARNEY: Jake, let’s be clear. This — these protests were in reaction to a video that had spread to the region –
TAPPER: At Benghazi?
CARNEY: We certainly don’t know; we don’t know otherwise. You know, we have no information to suggest that it was a preplanned attack. The unrest we’ve seen around the region has been in reaction to a video that Muslims, many Muslims find offensive. And while the violence is reprehensible and unjustified, it is not a reaction to the 9/11 anniversary that we know of or to U.S. policy.
September 16: Susan Rice to CBS News' Bob Schieffer:
BOB SCHIEFFER: But you do not agree with [Magariaf] that this was something that had been plotted out several months ago?
SUSAN RICE: We do not-- we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.
September 16: Susan Rice to Fox News' Chris Wallace:
RICE: The best information and the best assessment we have today is that was, in fact, not a pre-planned and pre-meditated attack. That what happened initially -- it was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo, as a consequence of the video, that people gathered outside the embassy and then it grew very violent. Those with extremist ties joined the fray and came with heavy weapons, which unfortunately are quite common in post-revolutionary Libya. And that then spun out of control. We don't see at this point -- signs that this was a coordinated, pre-meditated attack. Obviously we'll wait for the results of the investigation and we don't want to jump to conclusions before then. But I do think it's important for the American people to know our best current assessment.
September 19: Jay Carney to CBS News' Bill Plante:
PLANTE: You are still maintaining that there was no evidence of a pre-planned attack--
CARNEY: Bill, let me just repeat now--
PLANTE: But how is it that the attackers had RPGs, automatic weapons, mortars…
CARNEY: Bill, I know you've done a little bit of reading about Libya since the unrest that began with Gaddafi. The place has an abundance of weapons.
PLANTE: But you expect a street mob to come armed that way?
CARNEY: There are unfortunately many bad actors throughout the region and they're very armed. ….
PLANTE: But they planned to do it, don't you think?
CARNEY: They might, or they might not. All I can tell you is that based on the information that we had then and have now we do not yet have indication that it was pre-planned or pre-meditated. There's an active investigation. If that active investigation produces facts that lead to a different conclusion, we will make clear that that is where the investigation has led. Our interest is in finding out the facts of what happened, not taking what we've read in the newspaper and making bold assertions that we know what happened.
If the Obama Administration wants to hide behind the fog of war to justify its behavior, I'd still like to know why their story became more focused on the YouTube video as the days progressed.
Let me remind you that there are current reports indicated that the Administration had some sort of indication that this was a coordinated attack within hours on 9/11.
And for the record, had this happened during Bush's watch, and he responded the same manner as the current administration, I'd be all over him hollaring too!
Edit 1: fixed quotes... edit 2: damn... sorry quotes are sorta goobered.
|
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2012/10/25 02:29:12
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/25 02:33:13
Subject: Re:WH Was Told That The Benghazi Attack Was A Terrorist Attack Within Two Hours
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Do I need to copy paste my previous answer?
d-usa wrote:I think it was a combination of working with intel they had, not knowing everything, and not wanting to show their cards to the bad guys right away. I don't think they handled it all that well, and there are still lots of answers that need to be found with everything leading up to the attack. What did we know of the threats, what about the requests for security (the "republicans cut funding" excuse might be a part, but if so it is not a complete answer), etc...
This thing is a black eye and we need to make it right.
But I don't think there was a coverup and planned attempt to fool the public and sweep dead Americans under the rug to get a second term.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/10/25 02:34:12
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/25 02:35:29
Subject: WH Was Told That The Benghazi Attack Was A Terrorist Attack Within Two Hours
|
 |
[DCM]
Tilter at Windmills
|
RiTides wrote:I don't know why this is so partisan... I am not tied to either candidate, and am very concerned about why it took so long for us to admit that what happened was actually terrorism.
"Admit"? Really? Multiple protests and attacks happened that day. There was legimate confusion. Obama spoke about acts of terror the following day. AFAICT they did not want to get pinned down claiming definitely that it was any one thing and possibly being wrong. They definitely messed up, but the thing to be concerned about is preventing future attacks as best as possible, and bringing the attackers to justice. I know which candidate has an good track record in those areas.
|
Adepticon 2015: Team Tourney Best Imperial Team- Team Ironguts, Adepticon 2014: Team Tourney 6th/120, Best Imperial Team- Cold Steel Mercs 2, 40k Championship Qualifier ~25/226
More 2010-2014 GT/Major RTT Record (W/L/D) -- CSM: 78-20-9 // SW: 8-1-2 (Golden Ticket with SW), BA: 29-9-4 6th Ed GT & RTT Record (W/L/D) -- CSM: 36-12-2 // BA: 11-4-1 // SW: 1-1-1
DT:70S++++G(FAQ)M++B++I+Pw40k99#+D+++A+++/sWD105R+++T(T)DM+++++
A better way to score Sportsmanship in tournaments
The 40K Rulebook & Codex FAQs. You should have these bookmarked if you play this game.
The Dakka Dakka Forum Rules You agreed to abide by these when you signed up.
Maelstrom's Edge! |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/25 02:37:53
Subject: WH Was Told That The Benghazi Attack Was A Terrorist Attack Within Two Hours
|
 |
[DCM]
Dankhold Troggoth
|
I like that answer, d-usa, and I don't necessarily think it was a coverup or anything like that- the repercussions are too severe for such a strategy.
But if it's not that, it's just plain botched/bungled/incompetently handled... and I wish they'd owned up to that instead of bristling at any suggestions of being off-base in their response. Automatically Appended Next Post: Mann- I watched all the debates and Obama claiming that quote from the next day was his implying that that instance was an act of terror is a long stretch, imo... :-/
Didn't mean anything in particular by "admit", sorry if it offended for some reason.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/10/25 02:39:18
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/25 02:40:26
Subject: Re:WH Was Told That The Benghazi Attack Was A Terrorist Attack Within Two Hours
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)
Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!
|
d-usa wrote:Do I need to copy paste my previous answer?
d-usa wrote:I think it was a combination of working with intel they had, not knowing everything, and not wanting to show their cards to the bad guys right away. I don't think they handled it all that well, and there are still lots of answers that need to be found with everything leading up to the attack. What did we know of the threats, what about the requests for security (the "republicans cut funding" excuse might be a part, but if so it is not a complete answer), etc...
This thing is a black eye and we need to make it right.
But I don't think there was a coverup and planned attempt to fool the public and sweep dead Americans under the rug to get a second term.
Right...saw that...
I don't think there was a "water-gateish" coverup... but I do think their reaction were political in nature to mitigate the damage due to the election.
Even if they were being cautious or don't want to show their cards... they were awfully eager to blame it on that anti-muslim film.
In my view... it's simply sheer incompetent. The whole administration.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/10/25 02:40:44
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/25 02:43:58
Subject: WH Was Told That The Benghazi Attack Was A Terrorist Attack Within Two Hours
|
 |
[DCM]
Dankhold Troggoth
|
And to clarify, one of the things that bothered me was how Obama was praised for bristling at the fact he's being questioned on this by Romney.
If they messed up, then they did so badly, and should be contrite about it. But it is too convenient politically to downplay the idea that it was terror to completely rule out that possibility. And again, I like Obama, but I wouldn't trust any polititian in this position not to be thinking of their own job security.
I don't necessarily like the way Romney approached it, either. I thought it was much better to not press the issue in the 3rd debate, and let the facts come out for themselves.
And the facts to me point to this being handled terribly... I want to hear contrition, not indignation on being challenged on it, by the administration. Having an ambassador killed is too big a deal to handle this badly :-/
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/25 02:44:56
Subject: Re:WH Was Told That The Benghazi Attack Was A Terrorist Attack Within Two Hours
|
 |
The Conquerer
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
|
The WH could have easily said that the attack was a possible Terrorist action and were looking into the details.
Instead they told a complete fib to the Media.
I have no issue with them not wanting to jump to conclusions. I even have no issue with the Government lying, it is often advantageous in a volitile situation to put misleading information out there.
However, I think this was not a situation in which lying about it was appropriate.
Not that its a big deal for me one way or the other.
But this is going to hurt Obama.
|
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
MURICA!!! IN SPESS!!! |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/25 02:49:48
Subject: WH Was Told That The Benghazi Attack Was A Terrorist Attack Within Two Hours
|
 |
[DCM]
Dankhold Troggoth
|
I think it was an honest mistake at first- but it bothers me how long it took them to change their position. I know in this day and age information is bound to come out... but for almost a week there it seemed every major news agency was calling it a reaction to the video, which simply isn't the case from what I can tell.
It bothers me that either side is trying to use it as a political chip, but that sword cuts both ways. Again, Obama was praised for how he defended his people on their reaction to this, especially in the second debate (even with the help of the moderator!). I thought that was shameful... they messed up and should own it, say the American people deserve better, and they have gotten and Will get better.
Continuing to sweep how wrong they were under the rug only makes matters worse, like any scandal... put it out in the open, own it, confront it, and then let it die down with still 2 weeks to go to the election. By trying to do damage control, they are making a bigger story out of it and it will hurt them more... and that's ignoring the fact that the best thing to do regarding the situation itself is to be as completely open and transparent as possible.
Again, hard to trust any polititian in this position to do the right thing, but why does it take a news agency getting a hold of emails for us to find out that they had intel within hours saying it was a terrorist attack? That's just wrong... no matter who is to blame, and it may just have never gotten to Obama's ear until much later (in fact, that's quite likely I'd think).
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/25 02:54:17
Subject: Re:WH Was Told That The Benghazi Attack Was A Terrorist Attack Within Two Hours
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)
Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!
|
And notice how Hillary has remained largely unscathed to this point? She's the fething boss of the State's Dept... who reviews/approves/denies funding/strategies for these diplomatic activities.
From a political standpoint... that was an epic master stroke there.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/10/25 02:55:08
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
|
|
 |
 |
|