Libya "controversy"

[middleview]

The right wingers are saying that the administration and in particular the President lied about what happened in Libya. I'm pretty much lost on what they think the motivation was to actually lie about the event.
1. There was no request for a substantial change to security in Benghazi. The only thing I find is a request to extend the contracts of three security agents. There were three agents stationed at the consulate. There were two more who were traveling with the ambassador. There was testimoney from one security specialist that he made a verbal request for 12 agents that was, he says, rejected by a regional state department employee. Anyone who knows how the government works knows that the way you get things done is with formal and written requests....not a phone call.

2. Early accounts of the events did state that there was a crowd demonstrating outside the consulate and that later armed men arrived and attacked. I heard Libyan accounts that backed that up. Later accounts said there was no demonstration, that the attack was coordinated and involved as many as a hundred men with mortars and RPGs.

What would be the difference, ultimately, if there had been a crowd? We'd still be looking for the members of the militia as complicit in the murder of our ambassador and three other Americans. I think you guys on the right are straining at a gnat. The misinformation, if anything, points out that without our consulate, we have very limited intel on what is happening in Benghazi. So what.

Sept 28: The Office of the Director of National Intelligence takes responsibility for linking the Benghazi attack to the video. In a statement, spokeswoman Shawn Turner says that initially “there was information that led us to assess that the attack began spontaneously following protests earlier that day at our embassy in Cairo. “We provided that initial assessment to executive branch officials and members of Congress, who used that information to discuss the attack publicly and provide updates as they became available. Throughout our investigation we continued to emphasize that information gathered was preliminary and evolving.”

 

[DefeatObama]

The right wingers are saying that the administration and in particular the President lied about what happened in Libya. I'm pretty much lost on what they think the motivation was to actually lie about the event.

other than the fact that they spent the first week of september dancing on the grave of OBL ?

 

[SandyinTex]

The right wingers are saying that the administration and in particular the President lied about what happened in Libya. I'm pretty much lost on what they think the motivation was to actually lie about the event.
1. There was no request for a substantial change to security in Benghazi. The only thing I find is a request to extend the contracts of three security agents. There were three agents stationed at the consulate. There were two more who were traveling with the ambassador. There was testimoney from one security specialist that he made a verbal request for 12 agents that was, he says, rejected by a regional state department employee. Anyone who knows how the government works knows that the way you get things done is with formal and written requests....not a phone call.

2. Early accounts of the events did state that there was a crowd demonstrating outside the consulate and that later armed men arrived and attacked. I heard Libyan accounts that backed that up. Later accounts said there was no demonstration, that the attack was coordinated and involved as many as a hundred men with mortars and RPGs.

What would be the difference, ultimately, if there had been a crowd? We'd still be looking for the members of the militia as complicit in the murder of our ambassador and three other Americans. I think you guys on the right are straining at a gnat. The misinformation, if anything, points out that without our consulate, we have very limited intel on what is happening in Benghazi. So what.

Sept 28: The Office of the Director of National Intelligence takes responsibility for linking the Benghazi attack to the video. In a statement, spokeswoman Shawn Turner says that initially “there was information that led us to assess that the attack began spontaneously following protests earlier that day at our embassy in Cairo. “We provided that initial assessment to executive branch officials and members of Congress, who used that information to discuss the attack publicly and provide updates as they became available. Throughout our investigation we continued to emphasize that information gathered was preliminary and evolving.”

Also, any request for security was for Tripoli not Benghazi. Ryan Romney and the Cons are still making this a political stunt by dancing on the grave of Stevens and I believe the American voters are smart enough to see that...of course their anti-American braindead base won't because they're not interested in the truth...it's the political game that they're concerned with.

 

[middleview]

other than the fact that they spent the first week of september dancing on the grave of OBL ?

So you can't answer the question....got it.

 

[NightSwimmer]

Nothing new. They've been trying to create a scandal from whole cloth since the day Obama was elected. It was the same when President Clinton was elected. The only thing different this time around is their abject failure in getting any of their wild-eyed conspiracy theories to gain traction outside of the RW nut-job bubble.

 

[middleview]

It is also interesting that the testimony I heard was that a year ago, in a phone call, a request had been made for 12 guys for Benghazi. That was back when they had not killed Gaddafi and there was still fighting around the country. It is almost irrelevant, even if true.

 

[Lukey]

Duh, it completely blew out of the water the President's "al Qeada is on its heels" talking point and even somewhat served to check his ability to crow about "getting" bin Laden.

 

[Yuri Zhivago]

Nothing new. They've been trying to create a scandal from whole cloth since the day Obama was elected. It was the same when President Clinton was elected. The only thing different this time around is their abject failure in getting any of their wild-eyed conspiracy theories to gain traction outside of the RW nut-job bubble.

Mitt was so sure that he caught Obama in a lie about what he said the day after the Benghazi attack, wouldn’t have happened if Fox News weren’t the unofficial manager of the Romney campaign. As Joe Patrice points out in his excellent after-debate piece, Romney was already on the wrong track with this attack, since his belief that there’s another Watergate-style cover up had him focusing on the small potatoes issue of when Obama used the word “terror” rather than the more damaging issue of the lapse in security. That strategy may or may not be Fox’s fault, but Romney’s belief that Obama was lying must be completely based on what he or his advisors saw on Fox. No other media outlet was pushing that lie, and Romney bought it hook, line and sinker.

 

[middleview]

bullshit.

 

[Lukey]

bullshit.

Evidently, it was more like "bullseye" or you would have generously explained to our readers why and where I was wrong...

 

[NightSwimmer]

Mitt was so sure that he caught Obama in a lie about what he said the day after the Benghazi attack, wouldn’t have happened if Fox News weren’t the unofficial manager of the Romney campaign. As Joe Patrice points out in his excellent after-debate piece, Romney was already on the wrong track with this attack, since his belief that there’s another Watergate-style cover up had him focusing on the small potatoes issue of when Obama used the word “terror” rather than the more damaging issue of the lapse in security. That strategy may or may not be Fox’s fault, but Romney’s belief that Obama was lying must be completely based on what he or his advisors saw on Fox. No other media outlet was pushing that lie, and Romney bought it hook, line and sinker.

That single moment alone drove home the fact that Mitt Romney does not understand the difference between biased opinions and cold, hard facts. Romney would make a disastrous President, but the odds of that happening were greatly reduced after his poor performance last night.

 

[Yuri Zhivago]

That single moment alone drove home the fact that Mitt Romney does not understand the difference between biased opinions and cold, hard facts. Romney would make a disastrous President, but the odds of that happening were greatly reduced after his poor performance last night.

I would bet money that non-FOX/Pravda viewers didn’t get the “Act of Terror’ significance.
And then:
“Please proceed, Governor…” Rmoney was done. He should have just packed up and gone home at that point.

 

[TomFitz]

I'm actually lost on why the right chose to beat this particular drum. I was watching on CNN, and the entire time that Romney was working this line his audience reactions was in the very high negatives.

And that was before Candy Crowley nailed him. Right wing media is going to spend the next few days blowviating over this and pandering to its audience, which does suck this narrative up.

But after last night, I don't think the rest of the nation thinks its constructive, and they don't want to hear it.

Regardless of how you parse this, Romney would up looking like a guy who was more interested in scoring a political point than discussing issues. He was already off balance at that point, and the President let him hang himself.

By the end of the debate, the body language of the two opponants clearly told you who won!

 

[Lukey]

I'm actually lost on why the right chose to beat this particular drum. I was watching on CNN, and the entire time that Romney was working this line his audience reactions was in the very high negatives.

And that was before Candy Crowley nailed him. Right wing media is going to spend the next few days blowviating over this and pandering to its audience, which does suck this narrative up.

But after last night, I don't think the rest of the nation thinks its constructive, and they don't want to hear it.

Regardless of how you parse this, Romney would up looking like a guy who was more interested in scoring a political point than discussing issues. He was already off balance at that point, and the President let him hang himself.

By the end of the debate, the body language of the two opponants clearly told you who won!

The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack. We're working with the government of Libya to secure our diplomats. I've also directed my administration to increase our security at diplomatic posts around the world. And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.

Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...dly-attacks-at-us-consulate-in/#ixzz29YouaqLe

Where did he refer specifically to the attack in Benghazi as "terrorism" or even call the attackers "terrorists?"

 

[NightSwimmer]

I would bet money that non-FOX/Pravda viewers didn’t get the “Act of Terror’ significance.
And then:
“Please proceed, Governor…” Rmoney was done. He should have just packed up and gone home at that point.

Even the rank & file drones here on PJ have understood all along that the whole "Libya Conspiracy" was a trumped up attempt to cover for Mitt Romney's absolute lack of foreign policy experience or knowledge.

That Romney apparently didn't understand that he was publicly propagating a bald-faced lie should give pause to even his most ardent partisan supporters. We have had recent experience with a President who eschewed reality in the person of George W. Bush. Anyone who wants to repeat that experiment should not be allowed to move about freely in public without adult supervision.

 

[Cerulean Mutt]

Tempest in a Teapot.

Seriously, I understand that they're desperate, but is this is the best line of attack wingnutters have on President Obama's foreign policy / anti terrorism credentials? Laughable.

 

[Arkady]

Duh, it completely blew out of the water the President's "al Qeada is on its heels" talking point and even somewhat served to check his ability to crow about "getting" bin Laden.

How so? I don't see how either of those things is true. Bin Laden's still just as dead. As for the notion that "al Qaeda is on its heels," I don't know whether or not that's true, but a small-scale success like killing a couple Americans in one of our far-flung outposts isn't exactly disproof of the notion, is it? I mean, Al Qaeda the organization that, on Bush's watch, killed 3000 Americans in New York City, and loosely-affiliated organizations also carried out big, successful attacks on London, Madrid, and Mumbai, each of which achieved mass casualties. What we'd expect to see, if "al Qaeda is on its heels" is that large and frequent attacks in the heart of other nations would be giving way to smaller, less frequent attacks closer to their base of strength. Is that not, more or less, what we're seeing?

That proves nothing, of course. If, tomorrow, we get a series of massive Al Qaeda attacks all across the globe, any notion that they're on their heels will be debunked, and we'll come to see the present state of relative quiet as a period when they were simply focusing on preparations for bigger things to come. But, for now, the evidence is consistent with the President's claim. You'd need to be working damned hard to remain blind to that glaringly obvious fact.

 

[Yuri Zhivago]

Even the rank & file drones here on PJ have understood all along that the whole "Libya Conspiracy" was a trumped up attempt to cover for Mitt Romney's absolute lack of foreign policy experience or knowledge.

That Romney apparently didn't understand that he was publicly propagating a bald-faced lie should give pause to even his most ardent partisan supporters. We have had recent experience with a President who eschewed reality in the person of George W. Bush. Anyone who wants to repeat that experiment should not be allowed to move about freely in public without adult supervision.

This is the problem with living in a bubble.
Yes, it might be comforting to be surrounded by voices who tell you everything you want to hear and nothing else, but the minute you step out of that bubble you are vulnerable to attack. Fox/Pravda is nothing but a giant sand pile where cons go to stick their heads and escape from reality.

 

[Drumcollie]

The deadly September attack on a U.S. consulate in Libya was not precipitated by an anti-American protest, as had originally been reported, the State Department disclosed Tuesday night. According to reports from ABC and the Associated Press, the State Department now acknowledges that "gunfire and explosions near the front gate" were the first signs of danger precipitating the attacks that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.

Stevens finishes his final meeting of the day and escorts a Turkish diplomat outside the main entrance of the consulate. The situation is calm. There are no protests.

Around 9:40 p.m.:

Agents hear loud noises, gunfire and explosions near the front gate. A barracks at the entrance housing the local militiamen is burnt down. Agents viewing cameras see large groups of armed men flowing into the compound. Alarm is sounded. Telephone calls are made to the embassy in Tripoli, officials in Washington, the Libyan authorities and a U.S. quick reaction force located at a second compound a little over a mile away

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/09/libya-consulate-attack-protests_n_1953057.html

Romney said it took the president 14 days before he called the Libya attack terror.

In fact, Obama described it in those terms the day after the attack. But in the days that followed, neither he nor all the members of his administration spoke consistently on the subject. There were many suggestions that the attack was part of demonstrations over an American-made video that disparaged Islam.

We rate the statement Half True

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-says-obama-waited-14-days-call-libya-attack/

That is the evidence so...if you want to believe that there was a Demonstration or that is was the video...I dont think so....an as far as Obama trying to change that from a terrorist attack to " small and savage group....I think so.

 

[Lukey]

How so? I don't see how either of those things is true. Bin Laden's still just as dead. As for the notion that "al Qaeda is on its heels," I don't know whether or not that's true, but a small-scale success like killing a couple Americans in one of our far-flung outposts isn't exactly disproof of the notion, is it? I mean, Al Qaeda the organization that, on Bush's watch, killed 3000 Americans in New York City, and loosely-affiliated organizations also carried out big, successful attacks on London, Madrid, and Mumbai, each of which achieved mass casualties. What we'd expect to see, if "al Qaeda is on its heels" is that large and frequent attacks in the heart of other nations would be giving way to smaller, less frequent attacks closer to their base of strength. Is that not, more or less, what we're seeing?

That proves nothing, of course. If, tomorrow, we get a series of massive Al Qaeda attacks all across the globe, any notion that they're on their heels will be debunked, and we'll come to see the present state of relative quiet as a period when they were simply focusing on preparations for bigger things to come. But, for now, the evidence is consistent with the President's claim. You'd need to be working damned hard to remain blind to that glaringly obvious fact.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/washin...gan-brings-ominous-news-from-middle-east.html