• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

"Act of Terror"- Libya

Wrangor said:
5 days of narrative is too long for a meaningless mistake. Especially when from all reports we knew exactly what was going on from the beginning. It just doesn't add up. We know when a camel sneezes in the desert and what some of you want to have us believe is that even with drones over head, distress phone calls from the embassy, video evidence of the event, a backup team that came on the scene; that somehow we were honestly mistaken for 5 days following the killing of our ambassador.

I simply find it hard to believe that Obama is that incompetent. If he is that incompetent then I voted for the wrong man. I would actually feel better knowing he was hiding something as bad as that sounds. I will take almost anything over incompetence.
Click to expand...

You are way off on your perception of our intelligence services. They are not omniscient. They really are nothing more than barely competent.

Are you making the assumption that our intelligence is fantastic just to talk shit about the President, or are you just misinformed?
 
DeaconSig said:
You are way off on your perception of our intelligence services. They are not omniscient. They really are nothing more than barely competent.

Are you making the assumption that our intelligence is fantastic just to talk shit about the President, or are you just misinformed?
Click to expand...

As someone who has had a family member deeply involved in our intelligence services, the idea that they are "barely competent" is offensive and flat out wrong.
 
DiegoTiger said:
Are you the guy that allegedly voted for Obama in 08, and are currently an undecided moderate?
Click to expand...

Voted for Obama, don't think he has done a terrible job, but think Romney/Ryan can do a better job. Not undecided at this point, I am voting for Romney, but would definitely still consider myself moderate, just not undecided. Just can't understand how liberals are so quick to sweep this under the rug. 5 days of either lies or 5 days of incompetence when the entire world was in the know and apparently we were not. Either scenario is a terrible scenario and is not just business as usual. It is easier for me to believe that we are covering up something than it is to believe that our administration was that incompetent. So I don't have sinister thoughts about Obama, I actually kind of like him, and think he has done an adequate job on a lot of things. I guess i just have higher expectations for the Obama administration. Maybe that was my fault in this matter. But the way he is spinning it, as if he declared it a terrorist attack from the beginning is false and the evidence proves it. 4 days after he supposedly cryptically called it a terrorist attack, he sent Susan Rice out to tell the world that it was a protest gone awry.

On September 25th, this was Obama's speech to the UN. This is 2 WEEKS after the event. Now you tell me what kind of narrative Obama is trying to spin.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

At times, the conflicts arise along the fault lines of faith, 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 how much they are willing to tolerate freedom for others.

That is what we saw play out the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. 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 religion. 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 we don't 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. Moreover, 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. Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views – even views that we disagree with.

We do so not because we support hateful speech, but because our Founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views, and practice their own faith, may be threatened. We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can become a tool to silence critics, or oppress minorities. We do so because given the power of faith in our lives, and the passion that religious differences can inflame, the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech – the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect.

I know that not all countries in this body share this understanding of the protection of free speech. Yet in 2012, at a time when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views around the world with the click of a button, the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete. The question, then, is how we respond. And on this we must agree: there is no speech that justifies mindless violence.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Now you read that transcript and tell me with a straight face the Obama was decrying the event as a terrorist activity. He was clearly selling that this was a protest gone awry 2 weeks after the event had occured. 2 weeks after we had intelligence telling us otherwise. 2 weeks after pretty much the entire world knew that this was a well planned terrorist attack on our embassy.

You can keep saying this is a matter of semantics, but it is not. It is a clear narrative that Obama was trying to sell to the world that was a complete falsehood. I still can't figure out why, and maybe that is what bothering me. But you will never convince me that 2 weeks after the event that Obama didn't know exactly what occurred the night that Stevens was killed. So to me that means he is hiding something. Last night at the debate he just went deeper into the lie as he succesfully (with the help of the 'moderator') deflected Romney's weak attempts to pin him down to the truth. I am baffled by some of you on this thread. If this was Bush ya'll would be going complete apeshit (excuse my french). Instead you are doing your best to make it 'just semantics'. This is not just semantics. This is either real life government cover up or it is real life government screwup at the highest possible level.

FULL OBAMA UN TRANSCRIPT IF YOU ARE INTERESTED - http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/transcript-president-obama-delivers-remarks-united-nations-invokes/story?id=17319652#.UH60QMU0WSo
 
Last edited:
DeaconSig said:
Of course, she wasn't actually, you know, wrong.
Click to expand...

What I'm asking is...if she was 100%, undoubtedly correct with her statement, is that still OK for her to jump in and side with one candidate? Is there any precedent for that with moderators of previous debates?

Obviously I don't think that it is OK, but I haven't watched too many debates in my lifetime so asking others for a frame of reference.
 
09deaconX said:
What I'm asking is...if she was 100%, undoubtedly correct with her statement, is that still OK for her to jump in and side with one candidate? Is there any precedent for that with moderators of previous debates?

Obviously I don't think that it is OK, but I haven't watched too many debates in my lifetime.
Click to expand...

She probably should have kept her mouth shut. But what she said was factually correct.
 
09deaconX said:
What I'm asking is...if she was 100%, undoubtedly correct with her statement, is that still OK for her to jump in and side with one candidate? Is there any precedent for that with moderators of previous debates?

Obviously I don't think that it is OK, but I haven't watched too many debates in my lifetime.
Click to expand...

It was totally okay, and should have been done numerous times by Lehrer and Crowley. Why wait until the next day when your own campaign manager (Romney's) tells everyone that he mispoke about many things? No one sees the day after.
 
tigerswood said:
As someone who has had a family member deeply involved in our intelligence services, the idea that they are "barely competent" is offensive and flat out wrong.
Click to expand...

I have several good friends involved in intelligence work. They bust their asses. Doesn't change the fact that we get about as much wrong as we do right.
 
All your friends can't be that deeply involved if you clowns are on the internet bragging about them.
 
Wrangor said:
Voted for Obama, don't think he has done a terrible job, but think Romney/Ryan can do a better job. Not undecided at this point, I am voting for Romney, but would definitely still consider myself moderate, just not undecided. Just can't understand how liberals are so quick to sweep this under the rug. 5 days of either lies or 5 days of incompetence when the entire world was in the know and apparently we were not. Either scenario is a terrible scenario and is not just business as usual. It is easier for me to believe that we are covering up something than it is to believe that our administration was that incompetent. So I don't have sinister thoughts about Obama, I actually kind of like him, and think he has done an adequate job on a lot of things. I guess i just have higher expectations for the Obama administration. Maybe that was my fault in this matter. But the way he is spinning it, as if he declared it a terrorist attack from the beginning is false and the evidence proves it. 4 days after he supposedly cryptically called it a terrorist attack, he sent Susan Rice out to tell the world that it was a protest gone awry.
Click to expand...

Better than the WMDs in Iraq where there were years of either lies or incompetence when the entire world was in the know and apparently we were not.
 
Deaconsig would honestly be interested to hear your thoughts on Obama's UN speech. Seems like the facts are pretty clear to what kind of narrative he was trying to sell 14 days after the fact. How does that fit into the narrative that Obama spun last night, namely that he was declaring it an organized terrorist activity the day after Stevens died. The two narratives do not match. Why?
 
HeltonCreek said:
Better than the WMDs in Iraq where there were years of either lies or incompetence when the entire world was in the know and apparently we were not.
Click to expand...

You won't find any posts on this board or the last board supporting our invasion of Iraq so you are barking up the wrong tree. Making the claim that drinking piss is better than eating crap still doesn't mean we need to guzzle down a litre piss. You make my point perfectly. The evidence that Bush either lied or was incredibly incompetent is overwhelming, and liberals rightly call him on it (still call him on it apparently). The evidence that Obama is either lying or is incredibly incompetent is overwhelming, yet what I am hearing on this thread it is that it is all semantics. 2 weeks and speech and speech of semantics apparently.
 
Wrangor said:
Deaconsig would honestly be interested to hear your thoughts on Obama's UN speech. Seems like the facts are pretty clear to what kind of narrative he was trying to sell 14 days after the fact. How does that fit into the narrative that Obama spun last night, namely that he was declaring it an organized terrorist activity the day after Stevens died. The two narratives do not match. Why?
Click to expand...

I don't really see the mutual exclusivity here. A person can commit an act of terrorism in protest of something. He called it an act of terrorism the day after the event. His intelligence told him that it was a protest of the movie. They are not mutually exclusive. What is the issue here?

Full disclosure: did not watch one second of the debate last night.
 
Last edited:
Didn't the attack include Mortars and Grenades? I highly doubt that it took us more than a few minutes to figure out that those are not something that just happen to be sitting around and you grab them as you walk out of your house to go protest. The evidence that this was a pre-planned act of terrorism was evident from the get go.
 
BeachBumDeac said:
I don't really see the mutual exclusivity here. A person can commit an act of terrorism in protest of something. He called it an act of terrorism the day after the event. His intelligence told him that it was a protest of the movie. They are not mutually exclusive. What is the issue here?
Click to expand...

The issue is that all evidence suggests that we knew it was not a protest immediately after the event occured.

1. We had video evidence it was not a protest
2. We had government logs it was not a protest
3. We had drone surveillance showing it was not a protest
4. We had survivors that witnessed it not being a protest
5. We had a secondary team enter the compound with no evidence of protest
6. THE ENTIRE WORLD COMMUNITY WAS DECLARING THAT IT WAS NOT A PROTEST

Yet we continued with the protest for 2 weeks. That is a massive issue. Not sure how you can't see that.
 
Obama clearly was describing what happened being the result of protests, not terror, but fortunately for him some boilerplate language at the end of his comments included "acts of terror," giving him some cover. Obama played that cover well last night, and Crowley helped him out by making the unforgivable moderator mistake of appearing to take sides. I know she tweeted after the fact that Romney was generally right, but you can't unring that bell. I have to believe she has moderated her last presidential debate.
 
KitchinDeac said:
Obama clearly was describing what happened being the result of protests, not terror, but fortunately for him some boilerplate language at the end of his comments included "acts of terror," giving him some cover. Obama played that cover well last night, and Crowley helped him out by making the unforgivable moderator mistake of appearing to take sides. I know she tweeted after the fact that Romney was generally right, but you can't unring that bell. I have to believe she has moderated her last presidential debate.
Click to expand...

Agreed. It is Obama that is playing the semantics game to give himself cover for either a monumental bout of incompetence (which I just find hard to believe) or some sort of cover up that he wants nothing to do with 2 weeks before the election.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top