"Act of Terror"- Libya

[DeaconSig]

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?

He said he referred to it as terrorism. He did. The administration has said that the intelligence they received on the issue changed over time. My guess is that is true as well. It was probably a mistake to have Susan Rice on the Sunday morning shows, but that is as much about the 24 hour news cycle as it is about any sort of malicious actions.

It was a tragedy what happened to Ambassador Stevens. The government probably should have had a certain number of troops there, but I am not well-versed enough in embassy security to determine when additional troops become a target instead of additional security.

But honestly, I could care less about the surrounding issues. The President has said the mistake was his responsibility. It is, but I don't think it is somehow a referendum on his Presidency, just in the same way the bombing of the barracks in Beruit was not a referrendum on President Reagan or how the bombing of the USS Cole was not a referendum on President Clinton.

The people who want to make the most out of this are either same folks who have been slobbing over Governor Romney for months or they are people who make money off of developing a narrative to criticize the President. Forgive me if I don't feel the need to be moved by their hysterical rantings and black helicopter proclamations.

 

[ONW]

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.

The FBI didn't even get to visit the site for 3 weeks.

"Security concerns at the site had led the FBI to delay for more than three weeks its visit to Benghazi. FBI and military officials had cited the need for proper military protection in the event of another attack."

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/04/world/africa/libya-fbi-benghazi/index.html

 

[DeaconSig]

Funny, she says here that Romney was right. And if he was right, then why did she interject? Of course we all know the answer to that, just a question of whether some will admit it.

She also said the President was correct in his statement, which he was.

 

[Wrangor]

I just don't see how two weeks of mistakes or two weeks of lies is acceptable to anyone from our government, especially when we are talking about a foreign ambassador being assassinated. Seems to me you are choosing to avoid the facts. I don't believe there is a person on this board that truly believes that after two weeks we didn't know what was going on in that embassy the night Stevens died. In my opinion we knew 2 minutes after the even occured what was going down, yet the president would have us believe that 2 weeks after the event that intelligence was still informing him that it was a protest. That is laughable.

 

[Wrangor]

[/B]

The FBI didn't even get to visit the site for 3 weeks.

"Security concerns at the site had led the FBI to delay for more than three weeks its visit to Benghazi. FBI and military officials had cited the need for proper military protection in the event of another attack."

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/04/world/africa/libya-fbi-benghazi/index.html

Why did we need the FBI? The evidence was already before us. We had telephone calls, drone surveilance, first hand accounts, and the rest of the world's intelligence making the claim that it was a terrorist attack. You think dusting up some 3 week old fingerprints is going to make a difference? Come on, you are smarter than that. This is like watching Fox News try to defend invading Iraq for WMDs, except in reverse. Ya'll are smarter than this.

 

[Ball State Deac]

The spin on this will be hilarious and futile given the statements in following days where he intentionally refused to call it an act of terrorism.

Obama needs to hope this is all he gets out of Romney on this issue.

But he called it "terror" wtf is the difference?

 

[DeaconSig]

I just don't see how two weeks of mistakes or two weeks of lies is acceptable to anyone from our government, especially when we are talking about a foreign ambassador being assassinated. Seems to me you are choosing to avoid the facts. I don't believe there is a person on this board that truly believes that after two weeks we didn't know what was going on in that embassy the night Stevens died. In my opinion we knew 2 minutes after the even occured what was going down, yet the president would have us believe that 2 weeks after the event that intelligence was still informing him that it was a protest. That is laughable.

Well have a good laugh then.

 

[Go]

But he called it "terror" wtf is the difference?

No he didn't Candy.

 

[Wrangor]

Bush Lied People Died
Obama Lied Its Just Semantics

Got it.

 

[DeacLaw05]

I agree with Wrangor here. I don't understand how the President can insist last night that he called this a terrorist act from the start when it is uncontroverted that he spent the next two weeks either dodging that obvious conclusion or blaming the video instead.

The one part of the actual question that he totally ignored last night was the portion regarding the requests for additional security and the deteriorating situation on the ground prior to the actual attack itself. The question of who knew of the requests and who made the ultimate decision not to provide additional security remains unanswered, as does the role the President or high-level staff members played in that process.

 

[dot com]

I don't give a rats ass when it was named terrorism, why is this even an issue? There are bigger concerns with the event than when it was labeled what.

 

[BeachBumDeac]

I agree with Wrangor here. I don't understand how the President can insist last night that he called this a terrorist act from the start when it is uncontroverted that he spent the next two weeks either dodging that obvious conclusion or blaming the video instead.

The one part of the actual question that he totally ignored last night was the portion regarding the requests for additional security and the deteriorating situation on the ground prior to the actual attack itself. The question of who knew of the requests and who made the ultimate decision not to provide additional security remains unanswered, as does the role the President or high-level staff members played in that process.

Why would that decision have gone all the way up to the President? Are you serious?

 

[Wrangor]

That is where Romney messed up big time, and I hope he gets his act together before the next debate. Romney missed a major opportunity to score points on Libya. He probably got put a little off his game when Candi interrupted him to 'opinion-check' his response, but nonetheless Romney really swung and missed during the Libya portion, and Obama played it brilliantly (with some major help).

 

[KillSwofford]

You can tell from that video that she knows she fucked up.

Yup. And she wouldn't feel that way unless she knew that Romney was more right than Obama. She never even references Obama in that passage.

If you look at the Rose Garden speech transcript, Obama does NOT refer to THAT SPECIFIC ACT as an act of terror. He doesn't. It's black and white. If anyone tries to tell you he did, then they have just outed themselves as a biased partisan whose opinion cannot be trusted to be impartial and valid.

I don't plan to vote for either of them, and was really just watching to see the inevitable Crowley-engineered detour and whether Romney would be derailed by it. I knew she would be bad...bad doesn't even begin to cover it. Plus it's not like I missed any Yankee offense or anything.

Good news for Romney is this will get talked about, his name is now basically cleared in the mind of any unbiased voter, and he'll get another crack at this question and there will be NO way the moderator will get in the way after what's happened here.

 

[Wrangor]

Why would that decision have gone all the way up to the President? Are you serious?

That decision would not have gone to the President, that responsibility falls on Hillary who rightfully took the blame for the lack of security. Even though she probably didn't make that decision, that is her area of concern. Ultimately it still falls on Obama, but no rational person would surmise that Obama made the decision to lessen the security of that individual embassy.

 

[Ball State Deac]

No he didn't Candy.

What did Obama say in the Rose Garden a day after the attack in Libya? ”No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this nation,” he said.

From the OP's link. :noidea:

 

[ONW]

I don't give a rats ass when it was named terrorism, why is this even an issue? There are bigger concerns with the event than when it was labeled what.

This.

 

[Ball State Deac]

“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. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts…No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.”

— President Obama, Rose Garden statement, Sept. 12

 

[tigerswood]

All your friends can't be that deeply involved if you clowns are on the internet bragging about them.

Figured that response would come. I don't know 1/100th of what my uncle did during his service, and it will likely stay that way.

 

[KillSwofford]

That decision would not have gone to the President, that responsibility falls on Hillary who rightfully took the blame for the lack of security. Even though she probably didn't make that decision, that is her area of concern. Ultimately it still falls on Obama, but no rational person would surmise that Obama made the decision to lessen the security of that individual embassy.

In most places, sure. In Libya? The mess he made, of his own volition, personally choosing to commit resources to oust Ghadafi? Not anywhere near as sure, IMO. You're going to destabilize a country, overthrow its leader knowing that terrorist elements are waiting to fill the power vacuum and just blow off providing security for the people you leave there in the morass? That seems worse than if he had merely underestimated the urgency of the need for reinforcements.