logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> He Knew, Obama is a liar, does this change your opinion of him?
Barack Obama, serial liar.
You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.
Total Votes: 25
Guests cannot vote 
Bikerdad
post Oct 24 2012, 07:37 PM
Post #1


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,829
Member No.: 715
Joined: May-8-03

Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



White House told of militant claim two hours after Libya attack
QUOTE
Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.

Now, when assessing whether or not President Obama is a serial liar, we are going to use the strictest of standards, or more accurately, the most charitable. Thus, campaign promises aren't going to be considered. Sure, he promised that he would close Gitmo, but clearly he hasn't. Claims that others have made on his behalf which he let stand for years aren't going to be considered either. After all, perhaps he truly didn't know that his publicist/agent claimed in promotional material for years that he was born in Kenya. Nor are we even going to consider claims he made that fly in the face of common sense and would never pass the "reasonable doubt" test, such as his claim that he didn't know Reverend Jeremiah Wright was a spouting anti-American, racist black liberation theology from the pulpit, even though President Obama attended his church for 20 years.

“It was also there — at Trinity United Church of Christ on the South Side of Chicago — that I met Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., who took me on another journey and introduced me to a man named Jesus Christ. It was the best education I ever had.”

We aren't going to look events 40 years ago, of which there are no records. No, we're going to focus on simple, factual statements made by Obama about events, some of which Obama himself was party to, events that are in the public record. We've got three examples here. The first is his and his Administration's response to the Benghazi attack, linked above.

The second is a speech then Senator Obama gave at Hampton University, on June 5th, 2007. Departing from his prepared speech, Obama said (paraphrased):

Obama mentions the Stafford Act, which requires communities receiving federal disaster relief to contribute 10 percent as much as the federal government does. Senator Obama, as he was then, pointed out that this requirement was waived in the case of New York and Florida because the people there were considered to be "part of the American family." But the people in New Orleans, they've been stiffed -- "Where's your dollar? Where's your Stafford Act money? ... The people down in New Orleans they don’t care about as much!”

You can see the entire video of his speech here. The section in question starts roughly at the 22:00 mark, and continues for about two minutes.

So, where's the lie? On May 24, 2007, the Senate voted on the final amendments to HR2206, which included Stafford Act waivers for New Orleans. It passed the Senate 80-14. Senator Barack Obama voted against it. The "they" in his above quote apparently includes OBAMA and 9 other Democrat Senators (plus one independent), and only 3 Republicans. hmmm.gif

The third example is Obama lying to protect his Administration, again, about facts that are a matter of public record.

QUOTE
Asked about the Fast and Furious program at the Univision forum on Thursday (Sep 20th, 2012), President Obama falsely claimed that the program began under President George W. Bush.

“I think it’s important for us to understand that the Fast and Furious program was a field-initiated program begun under the previous administration,” the president said. “When Eric Holder found out about it, he discontinued it. We assigned a inspector general to do a thorough report that was just issued, confirming that in fact Eric Holder did not know about this, that he took prompt action and the people who did initiate this were held accountable.”

In actuality, the Fast and Furious program was started in October 2009, nine months into the Obama presidency. - ABC News



1} Do you believe Obama is a serial liar, merely a politician, or perhaps a mix?

2} What is the dividing line between annoying spin, and lying? Does the dividing line move depending on the ideological perspective of the spinner/liar?

3} "People died, Obama lied"? Accurate statement regarding Benghazi, or not?

4} IF it were established beyond any reasonable doubt that Obama himself in full knowledge lied about Benghazi and the video, should he resign? (Reasonable doubt means HE knew, not that he SHOULD HAVE known.)

5} Springboarding from #4, at what point is the distinction between malfeasance (lying) and ignorance irrelavent, i.e. whether lying or incompentent, ya gotta go?






Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
WillyPete
post Oct 25 2012, 04:24 PM
Post #2


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 233
Member No.: 5,465
Joined: September-14-05

From: SoCal
Gender: Male
Politics: Private
Party affiliation: None



1} Do you believe Obama is a serial liar, merely a politician, or perhaps a mix?

He's a politician, so he's a professional serial liar, if you want to think of it that way. Nothing new, either.


2} What is the dividing line between annoying spin, and lying? Does the dividing line move depending on the ideological perspective of the spinner/liar?

It's in how the observer chooses to measure it. For example, from a stereotypical neocon POV, it was apparently awesome when Reagan tripled the deficit, negotiated with and trained terrorists, and had people trading drugs for military weaponry, while escalating (again) our own "War on Drugs."

When Clinton attempted to conceal an affair, that was a serious threat to our very way of life to those same people. That has been the biggest political firestorm of my lifetime, easily eclipsing the "WMD" and "Warrantless Wiretapping" scandals that came under Bush, amongst others. Obviously, we have our priorities in order.

All of those scandals involved lies, but only one involved impaling heads on stakes in South America. If Reagan's behavior was acceptable, I see nothing Obama has done that reaches that level, or anywhere close.

Maybe the appropriate counter-question would be, would Reagan be able to pull off those questionable activities today, under the increased scrutiny technology has unlocked?

This post has been edited by WillyPete: Oct 25 2012, 04:36 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Oct 25 2012, 07:30 PM
Post #3


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,415
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



1} Do you believe Obama is a serial liar, merely a politician, or perhaps a mix?
Mix.

2} What is the dividing line between annoying spin, and lying? Does the dividing line move depending on the ideological perspective of the spinner/liar?
This was a deliberate cover up. The spin was supposed to get them past election day and was bungled so badly that they got caught.

3} "People died, Obama lied"? Accurate statement regarding Benghazi, or not?
Very accurate. And I still want to know WHY they watched and did little to nothing to get men in there to save our people.
No one imo will ever pin this on Obama directly so we will have to be satisfied with him losing the election – which works for me.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amf
post Oct 26 2012, 02:43 AM
Post #4


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,372
Member No.: 1,540
Joined: October-23-03

From: Atlanta, GA
Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: Independent



Right after 9/11/2001, a Palestinian group -- the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine -- was fingered by an anonymous tip and was initially thought to have claimed responsibility for the hijacked planes.

http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=419084

Is it out of the realm of possibility that a splinter AQ group or wannabees would lay claim to something they didn't actually do? Would you want our response to be to immediately jump on that one clue or maybe spend some time confirming it?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dontreadonme
post Oct 26 2012, 10:49 AM
Post #5


Group Icon

**********
I think, therefore I am an enemy of the State....and Fox News

Sponsor
October 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,452
Member No.: 359
Joined: December-25-02

From: Nestled in the Shenandoah
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Libertarian



QUOTE(amf @ Oct 25 2012, 10:43 PM) *
Is it out of the realm of possibility that a splinter AQ group or wannabees would lay claim to something they didn't actually do? Would you want our response to be to immediately jump on that one clue or maybe spend some time confirming it?


The various Talib groups take credit for anytime an ISAF helicopter goes down in AFG, when in fact very few have been the result of offensive action on their part. It happens quite frequently across the spectrum.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post Oct 26 2012, 11:57 AM
Post #6


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,323
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Oct 26 2012, 06:49 AM) *
QUOTE(amf @ Oct 25 2012, 10:43 PM) *
Is it out of the realm of possibility that a splinter AQ group or wannabees would lay claim to something they didn't actually do? Would you want our response to be to immediately jump on that one clue or maybe spend some time confirming it?


The various Talib groups take credit for anytime an ISAF helicopter goes down in AFG, when in fact very few have been the result of offensive action on their part. It happens quite frequently across the spectrum.


That is impossible. Didn't you read Ted's response? There was a deliberate coverup. Obama hoped to keep this information hidden for two months, but bungled it up. This is obvious due to the severe implications of the release of this information...now that everyone knows it was definitely a planned attack, rather than a mob attack, this changes everything. I mean, covering up the deaths of four people...oh wait, we all knew they were dead. Covering up the fact that the deaths were caused by a group of anti-American religiously motivated violent attackers...oh wait, we knew that too.

Actually, I'm not sure why this would be important enough to motivate a coverup. It must be because, as Ted indicates, they just watched while our people died and elected to do absolutely nothing when they could have saved them. There's no available information to support the last, but I expect Trump will release some earth shattering proof of it on November first.

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Oct 26 2012, 12:04 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dontreadonme
post Oct 26 2012, 12:09 PM
Post #7


Group Icon

**********
I think, therefore I am an enemy of the State....and Fox News

Sponsor
October 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,452
Member No.: 359
Joined: December-25-02

From: Nestled in the Shenandoah
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Libertarian



QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Oct 26 2012, 07:57 AM) *
Actually, I'm not sure why this would be important enough to motivate a coverup. It must be because, as Ted indicates, they just watched while our people died and elected to do absolutely nothing when they could have saved them. There's no available information to support the last, but I expect Trump will release some earth shattering proof of it on November first.


Ironically, Condi Rice cautions against hyperbolic and premature assessments:

RICE: But when things are unfolding very, very quickly, it’s not always easy to know what is really going on on the ground. And to my mind, the really important questions here are about how information was collected. Did the various agencies really coordinate and share intelligence in the way that we had hoped, with the reforms that were made after 9/11?

So there’s a big picture to be examined here. But we don’t have all of the pieces, and I think it’s easy to try and jump to conclusions about what might have happened here. It’s probably better to let the relevant bodies do their work
.

Link
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
scubatim
post Oct 26 2012, 01:56 PM
Post #8


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 2,409
Member No.: 8,004
Joined: September-30-07

From: Iowa
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Oct 26 2012, 06:57 AM) *
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Oct 26 2012, 06:49 AM) *
QUOTE(amf @ Oct 25 2012, 10:43 PM) *
Is it out of the realm of possibility that a splinter AQ group or wannabees would lay claim to something they didn't actually do? Would you want our response to be to immediately jump on that one clue or maybe spend some time confirming it?


The various Talib groups take credit for anytime an ISAF helicopter goes down in AFG, when in fact very few have been the result of offensive action on their part. It happens quite frequently across the spectrum.


That is impossible. Didn't you read Ted's response? There was a deliberate coverup. Obama hoped to keep this information hidden for two months, but bungled it up. This is obvious due to the severe implications of the release of this information...now that everyone knows it was definitely a planned attack, rather than a mob attack, this changes everything. I mean, covering up the deaths of four people...oh wait, we all knew they were dead. Covering up the fact that the deaths were caused by a group of anti-American religiously motivated violent attackers...oh wait, we knew that too.

Actually, I'm not sure why this would be important enough to motivate a coverup. It must be because, as Ted indicates, they just watched while our people died and elected to do absolutely nothing when they could have saved them. There's no available information to support the last, but I expect Trump will release some earth shattering proof of it on November first.

The question then is if we are going to hold off on declaring that it was a terrorist attack until we gather pertinent information, why send officials onto national news shows and have press secretaries spend days declaring the event as spontaneous protesters? Shouldn't then the administration simply state that the events were another shocking and horrible day in our history and we are going to conduct a thorough investigation into this event instead of telling the public that it was something that it wasn't? Then, after saying it was going to conduct the investigation, actually get investigators on the ground instead of letting CNN reporters comb through the rubble to find things like the ambassador's journal and publish it?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hobbes
post Oct 26 2012, 02:15 PM
Post #9


Group Icon

**********
No More Mr. Nice Guy!

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 5,311
Member No.: 1,155
Joined: September-8-03

From: Dallas, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(WillyPete @ Oct 25 2012, 11:24 AM) *
It's in how the observer chooses to measure it.


Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!

If I (or anyone else) had a dollar for everything one side rails against when the other does it, yet not just lets is slide but justifies it when their side does the exact same thing, I could retire a very rich man. Politicians not only know this, they RELY on it. And we almost never disappoint them.

Regarding the Benghazi incident, there is spin on a massive scale going on. I'm not sure I'd say lying, but there certainly was a lack of information and direct action considering this was stated as being their number 1 priority. It was so incredibly important that they did, what....nothing, really? The facts don't mesh with the spin at all. Pretty much every analyst that spoke about it the day it happened stated it was CLEARLY a planned, coordinated terrorist attack. Now, I don't mind the administration waiting until they could definitely confirm that...but then why be so adamant it was just about the video---ESPECIALLY when that story would just be likely to incite even more violence? And at what point did it dawn on them that this happening on 9-11 probably strains the bounds of coincidence, even moreso given Al Queda's tendency to perform such anniversay marking attacks? What I gathered from this isn't that they lied, all politicians spin, but that they seem to do so stupidly---which is far worse, in my mind. But, as I stated above, the majority will buy their rhetoric and give them a pass. Nobody has said boo over Obama claiming such credit for taking out OBL (an action I firmly support) despite the fact that in doing so he directly contradicted his, and most Democrats, strong criticism of Bush doing the exact same things. Politics just seems to bring out the hypocrit in all of us. Politicians know and rely on this, and I am quite sure chuckly about the gullibility of their base over drinks behind closed doors. Riddle on that for bit---the people we so strongly support mostly think we're naive idiots (look at their rhetoric, and there is no denying this), yet we support them anyway. Somewhere out there, dolphins are chuckling over this.

This post has been edited by Hobbes: Oct 26 2012, 02:17 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Amlord
post Oct 26 2012, 03:08 PM
Post #10


Group Icon

**********
The Roaring Lion

Sponsor

Group: Moderators
Posts: 5,884
Member No.: 572
Joined: March-4-03

From: Cleveland suburbs, OH
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(amf @ Oct 25 2012, 10:43 PM) *
Is it out of the realm of possibility that a splinter AQ group or wannabees would lay claim to something they didn't actually do? Would you want our response to be to immediately jump on that one clue or maybe spend some time confirming it?

No, it is not out of the realm of possibility. However, there were eyewitness reports of Ansar al Sharia emblems and possibly vehicles at the attack.

The problem here is communication and how quickly do we want the administration to give out information. I agree with those that say we shouldn't jump to conclusions.

But when the administration says something, we should be able to believe it. If they are being cautious about giving out information, then we should feel confident that the information that they DO give out will be accurate.

The NY Times has a summary of the statements by the administration.

If the President thought this was a terrorist attack on 9/12, why did Jay Carney say on 9/14 that “We have no information to suggest that it was a preplanned attack.”?

Why did Susan Rice say on 9/16 that "What this began as was a spontaneous, not a premeditated, response to what happened transpired in Cairo.” “We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people, came to the embassy to — or to the consulate rather — to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo. And then, as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons.”

We know now that there were no non-extremists there. It was a military style attack and there was never any protests. The administration certainly knew that. They has reconnaissance from a drone in the area.

On 9/18, Jay Carney said "I’m saying that based on information that we -- our initial information, and that includes all information -- we saw no evidence to back up claims by others that this was a preplanned or premeditated attack; that we saw evidence that it was sparked by the reaction to this video. And that is what we know thus far based on the evidence, concrete evidence"

Where did Jay Carney get "concrete evidence" that this was linked to some video when it wasn't linked to a video?

On 9/19, Jay Carney was still stuck on "Based on the information that we had at the time and have to this day, we do not have evidence that it was premeditated.”

The VERY NEXT DAY (9/20)Carney said "It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.”

What changed on 9/19? Oh yeah, there was testimony before Congress by the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center that

"Yes, they were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy. ...We are looking at indications that individuals involved in the attack may have had connections to Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda’s affiliates; in particular, Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.”

This is the same day that the President's Press Secretary said they there was no evidence that this was premeditated. The next day, the Press Secretary changed his tune (maybe this is the first that the White House heard of terrorists?).

What we have here is that the initial reports from Benghazi indicated a military style attack. The New York Times ran an article on September 12th, the day after the attack, which

QUOTE
American and European officials said that while many details about the attack remained unclear, the assailants seemed organized, well trained and heavily armed, and they appeared to have at least some level of advance planning. But the officials cautioned that it was too soon to tell whether the attack was related to the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks.


OK, so somebody in the administration knew what was going on the day after the attack. But then the story morphed into this garbage about the video. Note, the NYT story also cites the video and it apparently interviewed people at the scene "during the battle" (why couldn't the FBI do that?).

The Libyan government said that the US should have beefed up security:

QUOTE
Libya’s deputy interior minister, Wanis al-Sharif, made somewhat contradictory and defensive-sounding statements about the attack.

<snip>

Mr. Sharif also faulted the Americans at the mission for failing to heed what he said was the Libyan government’s advice to pull its personnel or beef up its security, especially in light of the recent violence in the city and the likelihood that the video would provoke protests. “What is weird is that they refrained from this procedure, depending instead on the simple protection that they had,” he said. “What happened later is beyond our control, and they are responsible for part of what happened.”


The administration bungled this from a communications point of view. They said things that ended up to be dubious at best all the while saying that they were investigating thoroughly.

QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Oct 26 2012, 08:09 AM) *
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Oct 26 2012, 07:57 AM) *
Actually, I'm not sure why this would be important enough to motivate a coverup. It must be because, as Ted indicates, they just watched while our people died and elected to do absolutely nothing when they could have saved them. There's no available information to support the last, but I expect Trump will release some earth shattering proof of it on November first.


Ironically, Condi Rice cautions against hyperbolic and premature assessments:

RICE: But when things are unfolding very, very quickly, it’s not always easy to know what is really going on on the ground. And to my mind, the really important questions here are about how information was collected. Did the various agencies really coordinate and share intelligence in the way that we had hoped, with the reforms that were made after 9/11?

So there’s a big picture to be examined here. But we don’t have all of the pieces, and I think it’s easy to try and jump to conclusions about what might have happened here. It’s probably better to let the relevant bodies do their work
.

Link

Why "ironically"? She is a diplomat, after all, not a partisan bomb thrower.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post Oct 26 2012, 05:17 PM
Post #11


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,323
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Amlord @ Oct 26 2012, 11:08 AM) *
If the President thought this was a terrorist attack on 9/12, why did Jay Carney say on 9/14 that “We have no information to suggest that it was a preplanned attack.”?


I don't know...is each and every terrorist attack "preplanned"? If it's a terrorist attack there HAS to be preplanning? I didn't know that. What's the average timeline that would indicate "preplanning"...a month, week, day, hour...? Is there a concrete number?

QUOTE
Why did Susan Rice say on 9/16 that "What this began as was a spontaneous, not a premeditated, response to what happened transpired in Cairo.” “We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people, came to the embassy to — or to the consulate rather — to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo. And then, as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons.”

We know now that there were no non-extremists there. It was a military style attack and there was never any protests. The administration certainly knew that. They has reconnaissance from a drone in the area.


I don't think it was such a stretch to believe that the Egypt attack and Libyan consulate attack might have been related, considering they happened virtually simultaneously, and the "non-terrorist" one in Egypt was first. You started a thread combining the two, if I remember correctly. Was it really such an outlandish assumption? I'd think it would be far less likely that they were entirely unrelated.

QUOTE
On 9/18, Jay Carney said "I’m saying that based on information that we -- our initial information, and that includes all information -- we saw no evidence to back up claims by others that this was a preplanned or premeditated attack; that we saw evidence that it was sparked by the reaction to this video. And that is what we know thus far based on the evidence, concrete evidence"

Where did Jay Carney get "concrete evidence" that this was linked to some video when it wasn't linked to a video?


See above. I think his use of the word "concrete" is (obviously) erroneous, but that doesn't mean there wasn't evidence to believe so, considering the timing. It seems more of a reach to me to believe that the timing was entirely coincidental than to believe they were completely unrelated, whether or not any specific anti-American group immediately jumped to take credit for it. This isn't anything new to specifically terrorists either. I remember the war in Kosovo with Serbs (or Serbian sympathists) posting online claiming credit for this or that downed plane. Sometimes the posts contained "photographic evidence" and even then they weren't real. Welcome to the age of the internet.

Specifics about the investigation might be questioned, I agree it wasn't handled optimally. But it's too hard to see through the deluge of scat being thrown from one side for appropriate consideration at this moment.

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Oct 26 2012, 05:27 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hobbes
post Oct 26 2012, 06:51 PM
Post #12


Group Icon

**********
No More Mr. Nice Guy!

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 5,311
Member No.: 1,155
Joined: September-8-03

From: Dallas, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Amlord @ Oct 26 2012, 10:08 AM) *
If the President thought this was a terrorist attack on 9/12, why did Jay Carney say on 9/14 that “We have no information to suggest that it was a preplanned attack.”?


In the speech Obama mentioned at the Rose Garden, he didn't say it was a terrorists attack, he said it was an act of terror. Two very different things, potentially--the latter doesn't need to be planned out, and hence doesn't need to be the act of a specific group.

This is what makes their insistence for the next couple of weeks that it was random so stupid, btw. It plants the seed for future such actions by others protesting the video. Kinda funny for the administration to therefore essentially be inciting violence, no? Saying it were a planned attack from a specific terrorist group wouldn't have such ramifications. So, given two stories to go with, they definitely went with the wrong one. This raises the question: Why? I think it points alot to the administration's viewpoint on such issues, and would lend some credence to Romney's apology tour rhetoric (well, we can understand why there was such a violent reaction from the crowd, after all, we in America had just released this terrible video). I think once that was realized, their story started to change---because they had the majority of the facts they needed the day it happened--as I stated earlier, all of the initial analysts said that it clearly was a planned coordinated attack. Also, there certainly wasn't any definitive evidence stating it was a random act, yet they had no problem delivering that message. So, clearly, this was a planned, coordinated response, with an agenda. What agenda? would then be the question to ask.

Who goes to a demonstration carrying RPG's, anyway? Or even AK 47's? This being a random act doesn't even make superficial sense. Which points us back to the Why? question, again--what agenda was being carried out by delivering the message about this being a random act?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post Oct 26 2012, 07:06 PM
Post #13


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,323
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Hobbes @ Oct 26 2012, 02:51 PM) *
Who goes to a demonstration carrying RPG's, anyway? Or even AK 47's? This being a random act doesn't even make superficial sense.


But a terrorist group awaiting opportunity (and they aren't short of them in this part of the planet) might jump on a mass demonstration and bring all the weapons they have at their disposal. That would make sense, IMO.

If I were in their position, that's what I would do (see Sun Tzu).

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Oct 26 2012, 07:11 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dontreadonme
post Oct 26 2012, 07:13 PM
Post #14


Group Icon

**********
I think, therefore I am an enemy of the State....and Fox News

Sponsor
October 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,452
Member No.: 359
Joined: December-25-02

From: Nestled in the Shenandoah
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Libertarian



To chime in briefly, a terrorist attack...which is our label of an event of course, not necessarily the attackers....can either be preplanned or be a target of opportunity. Even with planning, our force protection measures as well as simple bad luck, most often radically alter a groups plans toward a target.

Though the event in Benghazi might have been pre-meditated, it is equally possible that since Ansar al-Islam resided within Benghazi, it was a hasty attack.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hobbes
post Oct 26 2012, 07:48 PM
Post #15


Group Icon

**********
No More Mr. Nice Guy!

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 5,311
Member No.: 1,155
Joined: September-8-03

From: Dallas, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Oct 26 2012, 02:06 PM) *
QUOTE(Hobbes @ Oct 26 2012, 02:51 PM) *
Who goes to a demonstration carrying RPG's, anyway? Or even AK 47's? This being a random act doesn't even make superficial sense.


But a terrorist group awaiting opportunity (and they aren't short of them in this part of the planet) might jump on a mass demonstration and bring all the weapons they have at their disposal. That would make sense, IMO.

If I were in their position, that's what I would do (see Sun Tzu).


And this just happened to occur on 9-11, from a group who makes marking such anniversaries part of their modus operandi? Possible, but not the first thing I would assume. Even if it did, it would still be a preplanned action, just waiting for a time of opportunity, perpetrated by a specific group, not just a random act from the crowd. EVERYONE who talked about this immediately afterwards stated strongly that this clearly was not a random act from the crowd...it was too well planned and coordinated. I ask again...do people really carry RPG's to a demonstration, with no plans to use them? AK 47's? Random people attacking a defended compound in a coordinated fashion using such weapons? All of this gets quickly out of the real realm of possibility...and you don't attack a target like that without a plan, not if you have any intentions of being successful. DTOM, am I wrong on this? I agree it could have been hastily pulled off, but it strikes me that it had to have been planned beforehand. A "hey, everybody, let's go attack a heavily defended compound, in about an hour, just bring your gun and do whatever, whenever' plan neither seems to be what did happen, nor what would ever be very successful.

This post has been edited by Hobbes: Oct 26 2012, 08:03 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dontreadonme
post Oct 26 2012, 08:07 PM
Post #16


Group Icon

**********
I think, therefore I am an enemy of the State....and Fox News

Sponsor
October 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,452
Member No.: 359
Joined: December-25-02

From: Nestled in the Shenandoah
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Libertarian



I still see possibilities for each argument. I lean towards thinking that this was an attack that had some rudimentary planning at least....for an urban target that was acknowledged at being non-compliant with DoS force protection standards, and had no established quick reaction force within immediate response. 'Heavily defended' has different meanings when the attackers are of similar nationality/religion/worldview as at least some of the defenders.

This most certainly wasn't a casual mob carrying out the attack, it was one of the militia's to be sure....but there really wasn't anything specific in intelligence reporting that would have compelled DoS to spin up assets to cover Benghazi.

In the intelligence community, human intelligence reporting is assessed in terms of high-medium-low confidence, based on the source tenure and history of validated intelligence. Low confidence reporting comes through daily, for events and locations around the world. They cannot all be acted on, which is why we triage the reporting. I don't cover North Africa, so I would have only seen high confidence reports for worldwide threats in the days and weeks leading up to the incident...but I believe that there is plausibility to be found on both sides of this issue.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Amlord
post Oct 26 2012, 08:08 PM
Post #17


Group Icon

**********
The Roaring Lion

Sponsor

Group: Moderators
Posts: 5,884
Member No.: 572
Joined: March-4-03

From: Cleveland suburbs, OH
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Oct 26 2012, 03:13 PM) *
To chime in briefly, a terrorist attack...which is our label of an event of course, not necessarily the attackers....can either be preplanned or be a target of opportunity. Even with planning, our force protection measures as well as simple bad luck, most often radically alter a groups plans toward a target.

Though the event in Benghazi might have been pre-meditated, it is equally possible that since Ansar al-Islam resided within Benghazi, it was a hasty attack.

They attacked two different complexes in Benghazi which were a half mile apart with AK47s, RPGs and mortar fire. If it were one location, I'd say there was a chance of spontaneity. Two locations and given the coordinated nature of the attack (multiple flanks, suppressing fire, etc) I'd think this was in the works. Now, they might not have had a timeline for when to attack and from that standpoint it could have been an attack of opportunity. That isn't the same as being spontaneous.

Again, I don't want to focus too much on why terrorists want to attack us. That isn't the issue here. The administration's response to what happened such as refusing to send additional security and putting out a version of events that didn't represent the facts on the ground is what concerns me.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dontreadonme
post Oct 26 2012, 08:17 PM
Post #18


Group Icon

**********
I think, therefore I am an enemy of the State....and Fox News

Sponsor
October 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,452
Member No.: 359
Joined: December-25-02

From: Nestled in the Shenandoah
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Libertarian



QUOTE(Amlord @ Oct 26 2012, 04:08 PM) *
They attacked two different complexes in Benghazi which were a half mile apart with AK47s, RPGs and mortar fire. If it were one location, I'd say there was a chance of spontaneity. Two locations and given the coordinated nature of the attack (multiple flanks, suppressing fire, etc) I'd think this was in the works. Now, they might not have had a timeline for when to attack and from that standpoint it could have been an attack of opportunity. That isn't the same as being spontaneous.


By doctrine, a hasty attack does not equal spontaneous; and you'll note that in my next post I stated that I believe some planning certainly occurred. I was noting that opportunity based attacks by violent extremist organizations do occur.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hobbes
post Oct 26 2012, 08:41 PM
Post #19


Group Icon

**********
No More Mr. Nice Guy!

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 5,311
Member No.: 1,155
Joined: September-8-03

From: Dallas, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Oct 26 2012, 03:07 PM) *
I still see possibilities for each argument. I lean towards thinking that this was an attack that had some rudimentary planning at least....for an urban target that was acknowledged at being non-compliant with DoS force protection standards, and had no established quick reaction force within immediate response. 'Heavily defended' has different meanings when the attackers are of similar nationality/religion/worldview as at least some of the defenders.

This most certainly wasn't a casual mob carrying out the attack, it was one of the militia's to be sure....but there really wasn't anything specific in intelligence reporting that would have compelled DoS to spin up assets to cover Benghazi.


The bolded part is just exactly what I understood the administration was putting forward in the couple of weeks following the attack, and like you I think that certainly wasn't the case. I don't think they would have receive any evidence or intelligence indicating it was, either. That is why I say that putting out such a message was clearly a planned response, carried out to achieve an agenda--the question then being What Agenda? Had they come out and said they didn't know exactly how it happened or who carried it out---that would have been an appropriate response. But they seemed to be very clearly putting out that it WAS just a casual mob carrying out an attack in response to the video--an unplanned event that they had no way of knowing about beforehand--maybe that's the agenda right there? in which case the agenda was covering up their failure to heed the previous requests they later said they had no knowledge of?.

As AmLord points out, the use of mortars seems to clearly, to me, point to some level of advance planning. You would have to get the mortars, figure out what the target was, determine where you could attack them from, arrange to get the mortars there, and coordinate that with the attacks themselves (don't want to be dropping mortars on your people). As you stated, clearly not the acts of a casual mob---the presence of mortars to begin with rules that out. Say the idea to do this came about only after the demonstrations started, and were around the compound. How long would it take to decide on a course of action, get the mortars, determine targets, put the mortars in place, determine how to coordinate the attack, etc. I don't see that happening UNLESS it was already mostly planned out, well before the demonstrations even started. Possible the other way, but probable? It doesn't seem the most likely choice to me. Even if it were just planned that day--it was still planned, and hence NOT a random act from the crowd of protestors. And even if planned and carried out that day, what evidence was their that the motive was purely retaliation for the video (clearly a major part of the administration's stance in the weeks following the incident)? I don't think we have much evidence still over exactly what the motive was, so definitely not enough to start stating what it was---UNLESS there was an agenda in doing so, and that agenda was going to override whatever facts they had, or didn't have. And wasn't do that just exactly what Democrats criticized the previous administration for so often?

FWIW...I don't fault the adminstration for failing to adequately prepare for the attack--as you state, the intelligence they received prior to the attack probably made any firm conclusion difficult. What I fault the administration for is their reaction to intelligence received during and AFTER the attack. Why put forward the message that it was just a random act when clearly it wasn't? Wouldn't doing so possibly lead to other crowds also demonstrating against the video thinking 'Hey, we could do that too?'--thereby just making the other embassies LESS safe, as well as the same for any Americans in those areas (or plenty of other areas)? Self preserving spin is what it seems to have been, or else just an extremely naive view of such things and their ramifications--either of which is certainly worthy of criticism. The former isn't surprising...if it is the latter, it plays right into Romney's apology tour rhetoric at the very least, if not actually giving it credence--in which case, it isn't even very well planned spin. Doing the wrong thing, and doing it poorly, is hardly the election slogan they'd want to have.

This post has been edited by Hobbes: Oct 26 2012, 09:12 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dontreadonme
post Oct 26 2012, 08:48 PM
Post #20


Group Icon

**********
I think, therefore I am an enemy of the State....and Fox News

Sponsor
October 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,452
Member No.: 359
Joined: December-25-02

From: Nestled in the Shenandoah
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Libertarian



Hobbes - All true, excepting that mortars aren't terribly difficult or time consuming to emplace and sight, especially when the target is static.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: June 18th, 2018 - 12:08 AM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.