- This topic has 88 replies, 22 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 5 months ago by
ucodegen.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 31, 2012 at 1:39 PM #753557October 31, 2012 at 1:54 PM #753560
SK in CV
Participant[quote=CAwireman]Couple of broad points –
This is likely Obama’s 9/11.
It could also be his Watergate in that what actually happened was bad enough, but not coming forward with full details early on, and overall, covering it up could be his undoing, if in hindsight most Americans think we acted wrongly.[/quote]
Yes, because the death of a diplomat, a US foreign service employee and 2 contractors in a foreign country is almost exactly the same as the bombing of the World Trade Center on US soil killing almost 3,000 people.
And given the great bi-partisan support received by President Bush after the 9/11 attack, I’m sure Benghazi will be almost exactly the same.
What exactly was covered up?
November 5, 2012 at 1:03 PM #753765Zeitgeist
ParticipantMore truth, lies and Obama
“In an astonishing display of media malpractice, CBS News quietly released proof–two days before the election, far too late to reach the media and the public–that President Barack Obama lied to the public about the Benghazi attack, as well as about his later claim to have called the attack ‘terrorism’ from the beginning.”
November 5, 2012 at 1:19 PM #753767Participant[quote=Zeitgeist]More truth, lies and Obama
“In an astonishing display of media malpractice, CBS News quietly released proof–two days before the election, far too late to reach the media and the public–that President Barack Obama lied to the public about the Benghazi attack, as well as about his later claim to have called the attack ‘terrorism’ from the beginning.”
Hilarious. Really. What exactly was the lie?
Not only is there no proof of anything, there’s not even a specific allegation of a lie.
November 5, 2012 at 4:19 PM #753774Participant“The latest twist in the Benghazigate saga is a newly discovered, secret diplomatic cable. The document, sent two weeks before the Sept. 11 murder of the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans, warned that the consulate building in Benghazi could not withstand a “coordinated attack.” It is yet another piece of evidence underscoring the Obama administration’s inability to respond to intelligence.”
Read more: EDITORIAL: Benghazigate and the secret cable – Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/nov/1/benghazigate-and-the-secret-cable/#ixzz2BOk5kjlX
November 5, 2012 at 5:26 PM #753778ParticipantSo we have “an astonishing display of media malpractice” but you can’t even identify what the supposed lie was?
Shouldn’t you have had a BREAKING! tag on this?
November 5, 2012 at 6:33 PM #753781CA renter
Participant[quote=Zeitgeist]”The latest twist in the Benghazigate saga is a newly discovered, secret diplomatic cable. The document, sent two weeks before the Sept. 11 murder of the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans, warned that the consulate building in Benghazi could not withstand a “coordinated attack.” It is yet another piece of evidence underscoring the Obama administration’s inability to respond to intelligence.”
Read more: EDITORIAL: Benghazigate and the secret cable – Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/nov/1/benghazigate-and-the-secret-cable/#ixzz2BOk5kjlX%5B/quote%5D
Isn’t it possible that there are classified and political reasons for our not engaging the attackers? Like Allan mentioned previously, diplomats are often there for reasons that we have no knowledge about (intelligence and/or our attempts to control who governs a particular nation). Obama might not even know/have known what the real mission was in Benghazi.
The truth is that anyone who accepts an assignment like that knows full well what the risks are. I think this is being politicized and twisted into something it’s not. It is totally different from an attack on U.S. soil that kills thousands of innocent American civilians — the two are not even remotely similar.
November 6, 2012 at 12:13 AM #753801ucodegen
Participant[quote=SK in CV]So we have “an astonishing display of media malpractice” but you can’t even identify what the supposed lie was?
Shouldn’t you have had a BREAKING! tag on this?[/quote]
–SNIP–These are two crucial answers in the big picture. Right after getting out of the Rose Garden, where, according to the second debate and other accounts he definitively called the attack terrorism, Obama is asked point blank about not calling it terrorism. He blinks and does not push back.
Understand that this interview is just hours after he gets out of the Rose Garden.
How after this exchange and the CIA explanation of what was being put up the chain in the intel channels does the Ambassador to the United Nations go on the Sunday shows and say what she says about a spontaneous demonstration sparked by that anti-Islam video? And how does the president deliver a speech to the United Nations 13 days later where he references that anti-Islam video six times when referring to the attack in Benghazi?
There are many questions, and here are a few more.
Why did CBS release a clip that appeared to back up Obama’s claim in the second debate on Oct. 19, a few days before the foreign policy debate, and not release the rest of that interview at the beginning?
–What was being put up the Intel/CIA channel was that this WAS a terrorist attack. What it brings up is the potential lock of impartiality with respect to CBS during an election year, and during a debate for the next president. The purpose of the First Amendment is for the public to know what their elected leaders are doing.. so they can accurately evaluate them during an election and decide. The First Amendment is not so that we know the intimate details of some Hollywood Star’s life.
While this does not look good for the current administration, and look like another case of “Fire!, Ready!, Aim!”.. it brings more questions as to whether CBS is acting more like a PAC(Political Action Committee) than a member of the press.
November 6, 2012 at 12:28 AM #753802Participant[quote=CA renter]The truth is that anyone who accepts an assignment like that knows full well what the risks are. I think this is being politicized and twisted into something it’s not. It is totally different from an attack on U.S. soil that kills thousands of innocent American civilians — the two are not even remotely similar.[/quote]Please double check the facts before such a statement. An attack on an embassy is considered an attack on that nation. From the US Department of State: http://diplomacy.state.gov/discoverdiplomacy/diplomacy101/places/170537.htm
Because an embassy represents a sovereign state, any attack on an embassy is considered an attack on the country it represents.
This is why the British police can not just walk into Ecuador’s Embassy to arrest Julian Assange. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/sep/28/ecuador-julian-assange-embassy-wikileaks This fact allows an Embassy to function as an Embassy, and to allow individuals to seek asylum in an Embassy.
While there are risks to working at an Embassy, attacking and killing a Diplomat is a no-no. An Embassy is not to be a ‘war-zone’ or a target. Remember, when one country is seeking negotiations with another country — it generally goes through that country’s Embassy. The whole diplomacy thing relies on it. It also goes to why there is Diplomatic Immunity and Diplomatic packets that can’t be searched. These capabilities should not be used for other purposes. If they are, they are often asked to leave.. and potentially close the Embassy.
November 6, 2012 at 1:01 AM #753804ParticipantYes, I understand that; however, embassies are often the targets of attacks because they are involved in issues that the citizens of that country feel are very much against their best interests.
We cannot hide behind the “diplomat/embassy” label while trying to undermine foreign governments and the will of local citizens.
[edited to add:]
What I’d really like to know (and what is really being covered up) is what, specifically, our “diplomats” in Libya were doing over the past ~18-24 months.
November 6, 2012 at 5:42 AM #753808Participant[quote=ucodegen][quote=SK in CV]So we have “an astonishing display of media malpractice” but you can’t even identify what the supposed lie was?
Shouldn’t you have had a BREAKING! tag on this?[/quote]
–SNIP–These are two crucial answers in the big picture. Right after getting out of the Rose Garden, where, according to the second debate and other accounts he definitively called the attack terrorism, Obama is asked point blank about not calling it terrorism. He blinks and does not push back.
Understand that this interview is just hours after he gets out of the Rose Garden.
How after this exchange and the CIA explanation of what was being put up the chain in the intel channels does the Ambassador to the United Nations go on the Sunday shows and say what she says about a spontaneous demonstration sparked by that anti-Islam video? And how does the president deliver a speech to the United Nations 13 days later where he references that anti-Islam video six times when referring to the attack in Benghazi?
There are many questions, and here are a few more.
Why did CBS release a clip that appeared to back up Obama’s claim in the second debate on Oct. 19, a few days before the foreign policy debate, and not release the rest of that interview at the beginning?
–What was being put up the Intel/CIA channel was that this WAS a terrorist attack. What it brings up is the potential lock of impartiality with respect to CBS during an election year, and during a debate for the next president. The purpose of the First Amendment is for the public to know what their elected leaders are doing.. so they can accurately evaluate them during an election and decide. The First Amendment is not so that we know the intimate details of some Hollywood Star’s life.
While this does not look good for the current administration, and look like another case of “Fire!, Ready!, Aim!”.. it brings more questions as to whether CBS is acting more like a PAC(Political Action Committee) than a member of the press.[/quote]
I’ve read this kind of stuff a few dozen times over the last month or so. I don’t get what the issue is. It’s apparently obvious to many but it totally escapes me. What is magic about the word “terrorism”? He called it “an act of terror” at least twice in the two days following the attack. And apparently during the CBS interview, he did not. Is that the lie? Would everything have been just perfect if he’d called it terrorism at every opportunity? Are terrorism and a spontaneous attack mutually exclusive? Does calling it terrorism change anything? If so, what is different?
November 6, 2012 at 5:46 AM #753809Participant[quote=CA renter]
What I’d really like to know (and what is really being covered up) is what, specifically, our “diplomats” in Libya were doing over the past ~18-24 months.[/quote]I think that’s an easy one. The were collecting intelligence, and in some cases providing support to various factions that were deemed to further US interests in the region. Don’t expect a detailed report on those activities.
November 6, 2012 at 8:13 AM #753819all
Participant[quote=ucodegen]
While there are risks to working at an Embassy, attacking and killing a Diplomat is a no-no. An Embassy is not to be a ‘war-zone’ or a target. Remember, when one country is seeking negotiations with another country — it generally goes through that country’s Embassy. The whole diplomacy thing relies on it. It also goes to why there is Diplomatic Immunity and Diplomatic packets that can’t be searched. These capabilities should not be used for other purposes. If they are, they are often asked to leave.. and potentially close the Embassy.[/quote]The Benghazi outpost was not an Embassy. And if we are to believe Allan the ambassador was not just a diplomat, but also a facilitator in weapons proliferation scheme.
November 6, 2012 at 8:48 AM #753823NotCranky
ParticipantGenies out of bottles don’t give a shit about who is a diplomat and who isn’t. Our system can not successfully deal with all the shit. Get over it. People died people lie all the time…it’s war. There is nothing worth hanging the Commander-in-Chief for on this particular detail.
November 6, 2012 at 10:21 AM #753827Participant[quote=craptcha]The Benghazi outpost was not an Embassy. And if we are to believe Allan the ambassador was not just a diplomat, but also a facilitator in weapons proliferation scheme.[/quote]Umm.. how about some references to support your contention there? From what I find, it was quite the opposite. There were some weapons, particularly ground to air weapons (ie Stingers) that the US was trying to locate. Remember the empty containers shown on the news? Considering that a 737, 747, 777, A300 etc makes a nice juicy target for a Stinger or similar missile, and it would make a great target/weapon combination for a terrorist.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/nightmare-libya-20000-surface-air-missiles-missing/story?id=14610199
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.