Boston vs. Benghazi
- Thread starter Howey
- Start date
Disillusioned
New member
I've already seen stuff about the gun laws crap and the "law abiding" stuff. Nothing is safe from politics, they'll use anything.
Steelplate
New member
At the same time.... to be completely fair....the administration had jumped the gun on the "Innocence of Islam(Muslims?)" Video.
Don't get me wrong, that video caused a lot of protestation throughout the globe, but the attack on the embassy was a planned attack. Although I have my suspicions that the attackers pulled that video off the net and publicized it to the masses as a diversion for the attack.
Airstrip One
Completely Effed
Assuming nothing comes out that would indicate the administration screwed up prior the Boston Massacre, I'm guessing it will receive far less blowback for this than for Benghazi. Except for a few extreme haters, of course.
Why ? Because Benghazi OBVIOUSLY WAS TERRORISM....it would be nothing else no matter what the reason for it.....and the questions were immediate because
of the early reports that the victims asked for help....asked for reinforcements....asked for some sort of rescue effort and were denied it.....
and those questions have never yet been answered adequately.....the attack lasted several hours, watched in real time by overhead drones with no attempt
of any kind to respond......and Hillary has the gall to say "what does it matter now" when questioned......
Seems some lesson was learned.....they didn't hesitate very long to call the Boston bombings terrorism....again its obvious it is terrorism.....
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
I think more people were concerned with the fact that our leaders were deliberately pumping shit out as fact when they had no clue what had happened. Then when they learned more, they continued pumping the same bullshit that was obviously incorrect.
No, they were pissed that he was trying to blame it on a stupid video that had nothing to do with it. We have threads, we don't even have to use memories.
This is rewriting history... People weren't pissed about the "lack of information" they were pissed about the attempt to spread false information.
Steelplate
New member
I think they were going with the information they had. I don't know that it was deliberate and neither do you. It's kind of the same thing with the WMD's in Iraq. I do believe that the administration jumped the gun, but deliberate? I don't know.
Well sure, we arnt three weeks from a Presidental Election.
The point I was trying to make, quite legitimately, was that the government's initial statements on Benghazi were based on the limited information they had. Yet the Obamahaters were sooooooo anxious to find something thing wrong they thought up their own misinformation and misinterpreted the president.
One day later we knew little about Benghazi, same with Boston today. Obama didn't even say Boston was an act of terror until today. Both situations are remarkably similar.
What's different? Someone, Jarod?, had it right. There was an election coming up. The right had to criticize the president.
Utter nonsense, more rewriting of history. The very first day people with brains were pointing out that the frickin' stupid youtube video had nothing to do with it. It wasn't jumping the gun it was a flat out attempt to blame something that had nothing to do with it. They even went so far as to put the dude in jail. I don't even know if he's still there or not. An equivalent would be Obama going out and saying that this was the fault of some book about abortion somewhere that was published several months before...
It wasn't, we know it wasn't, we knew back then it wasn't, yet he and his administration spent weeks trying to convince us there was a link between a stupid childlike moronic youtube video and Benghazi.
Yeah, because "jumping the gun" and blaming nonsense for weeks for "any act of terror" is the same thing as simply saying that there is an investigation ongoing...
Seriously, this is childish. My 12 year old comes up with better arguments than this.
They watched the attack in REAL TIME from 2 drones, WATCHED, as in television......they had communications with the people on the ground....
They knew exactly what was going on compared to the 2 WTC attacks......then the aftermath buffoonery....
Sept. 12: After his Rose Garden speech, Obama tapes an interview for “60 Minutes.” Obama says he didn’t use the word “terrorism” in his Rose Garden speech because “it’s too early to know exactly how this came about.”
Sept. 15: Obama discusses the Benghazi attack in his weekly address. He makes no mention of terror, terrorists or extremists. He does talk about the anti-Muslim film and “every angry mob” that it inspired in pockets of the Middle East.
Sept. 16: Libya President Mohamed Magariaf says on CBS News’ “Face the Nation” that the attack on the U.S. consulate was planned months in advance. But Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, tells CBS News’ Bob Schieffer: “We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.” She says it began “spontaneously …
Sept. 18: Obama was asked about the Benghazi attack on “The Late Show with David Letterman.” The president said, “Here’s what happened,” and began discussing the impact of the anti-Muslim video. He then said, “Extremists and terrorists used this as an excuse to attack a variety of our embassies, including the consulate in Libya.”
Finally, and most likely unauthorized,
Sept. 19: Matt Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, tells a Senate subcommittee (at 1:06:49 in the video) that the four State Department officials in Benghazi “were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy.” It is the first time an administration official labeled it a “terrorist attack.”
Sept. 20: W.H. Spokesman Calls It a ‘Terrorist Attack’ — Not Obama
Sept. 21: Clinton, speaking to reporters before a meeting with Pakistani Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar, calls it a “terrorist attack” for the first time. ........." What happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack, and we will not rest until we have tracked down and brought to justice the terrorists who murdered four Americans.”
Sept. 24-25: Obama Refuses to Call It a Terrorist Attack
And then officially,
Sept. 26: Carney is asked at a press briefing aboard Air Force One en route to Ohio why the president has not called the Benghazi incident a “terrorist attack.” He said, “The president — our position is, as reflected by the NCTC director, that it was a terrorist attack. It is, I think by definition, a terrorist attack when there is a prolonged assault on an embassy with weapons. … So, let’s be clear, it was a terrorist attack and it was an inexcusable attack.”
And now for the laugh line of year.....October 15, Clinton says that she bears the responsibility for failing to protect Stevens in Benghazi.
Steelplate
New member
So drones and people in the middle of a chaotic situation can read intent?
I'm not saying that the White House didn't fuck up, I'm just saying that it's your right wing media fueled paranoia that says it was done intentionally.
What would be the motivation to do that?
I'm not saying that the White House didn't fuck up, I'm just saying that it's your right wing media fueled paranoia that says it was done intentionally.
What would be the motivation to do that?
Do you ever tell the truth Dixie Light?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/larry-womack/obama-benghazi-attack_b_2022093.html
I have now several times encountered dramatic images of the attack in Benghazi accompanied by oversize text that tastefully accuses American officials of watching idly while Americans were murdered in an opportunistic terror assault during the 9/11 anniversary and Innocence of Muslims demonstrations.
The idea is absurd on its face to even the most casual observer. Firsthand accounts of the harrowing events of that night are completely at-odds with the claim. Ambassador Stevens either died or his body was left behind because nobody could see through the smoke. Reinforcements from Tripoli were on the scene. The CIA was, we have come to strongly suspect, just about a mile away. Libyan police died on the scene, alongside American personnel. The accusation just doesn't jibe with what we know.
But because Internet memes apparently now pass for fact checks at Forbes, I suppose somebody must respond. That's where this piece comes in, I suppose. So, let's talk about how a CBS report about a rescue effort amid a fury of confusion became an Internet meme about no attempted rescue while everyone watched on the big screen.
On Oct. 24, CBS news ran a story about the Benghazi attack. Ironically enough, its focus was a special response team that was dispatched from Europe -- but never made it -- to the CIA building where embassy personnel, Libyan police and backup from Tripoli had taken up shelter. We have come to believe that it was a CIA building not from that story but because Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah,) told the whole world as much live on C-SPAN while his Republican colleagues coolly tried to carry on exploiting the tragedy for political gain without revealing that inconvenient -- and quite classified -- truth. And we know that other backup had arrived because, unlike people who create these graphics, you and I read the news and have decided to acquaint ourselves with the horrific chain of events before firing up Photoshop.
The story concluded with the following:
Meanwhile, CBS News correspondent Margaret Brennan reports that the FBI and State Department have reviewed video from security cameras that captured the attack on the consulate.
The audio feed of the attack was being monitored in real time in Washington by diplomatic security official Charlene Lamb. CBS News has learned that video of the assault was recovered 20 days later from the more than 10 security cameras at the compound.
The government security camera footage of the attack was in the possession of local Libyans until the week of Oct. 1. The video will be among the evidence that the State Department's review board will analyze to determine who carried out the assault.
Forbes' Larry Bell rather quickly managed to twist that into:
Just one hour after the seven-hour-long terrorist attacks upon the U.S. consulate in Benghazi began, our commander-in-chief, vice president, secretary of defense and their national security team gathered together in the Oval Office listening to phone calls from American defenders desperately under siege and watching real-time video of developments from a drone circling over the site. Yet they sent no military aid that might have intervened in time to save lives.
Now, that... that takes some Olympic-quality mental gymnastics. There's a lot going on there, really. Just layer upon layer of error. We see varied waves and sources of backup including military presented as "no military aid," a live audio feed conflated with video obtained twenty days later and Charlene Lamb starring as "our commander-in-chief, vice president, secretary of defense and their national security team." Wow, that Charlene must be one hell of a lady! She's the president, half the cabinet and can see with her ears!
An alternative (and more disappointing,) explanation is that Forbes has no editorial or ethical standards as a publisher and Larry Bell strives to one day add a particularly pungent stench to Hell. It's all pretty ballsy, considering the headline of the source story was, "U.S. military poised for rescue in Benghazi."
Funny story: Bell accounts for that headline in a similarly creative fashion, later in his piece. You see, CBS reports that, "A team of American military commandos was sent from Europe to an airfield at Sigonella, in Sicily, Italy, putting them at least an hour's flight away from Benghazi... But U.S. officials say it did not arrive in Sicily until after the attack was over." Bell reinterprets that to mean that forces were, "480 miles away at the U.S. military base in Sigonella, Sicily, but were never dispatched." On their way from elsewhere but too late, stationed there and never dispatched? Why that's just "to-may-to, to-mah-to" over at Forbes!
How do I know that the CBS piece provided the raw material for the jumble of lies that was Bell's rant, you ask? Because he tells us so, explicitly, in said rant. "CBS News has reported," he wrote, "that a series of email alerts received late Tuesday evening provides additional information that was known by Obama administration officials shortly after the attack commenced." Those cables are the basis of the story, "U.S. military poised for rescue in Benghazi," which contained the three paragraphs wildly remixed into Bell's claims. (Close observers will note that the time stamp at Forbes is earlier than the CBS link I have provided. I feel it is safe to assume that that has to do with a re-publication or difference in publication time zones, rather than Mr. Bell's mad fortune telling skills.) He also acknowledges that ABC had obtained the cables separately, but presents CBS as his primary source.
Incompetence isn't normally intentional....lying for 14 days is.
A 7 hour long attack with help just across the Med.....465 miles from the toe of Italy.....and not even a lame attempt was made.
Last edited:
Steelplate
New member
Incompetence? Really? You want to go there when it took 10 years to get out of a conflict with Iraq that we had no business being in and cost us at least a trillion dollars that doesn't include what's OFF the books? Gimme a fucking break... and more importantly.... change the fucking channel every once in a while.
14 days must seem like an eternity to you to admit a mistake. But, I'll tell you what....it's a HELL of a lot better than a decade.
Crutmauler
New member
They knew what happened in Benghazi and then lied about it. Most likely because the Obama campaign was running ads on TV that bragged about "decimating" Al Qaeda. So admitting that AQ scored a major victory in Libya was out of the question until after the election.