2012 Elections

[GreenGoo]

Further clarification please: everyone keep using the word "assassinated" for how the ambassador was killed, which has a specific meaning. Reports (not sure if this is still the story or not) said that he died from smoke inhalation. Anyone fact check that?

The 3 men with him died due to gunshot wounds. J. Christopher Stevens died due to suffocation.

Actually Sean died from smoke as well. Of course you have to consider they died from smoke as a result of hiding from people trying to shoot them.

The one article I found said 3 died to gunshot wounds with Stevens suffocating. Since it was like the 15th article I had to look at to find the actual cause of death (wtf journalists) I took it at its word.

[GreenGoo]

Further clarification please: everyone keep using the word "assassinated" for how the ambassador was killed, which has a specific meaning. Reports (not sure if this is still the story or not) said that he died from smoke inhalation. Anyone fact check that?

The 3 men with him died due to gunshot wounds. J. Christopher Stevens died due to suffocation.

So the ambassador was assassinated through smoke inhalation?

I'm not following. If someone tries to kill you and you die as a result of their actions, are you suggesting he died of natural causes?

Are you suggesting that they really wanted to kill the other 3 and the Ambassador just got in the way of the smoke?

Puh-leeze. That's directed at you too Carpet_pissr.

In any case, I fail to see a significant difference between "intended to kill the Ambassador" and "intended to assassinate the Ambassador". They weren't dressed in ninja outfits and slipped poison into his nyquil, but what difference does it make?

[Defiant]

I don't see that the method of the murder matters when using the term assassination. What I think matters is the targeting. It's not clear to me that the attack was carried out to specifically murder the ambassador (with the other deaths collateral damage), as opposed to attacking the embassy and kill as many Americans as possible. As such, the term assassination may be inappropriate, but it doesn't really change the outrageousness of the attack.

[Victoria Raverna]

Further clarification please: everyone keep using the word "assassinated" for how the ambassador was killed, which has a specific meaning. Reports (not sure if this is still the story or not) said that he died from smoke inhalation. Anyone fact check that?

The 3 men with him died due to gunshot wounds. J. Christopher Stevens died due to suffocation.

So the ambassador was assassinated through smoke inhalation?

I'm not following. If someone tries to kill you and you die as a result of their actions, are you suggesting he died of natural causes?

Are you suggesting that they really wanted to kill the other 3 and the Ambassador just got in the way of the smoke?

Puh-leeze. That's directed at you too Carpet_pissr.

In any case, I fail to see a significant difference between "intended to kill the Ambassador" and "intended to assassinate the Ambassador". They weren't dressed in ninja outfits and slipped poison into his nyquil, but what difference does it make?

I was suggesting that it is possible that he was not targeted for assassination.

[Victoria Raverna]

Further clarification please: everyone keep using the word "assassinated" for how the ambassador was killed, which has a specific meaning. Reports (not sure if this is still the story or not) said that he died from smoke inhalation. Anyone fact check that?

The 3 men with him died due to gunshot wounds. J. Christopher Stevens died due to suffocation.

So the ambassador was assassinated through smoke inhalation?

Sorry, but WTF is the use of this post? Please explain how smoke or bullets make an ambassador any less dead.

This whole fiasco is a tragic joke. The fact that four of our citizens were killed is bad enough alone, but the unbelievable (and totally incompetent) efforts of so many to cover up why is a disgrace.

And it's exactly that. A poor attempt at a cover up.

And the lame attempt during the 2nd debate to say that Obama actually acknowledged it as a terrorist attack is just that, lame.

Why would he then afterward go on Letterman and the the U.N. and blame it on the stupid video?

You really don't need a tin foil hat here to see the obvious issue. And why the hell wouldn't it be politicized? Have you seen the Daily show spot linked I think from this board that shows the ridiculous administration claims? I mean, the freaking Daily Show is calling you out!

Stop insulting your and everyone else's intelligence.

When people are using the term "assassinated" then the distinction between how the ambassasor died is important.

As for the second debate, Obama's own words showed that he called it an "act of terrors" and what you called people who do "act of terrors"? Terrorists? And what you called their attack? A terrorist attack?

[Anonymous Bosch]

When people are using the term "assassinated" then the distinction between how the ambassasor died is important.

As for the second debate, Obama's own words showed that he called it an "act of terrors" and what you called people who do "act of terrors"? Terrorists? And what you called their attack? A terrorist attack?

I realise English is likely is not your first language, so allow me to clarify.

The problem is that the president wants to pretend that because he spoke in broad, generic terms during his Rose Garden speech ("acts of terror"), he was actually directly referring to the Benghazi attack as an act of terrorism, and the events of the following week never took place. But the fact that he, and various spokesholes for his administration, spent the next week expressly trying to sell the public on a false mob-violence narrative makes that particular explanation come across as a ludicrous "ignore your lying eyes" cop-out.

[msduncan]

Obama picked up key endorsements over the weekend from Chavez, Castro, and Putin.

[Zarathud]

As far as an attack on Obama's foreign policy, criticizing the wording over the Behnghazi attack is weak. Pathetically weak. If this wasn't an election, this would not be a national issue.

If you think Romney would have handled it better or much differently, you're sipping too much of the coolaid. Romney's not going to be willing or able to send a large enough force to protect every diplomat at risk. Nor would they be welcome.

[Exodor]

spent the next week expressly trying to sell the public on a false mob-violence narrative makes that particular explanation come across as a ludicrous "ignore your lying eyes" cop-out.

The same "false" narrative that the CIA was reporting to the president?


I know we should know better than to trust information from the CIA regarding the middle east but do you expect the administration to tout a public line that's different from what the intelligence agency is telling them?

[Smoove_B]

Obama picked up key endorsements over the weekend from Chavez, Castro, and Putin.

I know you say that all you listen to is Alabama football on the radio, but I'm beginning to think you are actually Matt Drudge.

[msduncan]

Obama picked up key endorsements over the weekend from Chavez, Castro, and Putin.

I know you say that all you listen to is Alabama football on the radio, but I'm beginning to think you are actually Matt Drudge.

It doesn't take long to just toss up links on a website.........

[El Guapo]

Hmmmm...

MSD - Matt S. Drudge?

[Carpet_pissr]

Heh.

Matthew Nathan Drudge
October 27, 1966 (age 45)
Takoma Park, Maryland, U.S.

[msduncan]

Heh.

Matthew Nathan Drudge
October 27, 1966 (age 45)
Takoma Park, Maryland, U.S.

Had my middle name changed to 'Saban'.

[El Guapo]

Matthew Snathan Drudge?

[Anonymous Bosch]

spent the next week expressly trying to sell the public on a false mob-violence narrative makes that particular explanation come across as a ludicrous "ignore your lying eyes" cop-out.

The same "false" narrative that the CIA was reporting to the president?


I know we should know better than to trust information from the CIA regarding the middle east but do you expect the administration to tout a public line that's different from what the intelligence agency is telling them?

It would be naive to the point of incredulity to believe that was the only intelligence received by the administration for the entire week following the attack (e.g. there was also video footage from a drone showing it to be a protracted and organized attack). And wasn't the administration supposedly taking a wait-and-see approach?

(Sorry for the all edits, I had my link and verbage all messed up).

[Isgrimnur]

Obama picked up key endorsements over the weekend from Chavez, Castro, and Putin.

Except that Chavez gave an endorsement on September 30th. And the Castro in question was Mariela Castro, daughter of Raul. And I can on;y find one source saying that Putin gave an endorsement, with no actual supporting details.

[Smoove_B]

I told you where to look -- go to the front page of Drudge and follow the link right at the top of the page.

Feel free to ignore the fact that the story was covering items posted on 10/2, not "over the weekend".

[Isgrimnur]

Despite not finding that source, I'm still batting 2 for 3. Thanks for the clean-up.

[Exodor]

It would be naive to the point of incredulity to believe that was the only intelligence received by the administration for the entire week following the attack (e.g. there was also video footage from a drone showing it to be a protracted and organized attack). And wasn't the administration supposedly taking a wait-and-see approach?

I'm far too lazy to dig up the quote but I believe the statement was something to the effect of "things are still foggy but at the moment our intelligence indicates it was a spontaneous demonstration that led to an attack."


Which seems to be a pretty accurate description of the then-current intelligence and the state of affairs in Benghazi.

This is hardly a Watergate-style coverup.

[GreenGoo]

I was suggesting that it is possible that he was not targeted for assassination.

Well, that's kinda dumb, sorry for saying so. He could have died to a gunshot wound to the back of his head, execution style, and still not have been targeted for assassination.

It's clear from reports that they went after higher ranking officials, specifically targeting the safe house for this purpose.

If the word is such a problem for people, would you accept that they attacked with the intent to kill, and people died? Not sure why people give a crap about the word. If someone does a driveby, knowing a gang leader likes to hang out there, and the driveby'ers hope they get a lucky bullet, is that an assassination or no?

Honestly, I'm confused by the backlash to the wording

Can I use "targeted and killed high ranking officials" instead of assassinate? Would that work for everyone?

[GreenGoo]

When people are using the term "assassinated" then the distinction between how the ambassasor died is important.

As for the second debate, Obama's own words showed that he called it an "act of terrors" and what you called people who do "act of terrors"? Terrorists? And what you called their attack? A terrorist attack?

I realise English is likely is not your first language, so allow me to clarify.

The problem is that the president wants to pretend that because he spoke in broad, generic terms during his Rose Garden speech ("acts of terror"), he was actually directly referring to the Benghazi attack as an act of terrorism, and the events of the following week never took place. But the fact that he, and various spokesholes for his administration, spent the next week expressly trying to sell the public on a false mob-violence narrative makes that particular explanation come across as a ludicrous "ignore your lying eyes" cop-out.

Can't disagree with this. This is exactly how I view it as well.

[GreenGoo]

As far as an attack on Obama's foreign policy, criticizing the wording over the Behnghazi attack is weak. Pathetically weak. If this wasn't an election, this would not be a national issue.

It's not about his wording, although his administration is trying to turn it into a technicality. It's about his administration insisting it was something that it wasn't, when the rest of the world including american citizens had access to facts showing the admin's stance was demonstrably false.

Arguing over the President's speech is to ignore the PR people doing the rest of the talking for at least a week.

This is getting weird.

[GreenGoo]

spent the next week expressly trying to sell the public on a false mob-violence narrative makes that particular explanation come across as a ludicrous "ignore your lying eyes" cop-out.

The same "false" narrative that the CIA was reporting to the president?


I know we should know better than to trust information from the CIA regarding the middle east but do you expect the administration to tout a public line that's different from what the intelligence agency is telling them?

I expect them to take a more cautious stance if they are unsure. And they had reason to be unsure, since the media was reporting something else entirely.

[GreenGoo]

This is hardly a Watergate-style coverup.

Agreed. But it is really, really dumb. And the PR hardline mob violence shows an administration is more willing to go to the mat with information they can't possibly know is true (since it wasn't). They doubled down instead of backing off. That pisses me off and is very dangerous to see in a government with such power (which applies to any US administration, not just the current one).

[Anonymous Bosch]

It would be naive to the point of incredulity to believe that was the only intelligence received by the administration for the entire week following the attack (e.g. there was also video footage from a drone showing it to be a protracted and organized attack). And wasn't the administration supposedly taking a wait-and-see approach?

I'm far too lazy to dig up the quote but I believe the statement was something to the effect of "things are still foggy but at the moment our intelligence indicates it was a spontaneous demonstration that led to an attack."


Which seems to be a pretty accurate description of the then-current intelligence and the state of affairs in Benghazi.

This is hardly a Watergate-style coverup.

Simply because it's not "a Watergate-style coverup", does not mean that much of the "fog" has not been wilful and political in nature. One need only look at the various, and rather inconsistent, explanations that have been floated since the attack took place to see that (e.g. The administration took a wait-and-see approach, while simultaneously rushing out various spokesholes and the president himself in the subsequent week following the attack to sell the mob-violence narrative, even though the president also knew it was a terrorist attack and expressed that based upon his "acts of terror" remark in the Rose Garden speech).

[Defiant]

It's clear from reports that they went after higher ranking officials, specifically targeting the safe house for this purpose.

Ah, I was unaware of this. If this was the case, then yeah, the term "assassination" sounds warranted.

[GreenGoo]

It's clear from reports that they went after higher ranking officials, specifically targeting the safe house for this purpose.

Ah, I was unaware of this. If this was the case, then yeah, the term "assassination" sounds warranted.

Careful, I can't find a cite. Still looking, but don't take it as gospel quite yet. Edit: If anyone has a cite for this I'd appreciate it. There is so much noise right now that like I said, it took me 15 articles to find out the Ambassador's cause of death.

Although I don't think it's a stretch to conclude that the safe house was hit simultaneously to make sure they "got them", and by them, I mean the diplomatic staff. If they wanted to kill americans (rather than government officials), there are probably (I don't know, completely guessing) less hardened targets available.

[RLMullen]

This is getting weird.

This got weird before I made my first post in this thread... it's why I even came out of lurker-mode to post.

It's starting to feel like an episode of the Twighlight Zone where the plot is that the population was split into two different arcs of reality for about five weeks. Now we are all back in the same arc arguing what each of us saw. It's that kind of weird.

The other explanation is blind partisanship with the emphasis on "blind".

[RLMullen]

This is hardly a Watergate-style coverup.

On this we can agree. This is not a Watergate-style coverup. A more apt analogy would be "Baghdad Bob".

[Holman]

I still think the accusations of perfidy would carry more weight if the administration hadn't eventually been willing to change its story to fit the facts. Or if getting the story wrong (and sticking to it too long) had actually *caused* harm rather than simply misinterpreting it.

[Exodor]

Romney's plans for defense spending




Holy shit, gonna take a LOT of loopholes to pay for that.

[Holman]

It's a brilliant plan. There's no way the Soviets can keep up.

[Calavera[GG]]

Romney's plans for defense spending




Holy shit, gonna take a LOT of loopholes to pay for that.

So the solution to all our problems is more government spending, just of the "right kind" I suppose. Who knew?

[Freezer-TPF-]

It's a brilliant plan. There's no way the Soviets can keep up.

Good. They are the greatest threat to our nation today. And I'm not just talking about what happened to Apollo Creed.

[Pyperkub]

Kind of humorous:

"Today's locker room laugh from practice was hearing how Paul Ryan looked Colt McCoy dead in the eye & said "great job at Oklahoma State' ''

-- @scottfujita99, the Cleveland linebacker, after Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan got Colt McCoy mixed up with the real McCoy, Browns starter and Oklahoma State product Brandon Weeden, on Wednesday while on a visit to the Browns practice facility.

[Rip]

Kind of humorous:

"Today's locker room laugh from practice was hearing how Paul Ryan looked Colt McCoy dead in the eye & said "great job at Oklahoma State' ''

-- @scottfujita99, the Cleveland linebacker, after Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan got Colt McCoy mixed up with the real McCoy, Browns starter and Oklahoma State product Brandon Weeden, on Wednesday while on a visit to the Browns practice facility.

I'm just glad he didn't ask him how his family was getting along with the Hatfields.

[Redfive]

From Bloomberg This is rather old news and I've heard it elsewhere.

From the story:

"...The U.S. State Department monitored the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, “in almost real-time,” according to an official who oversees diplomatic security.

Charlene Lamb, deputy assistant secretary of state for international programs in the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, said a security agent activated a danger-notification system as the attack began shortly before 10 p.m. local time on Sept. 11.

“From that point on, I could follow what was happening in almost real time,” Lamb said in written testimony prepared for a hearing today by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which has been investigating the attack and whether security was adequate.

State Department officials said yesterday they had never concluded the attack grew out of a protest over a video depicting the Prophet Muhammad, as some Obama administration officials had said last month. The officials, who briefed reporters on condition of anonymity, said there had been no protest at the U.S. consulate that day and the attack came suddenly...."

Real time information showing no spontaneous attack growing out of protest.

Cue Obama on Letterman, at the U.N., etc...blaming it on the video.

I mean it's right there people, from the State Department no less.

Why is there still a defense of this behavior from anyone with a shred of intellectual integrity?

[GreenGoo]

That's not what the CIA said.

See how it can get uncertain?

In any case, is the state department claiming there was no protests there at all over the movie? Because that's not the story I read, and so instead of clarifying, more doubts are thrown around.

Great.

[Kraken]

This was reprinted from today's NYTimes:

WASHINGTON — Even as Susan E. Rice took to Sunday talk shows last month to describe the Obama administration’s assessment of the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, intelligence analysts suspected that the explanation was outdated.

Rice, the US ambassador to the United Nations, has said that the judgments she offered on talk shows Sept. 16 came from talking points prepared by the CIA, which reckoned the attack that killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans had resulted from a mob angry about an anti-Islamic video. That assessment was based on intercepted communications, informants’ tips, and Libyan press reports, officials said.

Later that Sunday, though, US intelligence analysts were already sifting through field reports that seemed to contradict that assessment. But it would be several days before the intelligence agencies changed their formal assessment based on the new reports, and informed administration officials about the change. Intelligence officials say such a lag is typical.

The gap between the talking points prepared for Rice and the contemporaneous field reports that seemed to paint a much different picture illustrates how the process of turning raw field data, which officials say need to be vetted and assessed, into polished assessments can take days.

Mitt Romney and congressional Republicans have sharply criticized Rice’s comments and the administration’s shifting public positions on the cause of the attack. Intelligence officials, alarmed that their work has turned into a political football, defend the approach, noting top administration officials receive daily briefings that reflect the consensus of the array of US intelligence agencies, but can also dip into the fast-moving stream of field reports, with the caveat that information is incomplete and may be wrong.

Like Goo said, that's how it can get uncertain. Perhaps the administration should've refrained from making a statement until it had its ducks in a row.