Octopus Overlords

Rip wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:

Carpet_pissr wrote: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.

Victoria Raverna wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:

Carpet_pissr wrote: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?

GreenGoo wrote:

Victoria Raverna wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:

Carpet_pissr wrote: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?

Redfive wrote:

Victoria Raverna wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:

Carpet_pissr wrote: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.

Victoria Raverna wrote: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 wrote: 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 wrote:Obama picked up key endorsements over the weekend from Chavez, Castro, and Putin.

Smoove_B wrote:

msduncan wrote: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.

Carpet_pissr wrote:Heh.

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

Exodor wrote:

Anonymous Bosch wrote: 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?

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

Anonymous Bosch wrote: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?

Victoria Raverna wrote:I was suggesting that it is possible that he was not targeted for assassination.

Anonymous Bosch wrote:

Victoria Raverna wrote: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.

Zarathud wrote: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.

Exodor wrote:

Anonymous Bosch wrote: 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?

Exodor wrote:This is hardly a Watergate-style coverup.

Exodor wrote:

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

Defiant wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:
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 wrote: This is getting weird.

Exodor wrote: This is hardly a Watergate-style coverup.

Exodor wrote:Romney's plans for defense spending




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

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

"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.

Pyperkub wrote: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.

"...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...."

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.