Fox is one source I'm using; Read if you'd like, if not, doesn't bother me.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Pctx presents: Libya. The official thread of who knew what, when and why it happened
- Thread starter Pctx
- Start date
- Status
Fox is one source I'm using; Read if you'd like, if not, doesn't bother me.
Learn2read
Member
Remember people, it's all about the victims in this, he just wants justice for them. It's not about him at all.
airmangataosenai
Member
Pretty much this. I've followed this story relatively closely for months by reading conservative rags and recognize how flimsy their sourcing and con jecture on what their hints mean are. It's just this year's Weatherman Underground, a way to tie Obama to something "Controversial" without having to actually accuse him of direct wrongdoing. There's a reason why stories like this never pick up traction outside of the usual suspects.
I seriously can't believe how much time you've wasted on this chart. You do realize everyone is laughing at you, right?
Your reasoning is based partly on the assumption that someone higher up told ground forces at the CIA annex to stand down. This is specious at best. Currently we have one person saying 'We requested to attack' weeks after the actual event and the organization they supposedly made the request to are denying that these requests were denied. We cannot assume anything beyond this. The spokesperson wisely reminded us that there were many lives saved that day by courageous Americans.
You second point, that some ephemeral being lied to us, is factually wrong. They never lied to us. As information was obtained in the weeks following, the original reading of the attack was proved out to be true. That there was a protest linked to the video and it was used as cover for a heavily armed attack. These are the things they told us, and this is what actually happened.
That should tell you something....
NullPointer
Member
So let me see here.
A. The administration knew of forthcoming attacks and chose not to secure our embassies and consulates.
and/or
B. When the planned attacks happened, the administration decided to do nothing about it.
and/or
C. Even though the administration knew that the attack had been organized and planned for some time, they made up a story about a video, or decided to run with the video as cause, in order to avoid (A) and (B) becoming known. Not everybody was clued in to this deception.
So, am I understanding what is believed to be the deceptive chain of events here? A or B or C or all of the above?
Pctx... I actually went back and read your updated OP, since it seems like you put in some effort. Thing is... there's still nothing there to be outraged about. You assert that the government lied or is lying about exactly what happened. Others suggest that there was conflicting intelligence or not enough information, or some confusion between various departments/levels of government.
But ultimately--so what? Not so what that four people died, as you mention in your new OP that some in the thread have said. But so what that they didn't immediately come out and say "yo. terrorist attack." I'm just not sure what I'm supposed to be outraged about. Were they trying to cover up that it was a terrorist attack, just hoping and praying that in the two months before the election, it wouldn't become obvious that it wasn't an angry mob that happened to kill a few people? Were they trying to cover up in-the-field errors by commanders or some such? And if so, how is that even related to it being called a terrorist attack?
I mean, yeah, several people died, and so something must have gone wrong. It's just, all this business about acts of terror vs video tapes... there's nothing there. It doesn't mean anything.
*shrug*
But ultimately--so what? Not so what that four people died, as you mention in your new OP that some in the thread have said. But so what that they didn't immediately come out and say "yo. terrorist attack." I'm just not sure what I'm supposed to be outraged about. Were they trying to cover up that it was a terrorist attack, just hoping and praying that in the two months before the election, it wouldn't become obvious that it wasn't an angry mob that happened to kill a few people? Were they trying to cover up in-the-field errors by commanders or some such? And if so, how is that even related to it being called a terrorist attack?
I mean, yeah, several people died, and so something must have gone wrong. It's just, all this business about acts of terror vs video tapes... there's nothing there. It doesn't mean anything.
*shrug*
CHEEZMO
Obsidian fan
Yeah, shame on those trying to politicise these peoples' deaths.
butzopower
proud of his butz
Who do you think had the opening kick?
Mighty Chin
Banned
Up here in Vancouver in the aftermath of the 2010 Stanley Cup Game 7 we had a Riot. Lots of property damage, beatings, no loss of life. Camera's everywhere and we are still sorting through video and looking for the people responsible. Almost 2 1/2 years later and only a handful have of Rioters have been charged.
45 Days after Benghazi, a nowhere city that no one on this side of the ocean ever heard of before September 11th. A city in a recently liberated Country under the thumb of a heinous dictator for the last 40 years where 4 Americans were killed and the Fox News Rabble think that the current Administration isn't being forthcoming?
WOW!
45 Days after Benghazi, a nowhere city that no one on this side of the ocean ever heard of before September 11th. A city in a recently liberated Country under the thumb of a heinous dictator for the last 40 years where 4 Americans were killed and the Fox News Rabble think that the current Administration isn't being forthcoming?
WOW!
Not enough info I suppose. Either way, I want more info because the guys trying to defend the consulate acted with honor.
If that's the case, why are you doing the exact thing you would not want?!
Yeah, pretty much
So is it worth it to shut up about it or try and figure out what happened ad-hoc?
Look... wow. You just need to sit back and take a deep breath, man. Get away from this stuff for a few days or even eight. Come back with a better head on your shoulders and look at the big picture. I think your sanity will be better if you do that.
Not enough info on who politicized it first? I think you have that info, you just don't want to admit it.
Dude Abides
Banned
At some point waving the bloody shirt goes from ridiculous to disgusting. Pctx has passed that point.
I'm not denying that right wing pundants made this a political issue but where I Come up short is did Clinton and company unintentionally do it first by not acknowledging the issue.
Mackenzie 92
Member
Hasn't the latest intelligence confirmed that it was just an angry mob or opportunistic attackers/rioters. There's been no evidence that it was more than that or that we were lied to and making assumptions about things you know nothing about seems pretty silly.
Mitt doesn't care that 4 Americans died, all he and the right care about is politicizing it to try and hurt Obama's campaign.
Obama took responsibility, Clinton took responsibility, what else do you want?
Mitt on the day it happened after he gave his press conference, despite not knowing anything about it or what the hell he was talking about, which is something he does frequently.
Mitt doesn't care that 4 Americans died, all he and the right care about is politicizing it to try and hurt Obama's campaign.
Obama took responsibility, Clinton took responsibility, what else do you want?
Mitt on the day it happened after he gave his press conference, despite not knowing anything about it or what the hell he was talking about, which is something he does frequently.
butzopower
proud of his butz
That's your bigger than Watergate?
Apparently not by some peoples ideas.
Do you realize how disgusting you sound right now attempting to justify your "rage" at this. How dare you even bring up those who died and their honor when you are just looking to score political points.
How am I scoring political points? 3/4 of this forum now hate me because my rage over this was irrational but now I'm defining my stance.
Anticitizen One
Banned
is this the new 9/11 inside job thread?
people don't like you because you make up "issues" Libya is a political talking point. It all it is.
At a moment when Americans were killed we had the Republican Candidate attack the President of the United States for being weak and apologizing for getting attacked. However the POTUS didn't even give a conference on the attack until after Romney shot himself in the foot.
There really isn't anything else to the story. Stop making up crap.
I feel like that didn't even get near the attention this seems to be. That was mostly conspiracy nutjobs, which almost anything big that happens seems to get a few. This, however, seems to have taken over most of the right wing right now.
elrechazado
Banned
Umm, no. It was a coordinated assault supported by mortars.
You started off in the other thread saying Hilary is done on that this is Obama's 9-11. I don't think you are trying to win over GAF I just think you are looking for a gotcha moment and cynically using the sacrifice of those Americans as your key point.
The fuck? You better take that shit you're talking elsewhere because that is the last thing I would do.
Anticitizen One
Banned
Glenn Beck was on the radio the other day and he sounded like he was literally crying when he begged the american people not to "let obama get away with this". I was like WTF how comes nobody cared when Bush sent thousands of american soldiers to go die in Iraq for Oil?
Officerrob
Banned
That's exactly what it looks like
Get away with what?
These people are so delusional,they act like he is the one that carry out the attack.
It sure does not look like it to me. You seemed practically giddy at the prospect of this bringing down some democrats. I don't see much concern with honor and sacrafice here.
Yup, she's done and I'm wondering what exactly made her do this.
Link via CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/15/us/clinton-benghazi/index.html
Yeah, we got attacked on 9/11/12, 11 years after 9/11/01 and this administration has dun goofed. Can't wait until these morons are out of power.
EDIT date for 9/11/12 as some people can't put together my statement to mean that 11 years after our initial attack, our government is still having issues in identifying ways and means to proactively protect her citizens.
The people in this thread claiming the Pctx is only bringing this up for some political purposes, and that he "doesn't care" about the dead Americans are truly shameless.
Argue his points. Tell him why he's wrong. Say that his biases are clouding his judgement. Say that he's a conspiracy nut. Whatever. Don't pretend that you can see his intentions just because it's political season and that makes you feel good.
Argue his points. Tell him why he's wrong. Say that his biases are clouding his judgement. Say that he's a conspiracy nut. Whatever. Don't pretend that you can see his intentions just because it's political season and that makes you feel good.
EatinOlives
Member
Well, everyone's done that already. The fact he keeps coming back and continues to have his little crusade despite being proved wrong in numerous occasions makes it pretty clear what his intentions are. It really doesn't take a genius to figure it out.
But keep pretending there aren't any. You and him aren't quite that different, so I'm not surprised.
No, I will call anyone out anytime of the year for posting made up political positions just because that person believes it to be a narrative they want to get into people's heads. Especially when it's false outrage or people defending positions in politics for the sake of the person they support.
(I love discussing things with you Duffy! you should come to poligaf whenever I'm posting =)
Not sure how to take this...
He's the one who began by displaying his concern with "Yup, she's done." I don't see where I have anything to be ashamed of here.
You feel strongly about it because you're a right wing conservative (Republican, despite pretending otherwise originally) and like other right wingers, are desperately seeking something, anything to attack Obama with. A president who otherwise has had a very good foreign policy track record, especially against Republicans who have perhaps the worst track record on foreign policy of all.
Let's be Frank, Obama couldn't have stopped this and neither would have any other president from any other party. Maybe the response may have been different, may, but when you're dealing with these sorts of sensitive issues, mistakes can happen, especially if you're waiting on a more conclusive summary of events. Now compare it to say Iraq. A wholly avoidable event that very likely would NOT have happened under the Dems, and cost the lives of thousands of innocent Iraqis and Americans, based on what? Lies and deceit. Wonder if you were as up in arms about that?
Well, to be fair after 2 threads on this (well, 2 and a half with the reboot), I think we're pretty well done attacking him on the points. Or at least exhausted by it.
As for claiming he's bringing it up for political purposes and saying he doesn't care about the dead, yeah, I suppose people shouldn't be quick to do that to him, though I do have to point out that it's exactly what he's doing to Obama and his administration, and that's partially what's so offensive about it.
To point 1, come on. We've seen threads about... like... whether a game trailer is using the right kind of anti-aliasing go back and forth for dozens of pages (this is not a literal example, just making a point). I've even been stunned how long abortion threads can go on and on, back and forth, thinking at some point it just has to end with "Duffy's right!" at some point. But it never does. So to say the topic has been exhausted strikes me as very incorrect.
To paragraph 2, yeah, you have a point. That "all of the above" thing made me furrow my brow. I would have said modified versions of B and C. I think the administration was very slow to act, and in this one instance seriously incompetent, and in the panic of election season tried to claim it was a spontaneous demonstration in reaction to a video, so as to not look as bad. But I wouldn't claim that he or anyone of the administration didn't care about the American lives lost.
I do think it's a bigger deal than most people see to. If I were on the fence, it could certainly change my mind of who to vote for.
Officerrob
Banned
Lets for one second say this was true, wouldn't this have been as a result of Romney coming out and making a public statement before he had any idea what had happened in order to try and score political points when four people had just died?
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
Have to agree.
NullPointer
Member
I think you can see Pctx's reasoning here:
I don't know why one would assume that the Obama team would be derelict in their duties, incompetent in their responses, and trying to initiate a cover-up based upon the timeline and views in the OP. The only way it makes sense to me is if you're looking to find evidence to fit an already established conclusion.
I guess I don't even see the smoke, much less fire. There is an investigation underway, correct? At least as that continues (whether rigorous or Kabuki Theater) we should be able to see any cockroaches scurrying into the shadows pretty easily, but at this point I'm sure as hell not going to take the word of unnamed sources sharing their stories exclusively with Fox News. Especially at this time when its glaringly obvious who would gain from perpetuating such a myth and politicizing these deaths. That dog won't hunt.
polyh3dron
Banned
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked