Tweet
I posed this question on the twitter machine Wednesday night…
Has anyone figured out why it matters what Obama called the attack in Benghazi and why it should be a campaign issue?
While what happened in Benghazi was tragic (a consulate, not an embassy, overrun, ambassador and three others killed), but outside of the shrieking abyss that is Michelle Malkin’s empty cranium, it really isn’t a dealbreaker for the majority of America’s populace who are about to cast their ballots. Sure, it’s red meat designed to dampen the drawers of the Jennifer Rubin (or back-stabbing douche Roger Simon) crowd for whom ‘scary mooslims’ equals a threat to America’s Most Important Ally™ According AIPAC and, of course, the End Timers who need Israel (but not its people) as a precondition for flying off to see the spirit in the sky, but it’s not something I would blow up my campaign over which Romney seems to have figured out overnight:
In two appearances Wednesday in the critical battleground state of Virginia, Mitt Romney focused on what he called the president’s lack of a second term agenda, while avoiding Libya, a major flashpoint from Tuesday night’s debate.
In Romney’s case, this is what happens when you let the rightwing echo chamber dictate your electoral strategy.
160 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About TBogg
RSS/XML Feed
It’s the latest ‘gospel’ for conservatives. A way to prove their tribal loyalty. “Oh sure Obama called it an “act of terror” but he really didn’t call it an act of terrorists which proves he loves Muslims and hates America!” A quick way to show they can also be a bald faced liar just like Mitt.
Like a Sioux Sun Dance for conservatards except; of course, no pain or sacrifice.
That and it sounds like they’re getting a real kick out of saying, ‘Benghazi’.
Most Americans don’t even know where Libya is on a map. Just sayin’.
This is what you get when you let the Tea Party control your primaries.
FTFY
I know that logical thought processes and the Right Wing seldom intersect on the Venn Diagram. But …
Isn’t the Embassy actually in Tripoli?
Presumably the Embassy in Tripoli is protected by a larger security detail than just (3) people. Otherwise wouldn’t it be targeted for attack (a target with higher political significance) instead of the Consulate?
In order to be killed in Benghazi the Ambassador had to travel from Tripoli to Benghazi?
For this trip the Ambassador decided that a security detail of (3) was adequate. Unless you assume …
1) The Ambassador was suicidal.
2) The Ambassador cleared his travel plans through Washington and was denied permission to take a larger escort.
3) That Washington had hard evidence that the attack was going to take place and failed to notify the Ambassador, denying the him the information he needed to properly assess the situation.
Is there any proof that that any of the (3) assumptions above were in play? If not, how could this be considered a Presidential/Cabinet level failure?
As far as I know Obama isn’t all that excited about invading any countries in the region, so he wouldn’t deliberately ignore warnings about terrorist attacks to provide political justification to invade (Unlike Bush/Cheney in 2001).
Despite everyone characterizing the whole thing as a mistake by Romney in the debate, there was nothing accidental about it. Virtually all of the seeming gaffes from Romney involved him simply revealing who he really is and what he really thinks. Some of it amounts to a slip, like video showing him revealing what he thinks of half the country to a select group and not realizing it could be recorded. This one was intentional though and he was clearly as surprised as the rest of them that the lies and Wingnut dramas that thrive in their putrid little swampland playhouse don’t play in Peoria.
The pundits all blather on about strategy and how each candidate should position himself. With Romney however who he really is will always pop out somewhere, in this case that he’s more Andrew Breitbart than Ward Cleaver.
I listened to Fox for about 1 minute yesterday and they seemed fixated on Mitt’s major butthurt about being caught in a lie about what Obama said after Benghazi, and the awful nerve of Crowley for pointing out that a lie was indeed a lie. And besides, although Obama DID say the words ‘act of terror’ it didn’t count because … Wolverines! Or something. They really do live in an alternate reality.
Best – http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mc0nigUdKv1rj8amio1_500.png
Yo Willard: How’s that pivoting etch-a-sketch shit workin’ out for ya?
Great post, Mr. Bogg.
Yup. I would submit that 24 hour / day submersion in this poison pretty much ossifies the hard-wiring. So if, for example, one were to suggest that (oh, I dunno) the sky is blue, or that water is wet, or that Glenn Beck is clinically insane, one would instantly be labeled as an Enemy (or Enema, as it were) of the State. Fucking craziness.
My recommendation: Chlorpromazine and/or Electricity.
I saw Sean Hannity say yes President Obama referred to acts of terror that day, “but only after bringing up September 11 2001!”.
Er, yes and he said it “only after” saying “Good morning” in that address also. So what? It was two paragraphs after having brought up 2001, was followed immediately by a reference to the attack in Libya, and clearly was referring to both.
They always have some goofy Wingnut framing all set up, the point is that no one watching has enough of a critical capacity left to do anything but just accept it as true.
If you are a black democratic president you should be able to prevent and/or control all of the actions of all of the humans on the planet.
If you are a white republican president you only have to do the best you can. See Iraq, 9-11, Katrina, the economy, walking and chewing gum at the same time.
LOL! You are Correct!
I am more interested in the governorships and federal legislatures at the state level. Those are the positions that will really count in my opinion.
It matters to me because the President was caught lying through his teeth about an al Qaeda attack just as millions of voters are making up their minds whether to vote to re-elect him. How can you be unclear about this, as much time as you spend accusing Romney of lying?
Watch the Wingnuts concern over Benghazi evaporate on November 7th.
Just think what would happen to the national discourse if you were in charge. Candidates might have to answer in paragraphs instead of sound bites. Big-headed TV spokesmodels might have to learn the location of embassies. I could go on, but really I can’t. Two sentences has become the express limit on political comments everywhere.
well..this is what you get when you have foreign agents with no loyalty to the american people running your campaign(romney)
as far as it not going away and destroying obama?????….how did it work out for you at the debate???
and btw..you can bet your life obama WILL find the time to mention mittens lie,now all over the internet at the next and last debate a few times maybe.
as far as why you see this as a so called issue..its because the right wing media driven by fox believes they can create THE issues out of nothing and dictate the course of debate.
they do it all the time with obvious coordination between fox hate talk radio and their go to internet guy drudge.
Under Bush, diplomatic facilities were attacked 12 times. Consulates or embassies were attacked in India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Greece, Yemen, and Turkey.
Back then, the GOP thought this was good evidence of why the GOP should be in charge. Now there’s attacks under a Democrat and they think it proves why we can’t have the Democrats in charge. No matter what happens, it’s always good news for the GOP! Funny how it works that way in their world.
Explain in detail how he lied. No links to Newsmax, Mark Levin, Hannity, the Brietfarts or BlackFive allowed.
someone needs to fix the edit function on here.
Because FTFY.
hehe hehe Ya Romney didnt mention Labia yesterday so hes goin all soft an shit. Right.
Next week Mitt teh Master Debater is gonna Bring It in a Foreign Policy debate. Foreign Policy. Where low information undecided voters go to find a Daddy to tell them America does indeed have a Twelve Inch Schlong. An the only thing we need to get a massive collective Hard On in our little minds is some Blowhard Bluster and Diplomatic Naughty Talk. An no one is better at Blowhardism than the Mittster. He gonna whip it out Big Time and slap teh moderator Flaccid Bob Scheiffer silly and make Obama look like the girly boy that he is. Cause we all know Obama is not allowed to get angry. So therefor he is a girly boy.
How do I know this? Cause good ole boy Jerome Corsi was on Mitts plane yesterday. Yes thats right, Jerome Corsi of “Obama is a gay-married Muslin terrorist”.
No, See Mitt is not pullin out now. Mitt is goin Deep and Long into the Wingnut epistemic-closure wormhole, the only place that can supply low information undecided insecure voters the FearBoner that they need to vote for the Daddy Party. Cause only a FearBoner can make you forget that its the same Daddy that raped you just four years ago.
Even if it wasn’t accidental, it was still a mistake. Romney’s famously weak on foreign policy; his trip during the Olympics was a disaster, and his attempt to get tough on China is all too easily deflected by pointing out his investments in that country and sending jobs overseas, as I believe Obama did during the debate. Despite Romney trying to make the meme that “Obama doesn’t have an agenda” stick, the president does have a foreign policy, and the parts that someone might legitimately object to (drone attacks, for instance) aren’t things that even the notorious Mormon flip-flopper will touch. So all Mitt has left to do is wave the bloody shirt, leaving him open to (legitimate) criticism that he’s politicizing a human tragedy. This last debate won’t go well for him, I think.
As far as we know, this attack was carried out by Libyan militia with no connection to Al Qaeda. so you might want to tighten up your trolling a bit in that regard. We know how angry right wingers are about Obama’s lack of omniscience in a messy situation involving a war-torn country, but it takes a real idiot to somehow transmute that lack of complete knowledge of the situation into some sort of lie.
If you chant “terrorism” while wearing a flag pin and circling widdershins around a shrine to Ronald Reagan, it lets the world know that America is the Bestest Country Evah!
While writing this, I’m listening to a clip on NPR of Romney saying on the first day he’s in office, he will “label” China a “currency manipulator” which will allow him to impose tariffs. So by using the magic words, Warlock Romney will cast a spell and – presto, jobs!
Various cliches apply:
1. IOKYAR being foremost ALWAYS.
2. Red meat for now clearly nutty base
3. Scary scary “n” word in White House
4. Scary scary Moozlinz
blah blah
Sadly, we live in a world where attacks like the one on the consulate in Benghazi will continue to happen, no matter who is in the White House, Senate, House or SCOTUS. No matter how hard Team USA tries to have great security, there will be blood. Get used to it.
Of course, Tea Partiers are gonna be *delighted* to be able to have their usual racist bigoted hissy fit over the Kenyan Nazi Usurper for no real real reason but… Benghazi! Moozlinz!!11 w00t!!!111!!!
and they are going to go bat shit crazy if/when Obama wins. Around the forkin’ bend – running through the streets naked and drunk with a Bible in one hand and a gun in the other.
What’s the lie, confused little man? On September 12, 2013 the President said what happened in Benghazi was an “act of terror.” Are you saying he didn’t say that?
Let’s imagine another scenario here. Let’s say that on September 12, the President stands up in front of the nation and says, “The facts aren’t all in yet, but Benghazi is a stronghold for Al Quaeda. American bombs are falling on Benghazi as we speak.” And then, of course, it turns out that the people of Benghazi and the Libyan government were supportive of the US. Or maybe it was a completely different group attacking the consulate. Then you cute little wingnuts would be decrying the President’s quick leap to judgement and bloodthirsty ways.
Let’s imagine yet another scenario. Let’s say it’s 2004 and Candidate Kerry issues a 10 pm press release on a developing international incident, criticizing President Bush’s foreign policy. What’s the wingnut take on this?
The fact is, you motherfuckers are going to criticize every word President Obama says, even the words he doesn’t say that your liars claim he says. People like you are just negative noise, and not credible.
I don’t particularly fault Obama for the fact that the attack happened. I’m somewhat unhappy about suggestions that his administration downplayed security in Benghazi for PR purposes, but I’m not completely persuaded about that yet.
I only object to his obfuscation of the circumstances of the attack after it happened. His personal statements were a bit mushy, with the occasional reference to “terror” in the abstract thrown in, but also with frequent references to the video that spurred the attack (especially in his address to the UN) and frequent statements that he couldn’t explain what had happened until more facts were in (presumably after the election). In fact, he had access to a wealth of information from eyewitnesses and intel, as provided to and quoted by a number of public figures and mainstream news sources, within a few hours or days after the attack, showing clearly that there was absolutely no demonstration outside the building before the attack, and that the attack was sudden, disciplined, militarily precise, and armed with RPGs — not a movie review that got out of hand. He continued for two weeks to send his representatives out to tell the public that the attacks were a response to the video rather than a well-organized and pre-planned paramilitary operation. He never disavowed those statements and is fudging to this day. In my book, that is lying. Even Candy Crowley admitted, on video, that the Obama administration tried for weeks to pin the attack on a demonstration that never existed.
As for the al Qaeda affiliation, is a citation to CNN within your comfort zone? “A pro-al Qaeda group responsible for a previous armed assault on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi is the chief suspect in Tuesday’s attack that killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya, sources tracking militant Islamist groups in eastern Libya say.
“They also note that the attack immediately followed a call from al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri for revenge for the death in June of Abu Yahya al-Libi, a senior Libyan member of the terror group.
“The group suspected to be behind the assault — the Imprisoned Omar Abdul Rahman Brigades — first surfaced in May when it claimed responsibility for an attack on the International Red Cross office in Benghazi. The following month the group claimed responsibility for detonating an explosive device outside the U.S. Consulate and later released a video of that attack.”
An attack on a diplomatic building of the United States, consulate or embassy or whatever, is an attack on the United States. Unless some nation attacked us in Benghazi, the attack was a terrorist attack.
I don’t see that it matters whether the motivation for the attack was anger over something someone living in America put on You Tube, or whether the attack was motivated by the death of an Al Qaida member, or whether the motivation was simply a generalized hatred of the United States. All of that goes only to the motive for the terrorist attack, not to nature of the attack itself.
But, yes, I do see why the Romney campaign is making an issue over it. For one thing, four of our people died, supposedly after additional security was requested. (Yes, I know the request was for Tripoli, not Benghazi, but those details don’t distill down to voters, especially Republican voters.)
Obama and his Secretary of State did not provide extra security. That is a failure on his part in his roles as both head of the nation’s foreign relations and the Chief Executive, who is supposed to keep Americans safe.
That is part of the story that I hear going around among rw’ers.
The other part is whether the President of the United States either deliberately deceived Americans about the situation, or whether he simply was out of reality about the cause of the attack. Either way, that also reflects on his pereformance as President.
Finally, in an election campaign, anything you can to cast doubt on the credibility of your oppoinent is useful. Because, if a person lies (or is prone to mistakes), you cannot trust his or her campaign promises.
So, what Obama said about Behghazi becomes a dog whistle for all those things.
Not saying I agree with any of the above, just saying, yes, I get why Republicans are making a big deal over it.
Most Americans don’t know where Iowa is on a map, either.
Yup, Gotcha covered. Mitt is such a Master Debater that he gonna imply that Obama is a lying bisexual muslim terrorist sissyboy AT THE SAME TIME attacking him for killin dusky foreign children an flanking Obama on teh left.
You got it, teh Misttster can MasterDebate with either hand.
If what we are hearing now is true, the lie was that the stupid video on You Tube had something to do with the deaths of four Americans in the service of the United States.
Supposedly, the intelligence from the jump was that Al Qaida or an organization similar to it was responsible for the killings. Yet for over two weeks, we all heard about the video and free speech and limits on both free speech and how people react to free speech.
Both things can be true. It can be true that the President referred to terrorism and then he and others in his administration spent the next two weeks, give or take, talking about a movie they knew had nothing to do with the attack. Everything is not either or.
You are a sad, sad, sad creature.
And what about the massive cut to embassy security funding that the republicans facilitated last year?
From Huffpo:
I am usually not a defender of the O administration but they seemed to be saying what they thought had happened based on the information they had. Things evolved and as more facts came in, an updated story was revealed.
Oh so the theory is that he knew it was terrorists and lied about it?
Fascinating.
So then he could have two weeks until it came out that it was terrorism, at which point he’d be called clueless and a liar by the Wingnuts, which was his evil plan all along?
Trying to wade into the fever swamps of the right wing mind (or is this the left wing mind??) is always an interesting experience. I have to wade back now though sorry, I’m needed back on dry land.
To a Republican birdwatcher, every sparrow is an albatross.
Romney could have made hay but Romney has no understanding of issues. The only thing that he’s knows and cares about is how to make money for himself.. That’s dangerous. Reminds me of James Fallows column around the 08 election on how Palin didn’t care to know about governance. She just did not care. Mitts just Sarah Palin 2.0
I think Benghazi is just a tragic situation. I think Stevens went out on his own and didn’t take enough security. His choice. I find it too incredible that he himself could not have gotten more security if he himself had asked for it. It certainly appears that he was a personal friend of Hilary Clinton not just a colleague.
I agree; it’s not a “dealbreaker”, particularly in the context of our troops in Afghanistan who died in the same time period, as well as the 8 Afghan women and girls who were killed in an Obama drone attack at about the same time.
Are their lives worth less than those of the four americans killed in Benghazi?
The next time you hear some right winger bitch about this, PLEASE point out that the Republican House members CUT the security budget for the embassies.
You can’t have guards and equipment if you can’t pay for them.
Without Karl in charge, it seems the GOP has lost its edge attacking its opponent’s strength. I just don’t see how Rmoney comes out ahead on this one.
Obama “lost” the first debate because he is vulnerable on the economy. By pivoting to foreign policy, Rmoney is abandoning the very thing on which he could hit Obama. But after the second debate, even the economy may not be a winner for Willard.
I guess it’s time for the Republican strategy to pivot back to “Where’s the birth certificate?”
To a Republican birdwatcher, every sparrow is an albatross.
Or a spotted owl, depending on what needs to be demonized that day.
Are their lives worth less than those of the four americans killed in Benghazi?
You’ll need a better rhetorical device than that.
Albatross?
Do you get wafers with it?
Oh, please. This is no longer an issue. It has been explained.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww
Some prominent republicans are saying that “Ben Gazzi” is Ann Coulter’s drag name. It would be irresponsible not to speculate.
~ Harry R. Sohl
Luckily for the Dems, Obama never received a daily brief titled “Al Qaeda Determined To Strike in Benghazi”. That would be catastrophic.
I only object to his obfuscation of the circumstances of the attack after it happened.
Would you be kind enough to list these obfuscations? Take your time.
4 dead in Libya: DEMOCRAT PREZ FELL DOWN ON JOB
3000 dead in NYC: HEROIC GOP PREZ EVENTUALLY SHOWED UP!!!
Forget the semantics of the whole attack. It’s immaterial. The real story should be the TGOper’s cutting funding for security by over $300 Million. Why isn’t that point being shouted from the rooftops 24/7?
But, yes, I do see why the Romney campaign is making an issue over it. For one thing, four of our people died,
I’ve about had it up to here with this shit.
Who are “our people” exactly?
See, for me, I consider “our people” to refer to all residents of “our planet”, but for others, it’s apparently a much more insular group, and again, I’ve had it up to here with this shit. We are a global populace, and what happens to one of us happens to all us.
Waving hand from peanut gallery: oh oh oh I know, I know!!!
IOKIYAR!!!111!!!
Benghazi will haunt his second term and destroy it. Not going away.
Bookmark it, libs!
It was an attack by a Islamic militia, and it seemed to be a well planned and well executed military operation. To call it a “terror attack” seems inaccurate as only four Americans, were killed. That is only four, when we have soldiers killed everyday in the many wars.
The purpose may not have been to terrorize and murder. The classified documents and weapons cache, was itself worth sending 100 trained fighters to attack a weakly defended CIA “Station”. That secret CIA location apparently was known to Ansar Al Sharia. Classified documents were amazingly found by reporters days later.
Ambassador Stevens, perhaps was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. But he showed courage in going to where the danger was the greatest. The “security officials” who abandoned Stevens and classified documents and weapons, need to be exposed for their cowardice..
Hmmmm. Somehow 9/11 didn’t destroy Dubya’s second term. However could that be?
Oh yeah, because in response he invaded a country which had nothing to do with 9/11 and spent thousands of American lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi lives and hundreds of billions of borrowed dollars.
Oh, wait…
Because… FREEDOM!!eleventy11!
Hahaha, that will never stop being funny. (yeah, I’m easily entertained)
Does that (parody?) troll still haunt Sadly, No!(?) I don’t get over there much these days.
Silly… because when you bring up facts that the Congressional Goopers don’t want people to think about, that’s when they call it politicizing an issue.
Like when anyone mentions that 9/11 happened on Bush’s watch, or that they let bin Laden escape, or that WMD never existed in Iraq but we invaded anyway because mushroom clouds! Why, that’s not fair!
According to the conservative calendar, the years 2001 to 2008 never existed.
Does that (parody?) troll still haunt Sadly, No!(?) I don’t get over there much these days.
I’m not over there much lately either, but from what I’ve seen it or another troll very much like it has wandered over to Balloon Juice.
(ETA: I, too, am easily entertained. ‘Bookmark it’ will indeed never stop being funny, and that troll was a goldmine for them. IIRC it was also responsible for the lesser-known ‘Tedisco WIIIIIIIIIIIIIINS!’)
Hmmmm. Somehow 9/11 didn’t destroy Dubya’s second term. However could that be?
Well that’s it, isn’t it, an attempt to present Obama as a president asleep at the switch when a major attack on America went down. They will need to keep looking, unfortunately for them, because this was not such a case.
They say about 9/11: Never forget. Goddam right I won’t.
There’s a war going on in Libya. US personnel are there as part of military maneuvers.
“Act of terror” implies innocence, but it’s more like the usual things people should expect to happen during war.
In other words, a normal Saturday night in [about half the cities in Kansas, Texas, South Carolina or Mississippi].
Also, Leave texan99 Aloooooooooooone!
H/T Lawyers, Guns and Money.
William the Bloody Kristol. Words Fail.
Next thing you know, Obama will ban apple pie and declare a war on Moms.
“Has anyone figured out why it matters
what Obama called the attack in Benghazi
and why it should be a campaign issue?”
Because some wingnut commentator mentioned the word “sodomy?”
The commentator, and Mitt, thought Benghazi was a “Obama is wrong because X” stick and picked it up without looking for splinters.
If the distinction wasn’t important, why did they lie about it so doggedly?
That was a reply to nixonetc.
It does seem strange that they would lie about something they were so likely to be caught at. I assume they thought they could put off the reckoning until after the election, when it wouldn’t matter any more. But it’s not as thought their instinct for transparency were really all that compelling in general.
The UN speech and the Letterman interview were two examples. Susan Rice’s five Sunday talk show appearances were five more on his authority, not disavowed.
Because both Obama and H. Clinton accepted ultimate responsibility for what happened on their watch.
They would be
hypocriticalacting like republicans to say they accept responsibility and then in the very next breath point out that Congress cut funding for security.hmmm…You may be unwittingly correct. Circling widdershins serves the intention of banishing an entity. And the etymology of “warlock” defines it as a liar. However, a real warlock cannot cast a successful spell.
Perhaps you’ve heard of something called “the fog of war”? If you were remotely determined to be fair to President Obama, you might concede that he could have made a mistake, rather than deliberately lying. But I doubt conservative trolls like you are interested in being fair.
Benghazi will dog Obama’s second term like Lebanon dogged Reagan’s second term.
Sheesh, don’t you libs understand anything?
Our mind-reading conservative friends claim that the Obama administration couldn’t come out and call the Benghazi attack terrorism because it would cast a shadow on Obama’s boast that the War on Terror was WON and al Qaeda CRUSHED when bin Laden was killed.
So it’s very VERY important to prove Obama DIDN’T say something that makes it impossible to disprove something he never said in the first place.
See?
Is it possible that (2) different, unrelated, major news stories could have occured on the same day in the same part of the world? And continued to unfold simultaneously over the course of the next couple of weeks?
Could it be that once there was a distinction made between the (2) stories, that the Administration may have mistakenly assumed that it was evident that they were talking about the two separate events during the same press conference …
OR …
… that editorial decisions made in the newsrooms made it appear they were talking about a single event?
I will leave it to you to decide if these editorial decisions were made deliberately, out of ignorance or were just lazy mistakes.
Please consider the possibility that the world is actually a more complex place than you wish it to be.
Killjoy.
Chris, my man! What you said, and just as you’ve said it.
I was interested by
and
– because this whole “issue” seems to twirl around the definition of “terrorism” and “terrorist”. Here we’ve got 2 fellow commenters mentioning 2 completely different criteria (non-nation group attacking, and small-scale attack resulting in very low casualties) … and neither Mittster nor Obama nor anyone else making statements in the public forum about all this, at this point, is saying what they believe the words mean. So I trotted over to Wikipedia and this makes it clear that it’s not clear. Not at all. But it’s a very good article, IMO.
Scroll down to the “Types of Terrorism” list, compiled in the mid 1970s by an arm of our very own US Dept of Justice, for a quick sense of how complicated defining terrorism gets. One recurring theme thru the whole article is the idea that the violent acts, or threats of violent acts, are consciously and systematically used to create a climate of fear in order to gain the perpetrators’ ends. In other words, that “terrorism” is a strategy, tactic, or policy.
Throwing an explosive device at a building, attacking a civilian official — those things may be part of a terrorist strategy, by this criterion, or they may not. The acts are violent, the outcome may be deaths and injuries. People will argue about the morality of them. But because “terrorism” is so loaded a word, and has so much political potency, its use as a label is something apart from any straightforward moral evaluation of the acts.
Not that considerations of actual word meaning butter any Rightie parsnips. They’re living entirely off the loadedness.
I know, I’m sorry.
What was the lie? Please show your work.
Right! It’s not like they lied about something as simple and easy to verify as someone’s time in running a marathon.
um, LOOK OVER THERE!!11!!
I understand about the fog of war, and I was inclined to think that for the first few days. Very soon, however, it turned out that they knew within 24 hours that there had been no anti-video demonstration, but chose to say there had been, for whatever reason, for a solid two weeks, perhaps thinking the media would cover for them, as usual, for at least a couple of months. Even CNN has been calling them on it. There’s no use trying to perpetuate the coverup now.
It was a silly coverup to begin with. I think they panicked. They have election fever.
It has nothing to do with editorial decisions. We’re talking about the words of the President and his spokesmen, not mistaken news coverage. The administration had the correct intelligence early on, but they tried to spin it into something else until their efforts fell apart after two weeks of media scrutiny. Surprisingly good scrutiny, too, considering it was the MSM. Only the New York Times refused to do its job.
That the attack was a spontaneous eruption inspired by revulsion against a video, when in fact they knew within hours that there was absolutely no demonstration that night, and the attack was military, precise, coordinated, and meticulously planned by terrorists associated with al Qaeda.
What difference does it make? Not a huge amount, in my view, until they started lying about it. I don’t see why they didn’t just tell the truth in the first place. Apparently they were worried it would make their bin Laden braggadoccio look hollow, but that seems a thin justification even from their viewpoint. Sometimes I think that secrecy and obfuscation are just part of their instinctive approach to the public.
You guys know the people in this administration lie, right? You call them on it yourselves. Why so protective suddenly?
I think you have a point here. This whole escapade shows how weak Mr. Obama is. The President should have seen this attack for what it really was, an opportunity. I believe that what Mr. Romney was hoping to make of it when he rushed to the microphone. That’s the kind of man I want in the White House. One willing to capitalize on the deaths of Americans for his personal gain.
Golly. Politicians lie. Now there’s a newsflash.
Did you ever consider that the administration might be “lying” to protect other diplomats out there. In other words, Obama’s people. Perhaps there were other lives at stake that might justify withholding information from the public.
But, yeah, your delicate sensibilites come before anything, or anyone, else.
I dunno. As Mr. TBogg probably knows, I’m hardly the biggest supporter of Obama (but I keep my “lips” zipped here). That said, in reading this miasma I just hafta to toss my little oar in the water again:
I think Obama has bigger clanking balls that Mittens. So there! Nanny nanny boo boo…
Cannot believe how conservatives can be so easily distracted by such dull & not particularly relvant topics. Ho hum…
Clanking on outta here… have at it, kidz.
It’s even possible the president wanted an excuse to say “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam” in his once-a-year speech to the UN. Who knows?
Yeah, he could have been lying to protect some diplomatic personnel in some eleventy-dimensional chess strategy thing we’ll never understand, or at least not until after the election. Do you guys give that kind of benefit of the doubt to Republican presidents? Because it seems kind of lame to me. You can protect your personnel by declining to answer questions on the ground that you’re in the middle of a diplomatic and military crisis. He chose to lie instead.
I posted this previously but you must have missed it. The reason was General Clapper ordered the President and Congress to lie. The White House and Congress were given a cover story. This was an “intelligence” fail and as usual the spies protect their failures. Unfortunately, we may never learn the true story.
We have a General Clapper chief DNI spy and General Petraeus, chief CIA spy. The Generals and military industrial complex have failed for ten years, with their wars, secret and otherwise. They tell our elected officials what to say. That is scary. But the spymasters they are very successful at spying on Americans.
Bush was protecting diplomats when he pretended to look for WMD in the Oval Office. Seriously, was he protecting CIA agents whose cover was blown when he authorized Valerie Plame’s outing? You’re right, that does seem kinda lame.
As one who’s lived and worked overseas (and known many others) in precarious situations, I find your ignorance and cavalier attitude rather fucked up.
Frank33 — That’s the explanation? They lied because Clapper ordered them to?
Much lamer than any of the explanations I was guessing.
puravida — you want cavalier? How about “when four Americans die, that’s not optimal.” Not to mention it’s a bump in the road. Not exactly “a day that will live in infamy,” is it?
Read it slowly, so you can understand it.
Yes, that is what spies do, lie.
WHERE TEH HELL ARE TEH BASSETS?
Hell, at least half of all Americans don’t know where Washington is on a map – either Washington – and most wouldn’t even know there is a country called Libya.
In the fever swamp of right wing opinion, Obama is lying because they have the opinion he should have known all of the facts sooner … Um, OK. You do realize this is a matter of opinion and is not supported by any objective facts, right? The reflexive hate and distrust of the president among right wingers borders upon pathology.
To paraphrase Clark Gable, frankly, my dear, I don’t give a shit. If you care so much about it, fine, but given the amount that Dubya lied during his time, this is small potatoes.
Really, you are going down the President is really a secret Muslim/Muslim Lover path? That really bolsters your argument, he lied because he wanted to suck up the the Muslims.
Lying about this was a good campaign strategy, because he needs all those absentee ballots from the Middle East to come in heavily in his favor? I can just see Obama saying “Fuck Ohio, all I really need is the Libyan vote!”
I dare you to link (or point us to where we can find) to a single video clip, newspaper story or anything, starting from the 13th and going through the 15th that quotes Obama or anybody on Obama’s Staff (for the record) as saying that the Ambassador was killed because of the rioting over the video.
Bassets smassets.
I want my sparkle pony.
Could we just have likkin’ toads instead?
What’s really happening is that the Right wing has been breathlessly waiting for Obama’s “9/11″ moment for nearly four years. It hasn’t happened and they are getting desperate, because they need to show that Obama can’t keep this country safe, whatever that means.
So they are going to hold this tragedy close to their breasts, to nurture it in the hope that they can turn it into another “9/11.”
Personally I think that is sick.
Tanbark was here earlier, didn’t he bring his unicorn along?
I’m sorry I meant to type “… through the 25th … “
Really? What was ol’ tanbark droning on about?
There is a VAST difference between a “lie” and a mistaken presumption based on the widespread chaos in the wake of the youtube video. The right wing is labeling this a cover-up — evidence to the complete contrary — based on a semantic quibble. In other words, instead of sticking to making a case against Obama for providing inadequate diplomatic security — a fair argument — they are claiming Obama is resorting to the sort of deflection, and cynical blame-shifting that typifies the modern Republican Party.
you had me at the media “covering for them, as usual.” say n’more, texan, you just showed your true colors.
Yeah, I have been willing to give Romney a free ride as a simple huckster who is willing to sell unpaid-for tax cuts to the suckers in exchange for votes, while the real payoff was going to be the elimination of the estate tax, creating a permanent heredity elite nobility, in complete contradiction to the principles our country was founded upon. However, this ghoulish attempt to exploit the death of brave American public servants for political advantage has changed my mind. He’s a fucking soulless evil sack of garbage. He’s just fucking evil.
This is all that matters. On repeat. In their faces.
Boom!
I commented on another FdL blog about this and I will repeat a synopsis. Makes no difference. Why should it? Some here at FDL thinks it is so important they went to great lengths to parse Obamas words to show he really wasn’t talking about The consulate. Huh? Four people were murdered. If we find out who did it they fucking better not look up. That much you best believe.
Heads up to Roger Simon. You know what is not going away?
“Binders Full Of Women”
The phrase that didn’t exist before Romney uttered it two nights ago gets 493 million results on Google today.
Even Amazon’s binder pages are flooded with snarky reviews.
The reflexive hate and distrust of the president among right wingers borders upon pathology.
Borders upon? Man, they cleared customs years ago.
Certainly spies lie. The President and Congress do not deliberately repeat their lies to the public because the spies order them to — or at least, they should be thrown out of office if they do, and they demonstrably did not do so in this case. Obama and his staff knew there was no demonstration outside the Benghazi facility within hours, because they had eyewitness accounts, video, and drone coverage. Whatever intel they may have received about the likelihood of an attack or the required level of security or any of those many disputed issues, there was no disinformation about the supposed demonstration (the one that never occurred), from espionage sources or otherwise.
Not because he should have known sooner, but because he clearly did know right away. He had eyewitness accounts and video coverage within hours, but he lied for two weeks, until he simply couldn’t keep it up any more.
That’s actually the least deluded response I’ve received here: “I refuse to fault Obama for a bald-faced lie because other presidents lie, too.”
Why limit the period to the 13th through 15th? The later lies were even less likely to be explicable by the “fog of war.” But in any case, Susan Rice lied her butt off about it on Sunday, October 14, on five different talk shows. Maybe you don’t consider Rice “staff,” and think the White House hadn’t any obligation to clear things up? A little slimy, but OK.
No, I don’t think the President is going after the Muslim vote. I think he’s going after the touchy-feely, all-religions-are-the-same-Islam-is-a-religion-of-peace vote, which has been his consistent position for years. Rainbows and unicorns. His base laps that stuff up with a spoon. Why admit al Qaeda attacked again on the anniversary of 9/11 when you can claim that Americans offended some poor abused Muslims with a scurrilous attack on their peaceful religion, leaving them no choice but to engage in murder and mayhem? Blaming ourselves and sympathizing with Islamic fundamentalists is a favorite game in his circles.
I actually think he’s done just fine keeping us safe. If he’d been a Republican, I wouldn’t have faulted his success against al Qaeda, so I won’t fault him just because he’s a Democrat. As I said, I object to the bald-faced lies — especially since they seem to have been motivated by such trivial concerns.
Of course there’s a vast difference between a mistake and a lie. If this looked like a mistake, I might or might not fault him for the mistake, but it was obviously no mistake. He was not mistaken about whether there was a demonstration over the video outside the Benghazi facility, or if he was, the mistake was cleared up within a few hours — but he lied about it for two weeks.
It may have been a mistake, for instance, to gut the security in Benghazi, but in fact I’m not inclined to jump to that conclusion. It’s too easy to judge that kind of thing harshly in hindsight. Every act of terrorism “could have prevented” if we’d known exactly when and where it was going to happen, and could have concentrated defensive forces there, but that’s not possible.
Well, I’ve hardly hidden my belief that the media cover for Obama. You guys make that same argument here often enough when it’s your own ox that’s being gored.
You have a blog?
Binders full of women!
Hey, Mitt — you’d been a Big Honking Executive for over twenty years at the time. You mean to tell me your life was so insular you yourself didn’t know of any competent executive-material women? Really?
Lemme guess: “Cover for Obama” = “Run with only 90% of the stuff produced by right-wing puke funnels like Newsmax, instead of 100% of it”.
So, you know exactly what kind of information was delivered to the president and the exact timeframe? Either you are a high ranking administration official with a top secret clearance or you are full of shit. I think I know which.
You mendacious shit-stains are jerking off to the idea that Obama didn’t name Al qaeda as the attackers on day one because he is secretly supports them? Seriously?
Maybe texan99 the CIA had an operations center or safe house in Benghazi they didn’t want revealed. They may have simply not wanted to let everybody on the planet know they had zero security for anything in Benghazi.
Perhaps The State Department did not want the entire planet to know about the situation in Benghazi vis a vis the lack of security because it could have opened up the situation to even MORE violence and destruction.
I understand you folks on the right decide what it is that you want to believe then make up shit to justify that belief, but that isn’t how reality works so spare us your self-righteous indignation over Dick Morris’ Fan fic.
I see what you did there.
If only Obama were a Republican. He could have sat for seven minutes reading a book to schoolchildren after being told of the attack, then shouted bullshit into a bullhorn. He could make comic-book-level speeches like, “The terrists are terrizin’. In other words, we’re bein’ terrized by terrists,” while texan99 swoons at his brilliance.
Next, exploited the attack to ram through his pet legislation, denounce any opposition as traitors, gin up lies to disastrously invade a country that had nothing to do with it, then strut around in a flightsuit on a carrier deck while texan99 praises his manliness.
Hey, Repukes, whatever happened to, “You don’t criticize the President at a time of war”? We’re still at war, douchebags.
Here’s what James Clapper (Director of National Intelligence) said on September 28:
And let’s do a little comparison. Before the Iraq war, Bush sent Colin Powell to the United Nations to make a deliberately deceptive presentation on the subject of weapons of mass destruction, supported by fake intelligence. It took a couple of years for the facts to come out, and Bush never personally took responsibility for the deception. In Benghazi, intelligence authorities acting in good faith made the wrong assessment. As the facts came out, they were corrected, and in about 2 weeks, the original assessment was corrected, and the administration took responsibility for the failure. This time, adults are in charge.
I don’t know everything he was told, obviously, but I know he had access to the bare facts that contradict his later statements. His own administration now admits that they had video and eyewitness reports within hours showing that there was no demonstration of any kind that night.
Supports the attackers? Of course not. But he likes fuzzing over the conflict, because it sounds tolerant and evolved. It’s a fashion. Purely superficial, as he’s willing to kill them as well. Again, it’s not his actions but his lies that are bothering me in this context.
They needn’t have admitted a darn thing about the details of the security. All they had to do was decline to fabricate a lie about a demonstration in the streets arising out of the video, and then decline to flog that lie in public for two weeks. They could easily have gotten away with simply saying it was too early to comment on any details. The media would not have called them on that in any serious way for at least a month or two.
No possibility, I suppose, that Clapper is lying? And in any case, any such message would have been instantly contradicted by the eyewitness accounts and video coverage to which they had access in the first hours after the attack.
RIght, you take the position of the commenter above: no need to hold this President to any standard of honesty, because you believe another President lied. It’s a consistent position, at least, but it must make it uncomfortable to cast a vote.
Actually, you’re completely misrepresenting the contents of my post. I suspect you’re just trolling. You should try responding to what people actually say, instead of destroying the straw man you constructed.
“They could easily have gotten away with simply saying it was too early to comment on any details. The media would not have called them on that in any serious way for at least a month or two.”
Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. With an election less than a month away, the wurlitzer would’ve been working overtime, driven by the likes of Drudge, Fox “News,” Romney himself, and people like you.
Emptywheel has some interesting reports. Perhaps that General Petraeus, is part of this coverup. Petraeus, leader of the CIA spies, may have have ordered that the CIA lie to Congress.
Anyone else noticing the criticisms all stem from the basic premise that “Absolute Knowledge” on every topic is a matter of looking at it and that mistakes or lack of information don’t happen and any information that comes later must be to a cover up because obviously?
Thank you for pointing to where you are getting your information, normal trolls usually don’t do that because it makes it too easy to shot them down.
I put that limit time limit on it because you are the one who says the lies continued for 2 weeks after the tragedy (11 + 14 = 25, get it now?).
No, I wouldn’t consider the Ambassador to the UN as Obama’s staff, but I’m not going to quibble over that, she certainly is a high ranking official in the State Dept.
I want to get something straight, are you claiming she lied about the video being the cause of the attack on 10/14? Because if you are, you are wrong as far as I can tell.
Rice made her statement about the video on 9/16, not 10/14. On 10/14 she claims that her 9/16 statement was based upon information provided to her by the intelligence community.
Now you can contend that she was still lying on 10/14, which I’m sure you will, but you have to acknowledge that she would be telling a different lie on 10/14 than the one you implied she was telling (i.e. the video was the reason for the attack). Kind of playing fast and loose with the facts, aren’t you?
As to holding Obama to a standard of truth. Yes, I think he should tell the truth whenever possible, but I’m not going to insist that he be held to a higher standard than all of the Presidents who came before him (particularly his immediate predecessor).
Because in between the lies (both real and imagined) he works very hard at trying to get things done that I think are important. The fact that Obama is very competent as President makes it easier for me to forgive the fact that he isn’t perfect. That’s the same reason why I forgave Clinton for lying about his BJ.
Were you just as outraged by the lies coming out of the White House starting in Jan, 2001 and running up to Jan 2009?
Lies I might add that led to 100′s of thousands of dead people, Trillions of dollars in deficits, and eroding of our civil liberties.
Silly me, but I believe those lies matter more, than the one you believe Obama told just to cover his ass.
Yeah, I got that right away also, but didn’t really think it was worth going down that path. That gets us into the well worn argument that Obama is only the President, not God.
You would have more credibility if you’d actually cite her words and then explain just exactly what about them is a lie. You’ve been saying she lied now for hours, but you don’t seem to be able to actually cite the apparent lie.
But he likes fuzzing over the conflict, because it sounds tolerant and evolved. It’s a fashion.
someone needs to learn the definition of the word “diplomacy.” It was a fluid situation in the relationship between the US and the host country.
All this discussion has demonstrated to me is that texan99 should not and never will be hired in anyone’s State Department.
I doubt the media would have called them on it, but what if it did? They’d still have been better off saying they refused to comment because there were sensitive national security interests involved, than they were by lying.
Pooh. There’s no question here of absolute knowledge. There’s just the undisputed fact that they had eyewitness accounts and video coverage very early on showing clearly that there was no demonstration, but they chose to insist for two weeks that there had been a demonstration. They may have been unclear on a number of points, but that wasn’t one.
You’re right that the Sunday show was 9/16, not 10/14 — that’s what I get for looking at an October calendar! I was looking for the first Sunday after the attack on the 11th. But you asked for examples of lying for the first several days after the attack, not for the full two weeks after the attack, which was why I stuck to early examples. No, I didn’t mean to argue that Susan Rice was still lying on Oct. 14. She had stopped a couple of weeks before that. She was still lying on 9/16.
So you’re suggesting that the rule is, it’s OK when Presidents lie as long as they are competent? As I said before, it’s a consistent position, and it does have the virtue of not having to keep denying that Obama (and Clinton) were lying. But in that case, why complain about any President’s lying? If competence is all that’s important, complain about competence.
You’re about the sixth person to argue here that it doesn’t matter if Obama was lying, because you believe Bush lied, too. How does that help you? It seems a weird position to me.
And yet I cite the specific lie over and over: she (like Obama) blamed the attack on a spontaneous demonstration arising out of the YouTube video, when it clearly was nothing of the sort, and they clearly knew it.
Ah, it was diplomacy that required Rice and Obama to lie to the American people! It’s a shame they couldn’t simply restrict their remarks to whatever was safe to go public about, and stick to the truth. Tell me again why it was diplomatically useful to blame the attacks on a spontaneous critical movie review instead of a sophisticated paramilitary attack?
Ah, so many interpretations, so little time:
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/10/19/how-candy-crowley-defeated-the-gop/
(h/t Angellight)
Well if we’re using texan99′s logic then Romney was responsible for the release of the video trashing Islam because it created a international scandal right when he needed one and Republicans are responsible for the attacks because they cut funding for the State department right when it needed it the most.
It’s a weird position, to you, but what’s your answer? Were you firing away on the social media machinery when it became clear that the justifications for the war in Iraq was an endless stream of bullshit? That Iraq’s ties to 9/11 — in which almost 3,000 people, not 4, lost their lives — were 100% nonexistent, based on information both after and BEFORE the invasion? The present administration has already corrected what you insist on calling lies, and no one in the Bush-Cheney administration has admitted to this day (outside of maybe Richard Clarke and a couple of others) that they got anything wrong. At all. Cheney is still out there flogging his fantasy rationales for perpetual war. There is a question of scale in this whole issue. I know it complicates the propaganda mission to inflate this tragedy into an equivalent to the monumental security failure of the Bush-Cheney administration, but that’s a problem for you and Fox“News” and Rush to work out.
It’s not in texan99′s mission to go back in time.
The mission is to repeat the word ‘lie’ and attach it to Obama, over and over and over….
Actually no, I didn’t say that at all, you may want to re-read what I wrote again.
I said that I wasn’t going to hold Obama to a standard higher than that used for other Presidents, like you want to do.
I also pointed out the relative harm from the lies and wondered why you were so outraged by Obama’s alleged lies and totally unconcerned about the whoppers told by W and his cronies that actually got hundreds of thousands of people killed.
I said that I am willing to forgive his lies, not excuse them, because on the whole I believe we are better off with Obama as President.
Now if Obama were to manufacture a body of lies over the course of a year, using this tragedy as the bloody shirt to start a war that he was determined to start even before he took office, like
BushCheney did …I wouldn’t be so forgiving. I might even be mad enough to vote for Jill Stein!
I have my own beliefs, just like you. You believe that Obama is lying about this incident and I believe that you are full of shit. You haven’t produced any convincing evidence that Obama was lying. It is painfully obvious that you have backed into your conclusions and have attempted to manufacture “facts” to suit those conclusions.
You do understand the concept that the raw data may have been collected within 24 hr’s, but not be available to the President until much later, don’t you? Or that Bureaucrats might be reluctant to present new information that contradicts the initial assessment until they are sure they’ve really got it right this time?
This is more of the type of stuff I was talking about earlier when I suggested that you consider the possibility that the world is more complex than you wish it to be.
In addition to not understanding the meaning of “diplomacy” you also don’t understand the meaning of “cite.”
“Citation” does not mean endlessly repeating “she lied.”
It means give a direct quote, note the specific words or phrase you believe to be untrue, and support your assertion of its untruth with FACTS that are verifiable.
You also have no credibility in asserting the personal or private motivations of people – what was their reason of saying such and such, what was the thinking that led to that statement, etc., without supporting facts to back you up. Were you in the room when internal discussions occured? Do you know who Rice’s comments were run past for approval? Do you know what information she had at the time? You have nothing.
I never believed Bush, Cheney, or Powell was lying about the WMD. If I did believe it, I’d be upset with them for lying. I wouldn’t be saying, “Well, Clinton lied, too!” I think Reagan probably told some whoppers about IranContra, and I blamed him for it. I am not the one advocating a double standard, or justifying one president’s lies by pointing to those of another.
Certainly. When a public figure lies, it should be pointed out as often as necessary to cut through the noisy, incoherent defenses.
Seriously? You’re contesting the fact that Obama and Rice, among others, insisted that the attacks resulted from an anti-video demonstration rather than a paramilitary attack by 125 guys armed with RPGs?
Here’s what the serious people are saying:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/benghazi-attack-becomes-political-ammunition/2012/10/19/e1ad82ae-1a2d-11e2-bd10-5ff056538b7c_story_1.html
When you refute it, use citations. Otherwise it’s like auntsnow says, you got nothing.
Seriously? You’re contesting the fact that Bush, Cheney, Rice, Ashcroft, etc. lied about WMD’s.
Especially after the Bush’s little joke about “Searching for WMD’s” at the Correspondent’s Dinner?
Asking you why you didn’t hold Bush to the same Standard of honesty as you are insisting upon for Obama isn’t justifying Obama’s lies by saying that Bush lied also.
It’s asking you why you are being a hypocrite.
As more facts come out, texan99 is looking more and more like a fool: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/10/more_problems_for_romney.php?ref=fpblg
However, it’s becoming increasingly clear that its mission here wasn’t a good faith effort to discuss factual matters, it was simply an attempt to try and spread right wing talking points. Fail.
No, you simple shithead, I’m contesting your ability to present a fact. Which you haven’t done so far.
Come on, genius. Give us a DIRECT QUOTE and then tell us what exactly in that quote is a “lie” and present evidence that backs that up.
I’m beginning to think that texan99 is actually Shrub*, now trolling places like this when he’s not giving speeches to his forever adoring fans at evangelical Christian confabs; he sure sounds like it:
…he believes the same thing Wednesday that he believed on Monday, no matter what happened Tuesday… (the whole glorious memorable Colbert WHCA speech can be found here, and I’m sure elsewhere)
“what happened Tuesday” (also);
and don’t forget the helping hand from The Poodle and our Merkin watchdog media (woof! gimme a belly scritch!; h/t to the unreliable Dick Whisperer for that)
Except, of course, Shrub and his evil and incompetent cohort were already wrong on Monday, in so many ways. They had to know that in their minds, but since their guts were in charge (as Colbert noted), that clearly didn’t matter.
Yes, for texan99, phasers can safely be set to IGNORE; there is no “there” there.
*RIP, Molly – always missed, never forgotten