Your missing the third choice which is the one most likely.
Democracies risk 'losing souls' as media freedom erodes, group says
- Thread starter Frederick Foresight
- Start date
AAAinthebeltway hit the nail on the head, she was either lying or she wasnt.
Do you think the highest levels of our intelligence officials didnt know that it wasnt a "Spontaneous uprising" when an Organised army with RPG's and all kinds of other military grade weapons started attacking them?
If thats the case then we should instantly defund them because they are incompetent.
The point is, she denied saying something that (1) she obviously did say and (2) she attacked family members of people she had sent out to die. Do you think they all just imagined she said it or made it up because they hated her?
If she had been given erroneous information, why wouldn't she apologize to the family members for misleading them? Instead, she implied they were trying to undermine her.
It was an extremely telling incident on several levels.
Its generally not possible to have all of the facts correct in the immediate aftermath of a disaster. It happens all the time that events are initially incorrectly reported, or people jump to incorrect conclusions. It's an everyday occurrence. To make a story that rational people, i.e., those without a predisposition, would accept, you would have to come up with a motive for intentionally lying. There have been motives advanced, however the motives ascribed are themselves not very rational.
And saying 'she lies all the time' is not defensible. Has she said things that turned out not to be true, yes of course. Is there anyone alive who hasn't? She did "mis-remember" running for cover. This is more worrisome to me, then her initial thinking that a video that had sparked demonstrations in the Arab world caused the Benghazi attack. (As we later found out, that video was a motivating factor for Benghazi participants, but the not the reason for the attack.) Actually Hillery had the most sensible comment of all when she said, "what difference does it make?" In a non-political context, it wouldn't make a difference, but in the highly partisan context of U.S. politics it made a difference!
Come one man, im bending here, i dont happen to think there is some grand conspiracy in Bhenghazi, it was simply government berucracy malfeasance. Those people knew they were going to be attacked, and they ended up being attacked, someone in the state department fucked up, but i doubt it ever got to hillary.
With that said to say they didnt realise it was a coordinated effort is simply laughable. Why do you think Susan Rice was the one who got sent out on all the sunday shows as opposed to Hillary? Do you not think Hillary would have wanted her name all over that if she thought her talking points were sound?
The military and the government would have known in about two seconds the difference between a coordinated attack and a spontaneous riot, probably right around the time the first RPG got fired.
It really is an excercise in cognitive dissonance to say hillary and the millatary didnt know that people armed with AK's and RPG's were not just some random uprising.
I:f this is what the Obama admin considered a "Random Uprising" It makes me wonder how the fuck they ever could have thought overthrowing half of the middle east was an amazing idea. I guess the ones who werent firing RPG's at children were the moderates. What a lofty goal.
With that said to say they didnt realise it was a coordinated effort is simply laughable. Why do you think Susan Rice was the one who got sent out on all the sunday shows as opposed to Hillary? Do you not think Hillary would have wanted her name all over that if she thought her talking points were sound?
The military and the government would have known in about two seconds the difference between a coordinated attack and a spontaneous riot, probably right around the time the first RPG got fired.
It really is an excercise in cognitive dissonance to say hillary and the millatary didnt know that people armed with AK's and RPG's were not just some random uprising.
I:f this is what the Obama admin considered a "Random Uprising" It makes me wonder how the fuck they ever could have thought overthrowing half of the middle east was an amazing idea. I guess the ones who werent firing RPG's at children were the moderates. What a lofty goal.
Last edited:
as to (1), no one is sure who said what , and there are conflicting accounts if it is the meeting of the Secretary and the President and other U.S. officials with the families that is the issue. Apparently it was a grief stricken and tense meeting. She herself is just as likely to have incorrectly remembered what was said, as any of the other participants. As to (2), I had no knowledge of this until now. Is there support for this statement. Do we have a reliable, unedited, in context, quote of her "attacking" family members. If we do than that is a very serious transgression. Or is the word "attack" here being used in the same political sense as the word "lie" is being used?
My personal view is that there is plenty of substantive criticisms having to do with policy that could be launched against the Secretary, but who wants to hear about boring policy? So it's understandable, things being as they are, that her opposition seemed intent on making political hay out of the Benghazi attack. If you want to win a battle it helps to get the troops motivated by vilifying your enemy. In this respect, political battles are no different.
The bottom line is that anything Hillary ever said or has done is excusable and/or has some reasonable explanation, and anything that Trump has ever done or will do is not, but there's no media bias. That about cover it?
That's right. We can all agree, a huge mistake was made. I have no idea how long it actually took, not how long it should have taken, to get accurate information back. Do you know? It did come back, but sometimes information at the ground level has to filter through levels of responsibility before it reaches the top and that can take awhile, especially when the means of communication have been destroyed. At the hearing it seemed there was an exhibit that indicated when it became evident to the secretary what was behind the attack. It was later than one might have thought, but I don't recall now when it was. I think she even said something, but facts were quickly buried by a deluge of accusations. I watched practically none of it because I find that one can quickly learn what needs to be learned from political grandstanding, and after that one is wasting one's time. I go to other independent sources.
This was posted in the afternoon the day after the Attack.
ProPublica, Sep. 12, 2012, 3:08 p.m.
Here’s the best reporting we’ve found not only on yesterday’s killings but also on post-war Libya. What are we missing? Please leave your favorite stories in comments.
THE ATTACK: ITS ORIGINS AND VICTIMS
U.S. Suspects Libya Attack Was Planned, New York Times
The connection between an anti-Islam film that reportedly sparked this week’s protests in the Mideast and the attack that killed the American ambassador is unclear. Unnamed U.S. officials have told the New York Times and CNN that militants behind the attack may have instigated a protest against the film as a diversion or taken advantage of it as an opportunity.
Also perhaps of some interest is: http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-hillary-clinton-benghazi-testimony-20151022-story.html
Last edited:
It takes a few time for information to be filtered back to the top when its coming from the ground level BEFORE an attack, once the attack happens there is a shoe horn direct to the people at the top where they know who were involved.
I have no doubt that they didnt see the attack coming because it got filtered through various beurecracies, but once it happened, they literally had all arms on deck, and everyone watching and figuring it out, Hillary would have been in that situation room. They knew full well that it was more than a spontaneous uprising when AK's and RPG's started going off, to deny that is to deny reality.
Spontaneous riots dont end up with military grade weapons, and coordinated assaults. You posted politifact as a supposed reputable source to try to discredit the fact that hillary and the Obama admin lied about it, so tell me this, since politifact doesnt think they lied about it, why is it that three families who had nothing to do with each other all have matching stories, that match exactly with what The obama admin was saying at the time?
Again i dont think this was some nefarious plan, it was just an instance of them trying to cover their ass and put spin on something where americans died, similar to the Situation with the army ranger from the NFL (cant rememebr his name now) who died in combat from friendly fire and the military tried to lie. It should trouble everyone that the snap reaction from the people in charge of all these bodies, and the government as a whole, is to try to lie before telling the truth. The cover up is always worse than the crime, But beurecratic incompotence just doesnt sell at the voting booth.
Last edited:
Or perhaps the botched raid a few months ago that cost an American SEAL his life, several dozen women and children, and the Al Queada target got away.