Benghazi attack - Terrorists or unruly crowd?
 

I fail to understand why it's a big deal at this moment to assert, one way or the other, that the Benghazi attack was the work of terrorists rather than an unruly crowd. Until all the facts are in and the investigation completed, why is it important (for the GOP particularly) to go out on a limb and attribute this attack to terrorists?

The GOP paints the attackers as terrorists because that word is more scary than unruly crowd.

The goal is to send a message that Obama is not protectecting us from scary people. Fear is used as a motivator to get people to vote Republican.

Fear is all they have to sell.

Unruly crowds always carry RPGs ;)

Pete

Hells yes. They were seriously unruly. None of that silly spinning like the Dead Heads used to do. :D

LOL!

Pete

I heard (and have no idea if it is true or not) that the video had only had approx. 900 views at the time the trouble started. Is there any way to find out more about that?

Not sure about that, but the one that was linked here is different than the one they were seeing in the ME. Someone had added Arabic subtitles, and it was constantly running on Egyptian television. I get the impression that it was translated by those who didn't agree with its message, but saw it as a useful "organizing" tool.

I made it through about 2 minutes when I looked at the English version. It is the artistic equivalent of fingerpainting on the wall.

Regards,

D-Ray

And that's putting fingerpainting in bad light.

It was kinda like Monty Python's "Life of Brian" that had been stripped completely of its humor. It's hard to understand what about this silly film riled them up so much. Then again, religious nuts here say that there's a War on Christmas (a holiday that last about 2 months nowadays).

Well, for one thing, we don't really know how the subtitles read. Even in the English language version, the editors went back and overdubbed the dialog, presumable to put words in the actors' mouths they wouldn't have been willing to say.

John

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...y.html?hpid=z1

DNI Chief Clapper explains in a rare statement from this office.

I prefer the term "atrociously naughty mob"........Or does that sound a touch too.......British?

Dave

Actually they do in a country that just went through a civil war.

The militias have gained power and do not want to give it up. While it is true that America has a 60% favourable rating in Libya there is the other 40% to contend with.

There have been pro American demonstrations in Libya and letters of condolences sent to the Ambassadors family from Libyan groups and individuals. You won't hear that news uttered in the mainstream corporate media. It is far better to go to war with the radical Islamofascist because GE needs to sell another jet engine because daddy needs a new Ferrari Enzo.

The big deal is due to this administration doing the asserting, as it turns out, and making repeated assertions over the course of two weeks which run contrary to quite a few facts they were aware of at the time.

This president, who is tasked with, among other things, protecting the American people is caught red handed politicizing a major national security concern to cover his and his admin's incompetence through deception and consealment.

Aside from the numerous and serious charges of ineptitude and betrayal of the national interest which this engenders, it speaks to the character of this president and it doesn't speak well. I know liberals often rebut by citing that all politicians are sleazy, mendacious, corrupt... but there are degrees of these things... and although I'm sure there have been unprincipled and weak-of-character presidents preceding this one in history, this president and this admin easily set the high watermark for achieving such dishonors for any of their ilk during my lifetime.

That might be part of why this is a 'big deal'.

How much credence do you think anyone is giving to your version of this issue? How bitter are you going to be when Mitt is sent away to count his money in the Caymans? His money has more experience in foreign affairs than he does.

Regards,

D-Ray

Listen. You can choose to remain in as much denial as you like regarding Obama, but Romney is clearly a moderate. Most liberals have said so themselves when describing him as some kind of faux conservative. Only a moderate has a chance to unite this country once again and only someone with some understanding of economic policy (business background is going to help here) has a chance of offering some real solutions to our economic problems. The idea of Obama might have been a worthy experiment had the man been able to live up to the idea, but we've got pressing problems and it's time to stop f-ing around. That is all Obama and company seem to know how to do. You want four more years of that, get your money in the Caymans too if you've got any left to funnel there.

There he goes again! :D Even with four years of Obama history your guys haven't been able to find anything substantiative to hang your hats on. Just a bunch of vague and easily disputed opinions that the black guy is going to take away your money, guns and women. Talking points memo is all projection pure and simple and ridiculous, Mezz but keep on deluding yourself but save your faux sympathy, dude. It doesn't wash and that dog won't hunt, no more.

This election is going to be a referendum on the Tea Party congress more than on Obama. As the new old saw goes, Osama ben Laden is dead and GM is alive, that alone is enough but your guy spouting that nonsense about the 47% at his $50k a plate fundraiser couldn't have been worse for R$R. I'll be toasting the back of your far right, new age John Birch/Ayn Randian fringists on Nov.7th. The republican party is going to clean house after this election and we Democrats are going to be coming for what's left of your turkeys during the midterms in two years. Count on it.

The Tea Party are the ones with failed doctrine and fringe issues if you haven't noticed. Nobody's buying it anymore. Your guys have had their fifeteen minutes of fame and limelight. Now it's time for serious people to govern and for the inheritors of McCarthyism and obstructionism to crawl back under the proverbial rock. See ya again in another fifty years or so. I doubt that I'll be around for the next revival of the 'No Nothing Party' unless Obamacare can keep me alive past 100 years old.;)

The only way Romney could win would be a remake of the 2000 election but count on one thing this time, there will be plenty of Dems watching the polling stations this time around, like hawks. http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/ima...ilies/nono.gifNo more fixing elections for the Repub party, as in the latest kerfuffle with the RNC's Strategic Solutions. If it comes down to the Supreme court stepping in, the right doesn't have fix in as they did in 2000. Roberts and Kennedy are looking to their places in history more than to their allegience to this neoconservative psuedo movement infecting the body politic.

Hey Mezz, it sounds like you're getting a little testy as reality starts to set in.

Funny stuff there d-ray, a liberal suddenly purporting to espy reality. I count votes yet sir. Romney may reveal himself to be somewhat less than a monster yet... but Obama is not going to suddenly become competent.

We'll soon see. I'm hoping to reinvest in America real soon.

I hope you're smart enough to see the irony of this statement with your candidate investing heavily in the Caymans and Switzerland.

Too bad Clinton didn't say, it's the economy stupid.

;)

It's becoming more and more clear the Benghazi murder was a pretty bad cluster, um, screw.

Pete

No irony. I fail to see how or why liberals think they can convince anyone that broke and stupid is to be respected over smart and wealthy. In business it's nothing personal. Obama has done what he can to maintain an environment which is hostile to investment and discourages to growth. Smart money is waiting for better conditions to be invested, stupid money is gone.

That's the Repubs problem, mess. Nobody wants government to be run like a business, we tried that under Reagan and then under Dubya and look where it got us. You do remember the absolute clusterf**k that GW and Darth Cheney were, doncha?:rolleyes:

Iraq was a "governmental LBO" in classic Bain fashion. Take Iraq on borrowed money and then pay the off loan with Iraqi oil.

You Repubs want more of that shit? Vote for R$R.

John

Oh we will :)

Pete

So, at least you seem to know I'm right. The problem is, Pete, the LBO hasn't worked. The shareholders of Iraq, Inc. rebelled and America, LLC had to bug out. Now we're stuck with all that debt that the Iraq, Inc. division of America, LLC was supposed to assume. Now they can't suck Iraq dry and then sell it off.

John

If I agreed with you, don't you think I'd vote for Obama?

Pete

Where am I wrong?

John

We never intended to steal Iraqi oil.

Pete

You're kidding, right?

Not only did we intend to steal it, but we intended to use it to pay for the war, just like I said.

And just like Wolfowitz said.

John

You mean 'sell the oil to finance the opposition'?

Pete

And then there's this. Cheney setting up deals for the takeover of Iraqi oil seven months before 9/11.

http://my.firedoglake.com/perris/200...le-before-911/

http://www.judicialwatch.org/bulleti...qi-oil-fields/

John

Well I'm glad to see they were prepared.

The money was to finance Iraqi reconstruction.

Pete

No, I don't. Read the links.

John

I did. They say "These are documents released by the Commerce Department under a March 5, 2002 court order as a result of Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit concerning the activities of the Cheney Energy Task Force. The documents contain a map of Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals, as well as 2 charts detailing Iraqi oil and gas projects,"

and

"These are documents turned over by the Commerce Department, under a March 5, 2002, court order as a result of Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit concerning the activities of the Cheney Energy Task Force. The documents contain a map of Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals, as well as two charts detailing Iraqi oil and gas projects, and “Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts.” The documents are dated March 2001."

Pete

So, Pete, how is it that Cheney felt he could line up customers to operate Iraqi oil fields seven months before 9/11 and about 2 years before we invaded Iraq?

I'm trying to find the video that shows Wolfowitz testifying before Congress that the war would pay for itself after the oil started flowing. I know he said it but I can't find the video.

Still looking.

John

From Wiki, take it as you wish:

"....Kampfner outlined Wolfowitz’s strategy for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which "envisaged the use of air support and the occupation of southern Iraq with ground troops, to install a new government run by Ahmed Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress." Wolfowitz believed that the operation would require minimal troop deployment, Hersh explains, because "any show of force would immediately trigger a revolt against Saddam within Iraq, and that it would quickly expand."[34] The financial expenditure would be kept low, Kampfner observes, if "under the plan American troops would seize the oil fields around Basra, in the South, and sell the oil to finance the opposition."

On March 27, 2003, Wolfowitz told the House Appropriations Committee[39] that oil revenue earned by Iraq alone would pay for Iraq's reconstruction after the Iraq war; he testified his "rough recollection" was[39]: "The oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years. Now, there are a lot of claims on that money, but ... We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon."[40] By October of that year, "Lawrence Di Rita, the Pentagon's chief spokesman, said 'prewar estimates that may be borne out in fact are likelier to be more lucky than smart.' [He] added that earlier estimates and statements by Mr. Wolfowitz and others 'oozed with uncertainty.'" Di Rita's comments came as a much less optimistic secret Pentagon study—which had been complete at the time of Wolfowitz's testimony—was coming to public light, and when actual production results in Iraq were coinciding with those projected in the less optimistic Pentagon study.[39]
...."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Wolfowitz

Once again, the plan was to sell the oil to finance Iraq, not us. Planning is good.

They were optimistic, and as it turns out they were optimistic about everything.

But for better or worse they succeeded in changing the face of the ME.

Pete

hehe.

That's like saying they didn't know what they were doing but they sure did a lot!

Hard work is all that matters. :D

Who's plan? Our plan, of course. How do we get to decide how, and to whom, Iraq pays to undo the damage we did?

You don't for one minute that Bush/Cheney would have permitted the Iraqis any say at all in this, do you? The plan was to have the Coalition Provisional Authority, and subsequently our puppet government, pay Haliburton et al for the job.

And you still haven't answered how it was Cheney felt he could hold an auction for Iraq oil before we invaded and before al Qaeda gave him an excuse to invade.

John

SO, who ended up paying for the reconstruction of Iraq?

Regards,

D-Ray