Benghazi

[clebro]

So we know the answers to your question:

 

 

Who from the CIA told her that?

The entire agency did, when they made the decision to remove the names of the AQ-affiliated groups.

That's what we need to know because they were obviously not doing there job.

Yes, they were.

No one it Libya thought it was from a video.

But that's not why they removed it. Additionally, at the time there were multiple intelligence reports that it did have something to do with the video. You're focusing on the specific people who thought it was 100% terrorism and no one else, leaving you with an incomplete picture.

Furthermore, Clinton called Hicks, but didn't even bothering asking him who committed the attacks.

This doesn't strike me as odd. She's talking to him at 2:00 AM on the night of the attacks.

Assuming it was an honest mistake to not think that was a good question to ask the man, it led to the false narrative of blaming a video being pushed for 2 weeks. These are problems that can't happen the first time. But they did and it needs to be fixed.

I really don't share your sense of immediacy, nor imagine that there's not going to be a fair amount of confusion when an embassy comes under attack on a night when there are anti-US protests all over the Muslim world.

You act as if the worst thing to happen here is that someone suggested the video had something to do with it, even while saying that we're still investigating, even while they had information that the video did have something to do with it. So, it's yet another place where most people see the usual amounts of after-action period confusion, with people try to nail down what happened, with lots of different agencies involved, which complicates the narrative. Whereas there's another side that says everyone should have accepted the version certain people had, and right away, and discount all the other information people had, and right away, and deliver that information to the public within days.

This is why the whole affair is such a head scratcher for most of us, until you factor in what everyone assumes is the real reason we're doing this all over again.

1) The CIA is made up of individuals with individual responsibilities. They are just a bunch of sheep who learn all their information from being herded together and set in front of a giant projector. Individuals wrote the report based on the work of other individuals. The whole thing was messed up and individuals can be to blame.

 

2) The fire department tells you, the police and the news crew that your house burned down because you didn't take care of faulty electrical wiring. Of course, the fire started on your back porch and accelerants were clearly used, making the electrical wiring claim completely illogical. (just like protestors used mortars). Witnesses who were their say there was a 100% chance it was arson, but the fire department doesn't bother to ask them that. You thing the fire department/ arson investigators did their job?

 

3) What was the point of calling him if she didn't find out valuable information? And why wouldn't she follow up to get more information? That would have been more reasonable then just making up that it was a video without knowing at all. Although I guess Hilary already answered those last two questions. She doesn't think it makes a difference.

 

4) The first time it was investigated Clinton just told us getting the truthful answers as to what really happened don't make a difference and that she can't remember anything else. The only reason the investigations continued is because 3 whistleblowers still haven't been asked by anyone about what happened that night. Unless these 3 witnesses took up their respective positions decades ago knowing they could help the GOP plot to bring down a Democrat President by making the administration look bad, I'm not really buying into your conspiracy that it's being drummed up to make Obama or Clinton look bad.

 

Hicks saying that Clinton never asked him about what happened is rather serious. His claim about the defense department lawyers is also very concerning.

 

Thompson says he was never given an answer as to why he calls for help were denied.

 

The 3rd whistleblower requested to be interviewed to help the investigation and his offer was declined.

 

I don't care what Republicans have to say, the fact that these statements came from the non-partisan whistleblowers is what matters. From no security increases at the building despite the fact that their were violent anti-US protest all over the Muslim world, to the denied request for reinforcements, to the disaster of an investigation, and so on. The administration sends out Rice to blame some video producer who put his work on Youtube over 3 months earlier, when that claim didn't even make sense at the time. With mounds of evidence making it clear it was an attack and nothing more than a guess that a video could have been involved, the administration had no business claiming it was a video. Any evidence of a terrorist attack was ignored in favor of blaming a video. And when they got caught telling something that wasn't true at all, they sent Clinton out to tell people it doesn't make a difference. And why this matters is a head scratcher to you?

[heckofajobbrownie]

I think you've answered my question, and it's that you're really invested in this being a conspiracy to mislead America, when it really was an interagency decision to not say anything definitive until all the facts were in, and to not tip off the groups who did it while we tracked them. You've completed ignored all of this evidence because it doesn't fit into your narrative, presumably so that you can keep your narrative.

 

You're perfectly free to be upset that certain people in the chain weren't asked or told certain things, but the fact that they weren't asked or told certain things does not strike me as a huge scandal, or even odd. Neither does the fact that they sent out Susan Rice to say basically, "We think this is how it happened, but we don't know yet" is a huge attempt to mislead and dammit, we need answers! That is the headscratcher, yes.

 

I find the whole episode entirely typical, much like any unfolding situation where the information isn't immediately clear. You're assuming that it was immediately clear because certain people said it was, while completely ignoring all of the other people who said that it wasn't clear. That's the only way you can say things like "Any evidence of a terrorist attack was ignored in favor of blaming a video." That's not what happened, and doesn't square with the reality the decision-makers were faced with at the time.

 

What's more, you still want to find out who in the CIA screwed up when what you're upset about is that not everyone immediately held the position you wanted them to hold, which is that it was a terrorist attack. The fact that some of the information they gathered suggested that it had something to do with the video, and that information was considered, is apparently what's bothering you. This is also a headscratcher.

 

Even more, you're upset that the intelligence community then made a judgment call about what to tell the public so they would maximize their chances of finding those responsible. Again, a headscratcher. This happens all the time.

 

In short, you're upset because everyone didn't immediately hold the opinion that this was a terrorist attack. Only in retroactive world does this make a lick of sense. You're trying to make this a willful attempt to mislead when it clearly isn't.

 

It's somewhat akin to demanding that the administration immediately call the Boston Marathon bombings Islamic terrorism the moment they discovered that the bombers were of Chechen origin. That ended up being the case, and that was some of the initial information they had, but they don't go out and say it definitively until they know, as there's a lot of information coming in at once.

[heckofajobbrownie]

And I'd ask you the same question Hillary asked, because I'd like to know: what difference does it make?

 

The biggest headscratcher in all of this is the notion, created out of whole cloth, that there was some vested interest in keeping the terrorism aspect of it from the public, even though the president is in the Rose Garden calling it an act of terror a day later. From there one the questions they're trying to figure out is whether it sprung out of the protests we saw all over the Muslim world or if it was something that was independent of the protests. That's what they were trying to determine, and we know they had conflicting evidence on this count.

 

Eventually it's determined that these were independent actors and it did not follow from the protests.

 

What difference does it make if we were told "we don't know" when we didn't know, and then told it was terrorism when we did know it was terrorism versus your version, where we call certain people and take their word for it, ignore the other information, and call it terrorism a few days earlier?

 

What difference does it make? And why are the intervening days of fact-finding a huge scandal? You're literally saying, "They should have said terrorism on Monday, when they said it on Friday!!"

 

Really. And this is why I used the Plame and US Attorneys examples up top. You guys have created this scenario where suggesting that perhaps they should have known it was terrorism earlier, and disclosed this to the public earlier, is a huge scandal. Well, perhaps they should have. But what difference does it make? What you're doing is setting up a means to have scandal where there isn't one to have.You feel if you can go back and point out who knew it was terrorism earliest - Hicks, etc. - then you can prove they were acting maliciously by not telling us what the people on the ground believed. This ignores that the fact that there are loads of people in the government who are also going to weigh in on this.

 

You've set the goalposts at "not a scandal" but think if you get to the goalposts you've proved we have a huge scandal.

[heckofajobbrownie]

'It might have been terrorism that grew out of the video protests. It might have been a pre-planned attack. We don't know yet. We're investigating.'

 

What difference does it make, in terms of a scandal, if it was terrorism that grew out of the protest or terrorism that was pre-planned? Why is their job to call it pre-planned terrorism as soon as they're told by some people on the ground that this is their opinion of what happened, and if they don't it's a scandal?

 

What difference does that make in the days after the attack? Tell me.

[calfoxwc]

No. The president lied a week later. At least try to be honest about all this.

 

http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2013/05/08/obama-letterman-video-benghaz/

[calfoxwc]

"I am veteran White House reporter Keith Koffler. I write White House Dossierbecause power requires accountability."

 

Come on, Heck. The spins stops here.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Cal, let's take a look at the track record of you and the rest of the board Republicans. These are some of the recent claims you've made. And this is just off the top of my head.

 

Obama actually born in Kenya. (Not true.)

Obama planning FEMA concentration camps. (Not true.)

Obama amassing civilian security force equal to the military. (Not true.)

Homeland Security buying up all the bullets to prepare for civil unrest. (Not true.)

Homeland Security buying up all the bullets to cause bullet shortage (Not true.)

Obama's books written by Bill Ayers. (Not true.)

Obamacare includes death panels. (Not true.)

Obama is a Muslim. (Not true.)

ACORN stole the election. (Not true.)

Obama ordered Labor Department to fudge jobs numbers before election. (Not true.)

Obama wants to confiscate your guns. (Not true.)

Obama DOJ quashed Black Panther case. (Not true.)

Obama/someone in the Oval Office ordered talking points on Benghazi changed to protect president/election effort. (Not true.)

Obama and Democrats engaged in widespread voter fraud. (Not true.)

Obama responsible for Monsanto Protection Act. (Not true.)

Obama White House threatened Bob Woodward. (Not true.)

 

I wish you luck this time.

[Westside Steve]

no embarrassment at all, she lied. She lied because she repeated a lie.over and over and over and everyone, I mean everyone, knew it was bullshit. Even the guys on the left don't believe it, just you.

 

and I don't think you really believe it it's just that you have to defend did ministration no matter what.

 

if you want to explain it by saying she's just a stooge, fine I'll buy that.

 

they probably headed that script to Hillary and she told them to get bent.

 

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Steve, last time this came up you said she's a liar or a fool or both, and that the talking points were changed by one of Obama's handlers. Of course, then we found out the talking points came from the intelligence agencies, were not touched by the White House, and that she worked off of those. So, you were dead wrong on both counts.

 

I see that none of this information sunk in. You're back to the same point - she's an idiot or a liar.

 

"Sticking to the intelligence community's cleared talking points = lying" in your world. I'm glad I don't live in your world.

[Westside Steve]

bud fool stooge or liar are the only options. That's all there is to it.

 

there's not even one MSNBC analyst willing to say that it was true.

 

do you think it was the truth?

 

I don't and nobody but you does if you really do. Let's hear it.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Honestly, guys, you think I'm sticking up for the president here because that's what you think I do for a living. (I don't.) I honestly don't see what you imagine is a huge scandal. This is a total headscratcher. It just reminds me of how much we live in two different worlds.

 

Take that Letterman video. He's saying it was a terrorist attack that grew out of the protests. I don't think this is evidence of him lying, I don't know why you think he's lying or for what purpose. I don't see what you're upset about. I don't follow your rationale on why terrorism that grew out of protests is some huge lie they wanted to pass off on the American people, instead of what it was - what they were being told at the time. Whereas terrorism that didn't grow out of the protests is ...an uncomfortable truth that would have devastated him, or even hurt him a little bit.

 

Outside of the bubble, no one gets what this cover up is supposed to be for. We can't even follow you on point one.

[heckofajobbrownie]

bud fool stooge or liar are the only options. That's all there is to it.

 

there's not even one MSNBC analyst willing to say that it was true.

 

do you think it was the truth?

 

I don't and nobody but you does if you really do. Let's hear it.

WSS

 

They're the only two options if you're an idiot. Really.

 

Obviously, this information turned out to be wrong. Yes, we know that. At the time, they had difference information.

 

This is fun coming from the people who spent years saying, "Bush didn't lie about WMD. This was the information he was given by the intelligence agencies, and it turned out to be bad information."

 

Same thing here.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Steve, are you saying she should have ignored the intelligence agency talking points and freelanced it? Even knowing they removed those specific references to terrorist groups because they thought it would assist them in finding those responsible? That's what you're saying?

 

What would you have had Susan Rice say so that she wasn't being a "stooge or a liar?" Would love to hear that. Maybe you can invent another scenario in your head where she and Hillary blow off the wishes of the intelligence community.

 

Also, do you remember when you accused the White House of changing the talking points for political purposes? And that wasn't true, right? Let's hear that.

[Westside Steve]

I'm saying plainly and simply enough for anyone to understand that she was given incorrect information and whoever gave it to work should have known and she should have known.

 

and that they probably did know.

 

these people aren't idiots.

 

you are free to make up whatever kind of crazy spin you want.

 

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

I don't have to spin. I just have to point you to David Petraeus's testimony. Which explains why she was given the information she was.

 

There. I'm done.

[heckofajobbrownie]

And they're off! Rubio today:

 

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) criticized former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Thursday for her handling of the Sept. 11, 2012, attack at the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya.

 

Rubio said on Fox News the day after a congressional hearing on the issue that the reason talking points for officials within President Barack Obama’s administration — including Susan Rice — initially blamed the attack on an anti-Islamic YouTube film trailer was because it ran against Obama’s reelection strategy.

“In some way, shape or form, they sent the order that these talking points should not be allowed to include any reference to terrorism per say … but rather [that] this was something that was the result of a YouTube video. So I think that was the political motivation behind it,” Rubio said on Fox News.

And what we know:

WASHINGTON — David H. Petraeus, the former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, told lawmakers on Friday that classified intelligence reports revealed that the deadly assault on the American diplomatic mission in Libya was a terrorist attack, but that the administration refrained from saying it suspected that the perpetrators of the attack were Al Qaeda affiliates and sympathizers to avoid tipping off the groups.

Mr. Petraeus, who resigned last week after admitting to an extramarital affair, said the names of groups suspected in the attack — including Al Qaeda’s franchise in North Africa and a local Libyan group, Ansar al-Shariah — were removed from the public explanation of the attack immediately after the assault to avoiding alerting the militants that American intelligence and law enforcement agencies were tracking them, lawmakers said.

...Some intelligence analysts worried, for instance, that identifying the groups could reveal that American spy services were eavesdropping on the militants — a fact most insurgents are already aware of. Justice Department lawyers expressed concern about jeopardizing the F.B.I.’s criminal inquiry in the attacks. Other officials voiced concern that making the names public, at least right away, would create a circular reporting loop and hamper efforts to trail the militants.

Democrats said Mr. Petraeus made it clear the change had not been done for political reasons to aid Mr. Obama. “The general was adamant there was no politicization of the process, no White House interference or political agenda,” said Representative Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California.

[Westside Steve]

Heck seriously, if you can't even bring yourself to admit that it wasn't true, like everyone else, there's really no point in discussing it any further.

 

WSS

[clebro]

I think you've answered my question, and it's that you're really invested in this being a conspiracy to mislead America, when it really was an interagency decision to not say anything definitive until all the facts were in, and to not tip off the groups who did it while we tracked them. You've completed ignored all of this evidence because it doesn't fit into your narrative, presumably so that you can keep your narrative.

 

You're perfectly free to be upset that certain people in the chain weren't asked or told certain things, but the fact that they weren't asked or told certain things does not strike me as a huge scandal, or even odd. Neither does the fact that they sent out Susan Rice to say basically, "We think this is how it happened, but we don't know yet" is a huge attempt to mislead and dammit, we need answers! That is the headscratcher, yes.

 

I find the whole episode entirely typical, much like any unfolding situation where the information isn't immediately clear. You're assuming that it was immediately clear because certain people said it was, while completely ignoring all of the other people who said that it wasn't clear. That's the only way you can say things like "Any evidence of a terrorist attack was ignored in favor of blaming a video." That's not what happened, and doesn't square with the reality the decision-makers were faced with at the time.

 

What's more, you still want to find out who in the CIA screwed up when what you're upset about is that not everyone immediately held the position you wanted them to hold, which is that it was a terrorist attack. The fact that some of the information they gathered suggested that it had something to do with the video, and that information was considered, is apparently what's bothering you. This is also a headscratcher.

 

Even more, you're upset that the intelligence community then made a judgment call about what to tell the public so they would maximize their chances of finding those responsible. Again, a headscratcher. This happens all the time.

 

In short, you're upset because everyone didn't immediately hold the opinion that this was a terrorist attack. Only in retroactive world does this make a lick of sense. You're trying to make this a willful attempt to mislead when it clearly isn't.

 

It's somewhat akin to demanding that the administration immediately call the Boston Marathon bombings Islamic terrorism the moment they discovered that the bombers were of Chechen origin. That ended up being the case, and that was some of the initial information they had, but they don't go out and say it definitively until they know, as there's a lot of information coming in at once.

I still have yet to say it was conspiracy or a scandal. I've portrayed it as a massive failure that has bot been fully investigated. Maybe your assuming the administration isn't being the transparent group they promised because they have something to hide. I'm not accusing that. I simply see the problems that caused this to happen. I believe the problems should be fixed. You don't see it as a big deal. What if those two SEALS stayed put like they were ordered, and 30 people (mostly if not all Americans) were still being held hostage by terrorists? Would you think it would be more important then? Because the one and only thing that kept those people from being killed or taken hostage were the 2 SEALS.

 

Rice didn't say we aren't sure but there are many possibilities. She flat out said it was the video. Obama didn't call it a terrorist attack for at least 2 full weeks. You try to make it seem like they claimed they weren't sure. They were dead sure it was a video. Your quotes that you try to buffer with the word "basically" are flat out wrong.

 

So because people who weren't there didn't know what happened and people who were there knew what happened, it's okay for the administration to have no idea what happened? The people who knew what happened weren't asked. Hicks wasn't asked by Clinton what happened. One of the other 2 guys offered to be interviewed and was declined. It wasn't a 50/50 split among people there who claimed it was a video. Everyone there knew it was an attack. I'm not ignoring people who said it wasn't clear. I'm saying they were in no position to fully know what happen. The people who were in position and did fully know were ignored. The people who provided evidence - in fact proof- it was a terrorist attack were ignored. Those who claimed with no real evidence at all that a video was responsible for a full scale mortar attack got their story picked up by the administration. Hence, "Any evidence of a terrorist attack was ignored in favor of blaming a video."

 

Obama never called it an act of terror in the rose garden. Read the transcript. He said that acts of terror will not be tolerated, but it was in no way directed at Benghazi. And when he had more opportunities in the following days to directly call it terrorism in the following days, he didn't.

 

Again, maybe you will get it this time. The evidence it was because of a video never really made sense and didn't come from anyone who would actually know. The people who did actually know were ignored.

 

Again, I've said this probably 6 times, but I'm not saying there was an intentional action to mislead. I'm saying what came out was flat out wrong and the reasons why it was completely wrong clear. It should not have happened. The only way to fix a problem is to hold the people who are responsible fully responsible.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Obama never called it an act of terror in the rose garden. Read the transcript. He said that acts of terror will not be tolerated, but it was in no way directed at Benghazi. And when he had more opportunities in the following days to directly call it terrorism in the following days, he didn't.

 

 

 

I've got to get to work here, but ...you're kidding on this, right? You can't be serious.

 

A statement about Benghazi given in the Rose Garden describing the attack and saying "these acts of terror will not stand" is not referring to the attack he's holding the press conference about in the first place?

 

Wow. I hadn't heard that attempted before. Even in here. And these guys are nuts.

 

PS - Are you a Ron Paul fan?

[clebro]

 

I've got to get to work here, but ...you're kidding on this, right? You can't be serious.

 

A statement about Benghazi given in the Rose Garden describing the attack and saying "these acts of terror will not stand" is not referring to the attack he's holding the press conference about in the first place?

 

Wow. I hadn't heard that attempted before. Even in here. And these guys are nuts.

 

PS - Are you a Ron Paul fan?

Not a Paul fan. that's why I'm an independent. Even Candy Crawly pointed out during the debate Obama used the phrase "act of terror", but not exactly saying it about Benghazi. Apparently you didn't watch that debate. Wearing a scary mask on Halloween and scaring a little kid is an "act of terror". Although "act of terror" has no legal definition that means Al Queda terrorists committed the terror. Any violent crime is an "act of terror". It was careful word play by Obama that didn't actually state Muslim terrorists did anything. An angry crowd of video watchers can commit an "act of terror" the same way an organized Muslim extremist group can.

 

Blaming it on the video when it was a terrorist attack isn't even the main problem. The fact that the rescue team in Tripoli was told to stand down is much more of an issue then Rice's BS.

[heckofajobbrownie]

You can't be serious about that act of terror business. That's willful blindness.

 

And yes, watched the debate, and you've summed that up all wrong too.

 

 

ROMNEY: I -- I think interesting the president just said something which -- which is that on the day after the attack he went into the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror.

OBAMA: That's what I said.

ROMNEY: You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack, it was an act of terror.

It was not a spontaneous demonstration, is that what you're saying?

OBAMA: Please proceed governor.

ROMNEY: I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.

OBAMA: Get the transcript.

CROWLEY: It -- it -- it -- he did in fact, sir. So let me -- let me call it an act of terror...

OBAMA: Can you say that a little louder, Candy?

CROWLEY: He -- he did call it an act of terror. It did as well take -- it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You are correct about that.

ROMNEY: This -- the administration -- the administration indicated this was a reaction to a video and was a spontaneous reaction.

CROWLEY: It did.

 

 

I need to work.

[clebro]

Romney got caught up in the Rose Garden word play also. An "act of terror" could be committed by a spontaneous crowd. "Act of terror" in no way, shape or form means specifically Muslim extremists. Now of course they do commit acts of terror, but not all "acts of terror" are committed by them. Burning down the city of LA, looting and beating people is certainly an "act of terror". Although I recall that 1992 incident being committed by a spontaneous crowd, not a planned attack by an organized extremist group.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Oh, brother. You've taken me all the way down the rabbit hole with you. I want out.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Also, if your concerns really are what they say - making sure this doesn't happen again, holding people accountable, etc. - there's a pretty comprehensive report that was done by a team led by Admiral Mullen about the failures at the State Department before, during, and after the attack.

 

Wouldn't you prefer that to a Darrell Issa hearing? did that not suffice for you?

[clebro]

Also, if your concerns really are what they say - making sure this doesn't happen again, holding people accountable, etc. - there's a pretty comprehensive report that was done by a team led by Admiral Mullen about the failures at the State Department before, during, and after the attack.

 

Wouldn't you prefer that to a Darrell Issa hearing? did that not suffice for you?

Was this the same team that couldn't ask questions to Hicks without state department lawyers present? Or that denied the request of one of the other whistleblowers to be interviewed? The reason the whistleblowers had to come forward was because the first investigation failed at getting the truth from the people who knew it best.

 

And I would say you dug yourself into the hole you are in when you tried passing the general phrase "act of terror" as a specific reference to a Muslim extremist organization.

[heckofajobbrownie]

My God, man. I feel like I'm talking to a Truther about 9/11. "The fire would not have reached 900 degrees in that amount of time and therefore it would not have reached the burning point of steel."

You have lots particular things you wish to would have happened and precise wording that you wish had been used and the exact point in time you expect they should have been employed. This is your metric for scandal and I find it bizarre.

[clebro]

My God, man. I feel like I'm talking to a Truther about 9/11. "The fire would not have reached 900 degrees in that amount of time and therefore it would not have reached the burning point of steel."

 

You have lots particular things you wish to would have happened and precise wording that you wish had been used and the exact point in time you expect they should have been employed. This is your metric for scandal and I find it bizarre.

At this point it's clear that you read what you want to see and not what I typed. I have not called it a scandal, just a screw up. I have yet to say anyone purposely hid information or did anything with malice.

 

I just pointed out that Obama didn't call the attack a plot by terrorists. He said that "acts of terror" are bad. I don't care how he would have said it, just that he call it a plot by extremists and not a spontaneous riot because of a video. You thought the general phrase "act of terror" was a direct mention of Muslim extremists and I pointed out it's not. Killing 4 people is an "act of terror" if it was a planned by a group or spontaneously happened among random angry protestors.

[DieHardBrownsFan]

Obama and Hillary tried to cover up the facts because of the election. It's pretty obvious to most except Heck I guess. The failure to follow up on the attack and find out who is responsible is worse. The mother of the ex-Navy Seal who was DSS and killed was on CNN today telling how the Obama Admin did nothing except make promises they didn't keep on keeping her informed of what was going on. This Admin is really weak and falling apart.

[heckofajobbrownie]

At this point it's clear that you read what you want to see and not what I typed. I have not called it a scandal, just a screw up. I have yet to say anyone purposely hid information or did anything with malice.

 

I just pointed out that Obama didn't call the attack a plot by terrorists. He said that "acts of terror" are bad. I don't care how he would have said it, just that he call it a plot by extremists and not a spontaneous riot because of a video. You thought the general phrase "act of terror" was a direct mention of Muslim extremists and I pointed out it's not. Killing 4 people is an "act of terror" if it was a planned by a group or spontaneously happened among random angry protestors.

 

And even if we grant you this semantic point - which i don't, but whatever - this matters why?

[heckofajobbrownie]

Also, let's get your basic complaint: why was it an unGodly and politically motivated act of misdirection to suggest that the attack was opportunistic and grew out of the videos? Because that's what some of the intelligence suggested.

 

Again, this is one of the the headscratchers. The idea that he had to say this was terrorism on __ day! Which is, as you've told us, the day your specific people said they knew it had to be terrorism, and disregarding anyone else who said otherwise.