swgohome.com

Does Obama's covering up the Bengazhi attack bother any of the Obama supporters out there? change your minds at all?

Just curious, not trying to change people's opinions (well, if i could... )

Realpolitik mein freund.

3.14pi wrote:Does Obama's covering up the Bengazhi attack bother any of the Obama supporters out there? change your minds at all?

Can you explain in more detail what you mean with covering up.
As far as I know, the attacks are well known, there is no hiding or covering up as implied.
If you refer to issue where they acted as if they didn't know what was happening or their reluctance for action, then this would be more accurate. I do not fully know the details if it could have been prevented or not.

Based on what happened, it is tragic that we lost the lives. Before making further charges consider this http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/0 ... h-o/189890

Cheers

Yanoda

Hmm...The attacks were not covered up—you are correct; it is well known that they took place.

However, the Obama Administration claimed that they were committed by protestors in response to a youtube video which defamed Mohammed and aspects of Islam. Both the president, secretary of state, and US Ambassador to the UN claimed in the days following the attack that it was caused by the inflammatory video. It is now known that there was no evidence to suggest this; in fact, the protests in regard to the video only began once the United States mentioned the video—before the US cited the video as the motivation for the attack, there were no protests (yeah interesting).

This week, however, it has been disclosed by the White House Press Secretary (and reported by credible news networks such as ABC, NBC, NPR, FOX, etc.) that the attacks were not committed by protestors and really had nothing to do with the video: it was a planned terrorist attack in "honor" of September 11, and the Obama Administration knowingly blamed it on an unrelated video. Of course they will claim that they genuinely believed it was the video—although it obviously wasn't.

The reason for the cover up is as follows: Chris Stevens, the ambassador to Libya requested additional security at the embassy, which the Dept. of Defense/State did not honor. As such, Obama and his crew tried to pretend that the attack was spontaneous and unpredictable—and therefore it isn't their fault. Had they admitted the truth—that the attack was premeditated—the American people would know that the attack had been planned for weeks, we had advanced warning, and failed to act on it.

So, that is what I mean by "cover up."

... In what way does "the attack was pre-planned" equal "we had advanced warning"? Also, there were protests across the Middle East over the video (which was broadcast in Egypt on September 9), which were ongoing when the strike took place, so it makes sense to assume a link.

Darth Crater wrote:... In what way does "the attack was pre-planned" equal "we had advanced warning"? Also, there were protests across the Middle East over the video (which was broadcast in Egypt on September 9), which were ongoing when the strike took place, so it makes sense to assume a link.

I figured you'd have something to say. You are correct: saying that the attack was preplanned doesn't necessarily imply advanced warning. That is a separate issue; it just so happens that they did have advanced warning (kinda like they did with the actual 9/11). Look it up in any news article on google. I am correct in assuming you don't really think it was a "cover-up", and that they were completely honest when they attributed it to the video and apologized?

Though they may have had advanced warning the situation in Libya was growing more dangerous, and they withdrew extra security about a month before the attack, which they should not have done.

If you already have a credible source saying that they had reliable evidence of the attack (not just something brought up in hindsight), would you mind linking me to it?

And yes, I don't see any major wrongdoing by the administration. At the time of the attack, there were protests (such as those around the Egyptian embassy) about the video. When looking at multiple similar situations, at similar times, it makes sense to assume a connection. When further investigation found it was probably unrelated, they told us that.

Darth Crater wrote:If you already have a credible source saying that they had reliable evidence of the attack (not just something brought up in hindsight), would you mind linking me to it?

And yes, I don't see any major wrongdoing by the administration. At the time of the attack, there were protests (such as those around the Egyptian embassy) about the video. When looking at multiple similar situations, at similar times, it makes sense to assume a connection. When further investigation found it was probably unrelated, they told us that.

I'll find an article to link you to. In general though, the majority of newspapers favor Obama, as does TV. You kinda have to read between the lines. There are only 2 possibilities:

1) Obama and his staff are incompetent and incapable of handling foreign policy

2) They knew exactly what was going on and intended to mislead people

I personally think its the 2nd, but neither bode well for him.

And BTW: in the debate last night, Biden blatantly lied and said that the ambassador never requested additional security (not that Ryan didn't lie like a banshee as well)

... You do realize there is an entire spectrum of more plausible options than those two contrived scenarios you mention? Also, you're beginning to sound eerily close to a 9/11 conspiracy nut. This is not reassuring.

First, let's clarify. What, exactly, are we talking about? The connection of the attack to the film protests, or the state of security at the time of the attack?

Darth Crater wrote:... You do realize there is an entire spectrum of more plausible options than those two contrived scenarios you mention? Also, you're beginning to sound eerily close to a 9/11 conspiracy nut. This is not reassuring.

First, let's clarify. What, exactly, are we talking about? The connection of the attack to the film protests, or the state of security at the time of the attack?

Well, there are many possibilities in between those—and trust me, I'm not a conspiracy theorist by any stretch of the imagination. I don't just accept everything the media says though—and prefer to think that Obama really has good intentions, when honestly—no politician does. However, this is something that demands honesty.

We are talking broadly about two things

1) Did the Obama administration know who was behind the attacks, and why did they say that it was related to a film protest, when it has now been factually established that it had nothing to do with the video?

2) The most logical explanation is the following: the ambassador requested additional security, and his request was denied for budgetary reasons. Terrorists (unconnected to the video in any way whatsoever) attacked the consulate because it was 9/11. The Administration didn't want the fact that it was responsible for the lack of security there to come out—especially during the election season—so they came up with some BS story about a video inciting a terrorist attack there—when in reality, the attack had been planned for months, long before the video was even an issue. I don't know why you prefer to think that Obama "genuinely" believed it was connected to the video, when my (and many news analysts—conservative granted) explanation is so much more plausible.