Benghazi "Scandal"

[Darth Crater]

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?

Did they know who was behind the attacks? After they investigated, yes. Here is why they first thought it was related to the film protests. At the same time as the attack, thousands of people were protesting the video outside the US Embassy in Egypt. If another embassy is attacked at the same time, intelligence analysts are obviously going to assume a connection. When further investigation found it was unrelated, that knowledge was made public.

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 embassy 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.

I think we're using wildly differing meanings of the words "logical" and "plausible".

[kjeopardy]

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?

Did they know who was behind the attacks? After they investigated, yes. Here is why they first thought it was related to the film protests. At the same time as the attack, thousands of people were protesting the video outside the US Embassy in Egypt. If another embassy is attacked at the same time, intelligence analysts are obviously going to assume a connection. When further investigation found it was unrelated, that knowledge was made public.

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 embassy 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.

I think we're using wildly differing meanings of the words "logical" and "plausible".

Assume a connection??!!! The US ambassador to the UN (who is a representative of the US department of state) wildly lied on TV about it...as you said, the US intelligence agency didn't really know what had happened yet. She "testified" before the UN that it was not premeditated and in response to the video...You just admitted that in the few days following the attack, no one really knew what had happened.

Well: that's what the administration should have said—we honestly don't know. Not gone on some whole rant about how we think it was a video that provoked it, when all evidence pointed to the contrary. Right, a terrorist attack in response to a video JUST happens to take place on 9/11. It's no coincidence, and it's not related to the video...doesn't take a CIA director to figure that out.

[Darth Crater]

when all evidence pointed to the contrary

Except for the fact that people were storming the embassy in the next country over as a reaction to that video. You possess hindsight bias. At the time they did not have the ability to rule out the things you are ruling out as "obviously wrong".

I agree that it might have turned out better if they'd said "we'll wait for the investigation before we say anything". However, that's with full hindsight. No reason to blame Obama for running with what his analysts thought was most likely.

[kjeopardy]

Timeline of everything: http://theweek.com/article/index/233454 ... a-timeline

What happened in Egypt was nothing like that which had happened in Libya; nobody in Libya reported anything relating to a video whatsoever; that was purely the imagination of Obama and his staff. Whether they instinctively linked them or not is irrelevant: they don't have the right to represent their hunches as facts.

And BTW: the majority of the stuff that the video says is correct according to the texts of Islam. Obviously you shouldn't defame anyone's religion, but in this case, what the video said was, according to the Koran and other texts, factual.

[Darth Crater]

... How and why are you still going on about the correctness of the video? That is completely irrelevant to the discussion. Many Muslims found the video offensive, and it led to protests. That's all that matters here.

Thanks for making my point with the timeline, by the way. Again, you are failing to differentiate your current knowledge (the Libyan attack was unrelated) from their knowledge at the time (protests at embassies in the Middle East over the video). The first priority after the Libyan attacks was not to ask the survivors whether or not the terrorists were ranting about a video. The knowledge that it was completely unrelated came later. Could the government have handled it better? Yes. Is there a major conspiracy? No. Is this indicative of fundamental incompetence? No.

[Dad]

Two things:

Weapons of mass distraction.

All religions are the problem, not the solution.

[Yanoda]

Two things:
All religions are the problem, not the solution.

Despite me being an Atheist, I disagree.
I consider the individuals that use religion to justify their actions, the actual problem. I have no problem with religion until people use it to undermine the rights, harm others or pervert scientific research and education. At this point, I am critical on those individuals and point out the flaws of said religion that enable these actions in the first place.

Cheers

Yanoda

[kjeopardy]

... How and why are you still going on about the correctness of the video? That is completely irrelevant to the discussion. Many Muslims found the video offensive, and it led to protests. That's all that ers here.

Thanks for making my point with the timeline, by the way. Again, you are failing to differentiate your current knowledge (the Libyan attack was unrelated) from their knowledge at the time (protests at embassies in the Middle East over the video). The first priority after the Libyan attacks was not to ask the survivors whether or not the terrorists were ranting about a video. The knowledge that it was completely unrelated came later. Could the government have handled it better? Yes. Is there a major conspiracy? No. Is this indicative of fundamental incompetence? No.

Believe me—the United States has a pretty sophisticated intelligence service. They know a lot more than they're gonna let on. And they've been claiming that the attack stemmed from the video up until THIS WEEK. The attack took place on September 11. It hasn't taken them this long to determine whether or not it stemmed from the video. What happened is so freakin' obvious: they ignored the ambassador's request for help, which led to his death, and they wanted to avoid public embarrassment, so they tied it to the video without any evidence, other than that a similar thing had happened in Egypt (and that also was probably related to 9/11 too, not really the video).

EDIT: By the way, the American embassy is in Tripoli. The attack in Benghazi was at a consulate which the ambassador was visiting. Thus, the intelligence community knew that it wasn't a protest: it was carefully planned, since they knew that the ambassador was going to be there and targeted him. Plus, the ambassador contacted Washington and told them that guys with grenade launchers had breached the consulate. Trust me Crater, they knew that it had absolutely nothing to do with the video.

[Darth Crater]

Correct, it wasn't the primary embassy, sorry about that. However, none of what you list actually addresses the problem of you judging the strength of the evidence based on hindsight. They did not know at the time that it was pre-planned; protesters could as easily attack a consulate the ambassador was publicly visiting as they could the main embassy. They did not have the knowledge we have now, that the massive, concerning protests in Egypt were unrelated.

I was going to let you off the hook for this, but I don't feel like it anymore. When you mentioned the video's contents earlier, you were one very small step from actively defending hate speech. It's like looking at a KKK propaganda release and saying "they're right, blacks have the highest prison population". If you don't feel it was hate speech, well, you either don't know enough of the facts or are a despicable person. Between that and your saying the Egypt attack was "probably not related" to the video (which is strictly false), it's clear you are dangerously out of touch with reality and not worth continuing this discussion.

[kjeopardy]

Out of reality? I'm not defending the video; whether or not you dislike someone's religion doesn't mean you should defame it (although you do have the right to). However, the stuff they said in the video weren't lies according to Islam, simply defamatory.

That's always the last resort when someone can't make their case, right? Racism/prejudice. If someone couldn't be convinced to vote for Obama in 2008, he/she must have been a racist. It's cause of people like you that this country is falling apart: instead of seeing things for what they are, you want to pretend a president who was clearly dishonest "didn't know" what really happened. The hypocrisy and irony is rich. Anytime Romney says anything, he's accused of being a liar. You have a president who was clearly dishonest about the deaths of 4 Americans, and you want to pretend that it was just "bad judgement" but that he had good intentions.

Yes, they did have immediate evidence to suggest that it wasn't a protest.

1) It was September 11
2) The ambassador never mentioned to Washington anything about a protest; he said that the consulate had been breached by militants with heavy weapons: that doesn't sound like a protest.
3) The ambassador was visiting the consulate, so they prepared well enough to be able to breach the compound and kill him and 3 others.

In regard to Egypt, yes they were protesting the video. Was it a marvelous coincidence that it happened on 9/11? I think not.

It's you and all these other liberals who are dangerously out of touch with reality. And BTW: if someone says something about a group which is factually accurate, it isn't hate speech. It might not be nice, but it's not hate speech.

However, I will offer my apologies if it offended you in anyway.