carlfense apology tour

[carlfense]

Sounds like I (and a few others) might owe an apology.

 

The characterization of the Benghazi attack as "spontaneous" and inspired by the anti-Islam video was supported by a CIA talking points memo that was prepared on September 15. Knowing that . . . it's awfully hard to call Susan Rice/Hillary/etc. a liar for those statements. I'd bet that Mr. Issa wishes he hadn't demanded those documents.

 

The Romney campaign may have misfired with its suggestion that statements by President Obama and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice about the Benghazi attack last month weren’t supported by intelligence, according to documents provided by a senior U.S. intelligence official.

 

“Talking points” prepared by the CIA on Sept. 15, the same day that Rice taped three television appearances, support her description of the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate as a reaction to Arab anger about an anti-Muslim video prepared in the United States. According to the CIA account, “The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/benghazi-attack-becomes-political-ammunition/2012/10/19/e1ad82ae-1a2d-11e2-bd10-5ff056538b7c_story.html

[JJ Husker]

Apology accepted. Don't worry about it. It's understandable that you didn't know they were calling it spontaneous and got thrown off track by Obama's "act of terror" phrase. I forgive you.

[carlfense]

Apology accepted. Don't worry about it. It's understandable that you didn't know they were calling it spontaneous and got thrown off track by Obama's "act of terror" phrase. I forgive you.

Apologies to the Obama administration.*

 

Do you still think it's a cover up/conspiracy? Given the CIA talking points memo . . . it sure looks closer to my theory than your theories. I suppose you could say that time travel was used to change the record? Just trying to think how we can still make it a conspiracy.

[JJ Husker]

Why are you trying to make it into some kind of conspiracy?

 

Seriously though, the majority of my argument was trying to get you to admit that the administration was treating it as a spontaneous event (highly understandeable now that it looks the CIA intel was off) and that using an "act of terror" phrase does not mean the same thing as terrorism or a terrorist attack or that it couldn't be both.

 

Your bullheadedness in that regard had me much more engaged than any belief in a deep seated conspiracy. You can apologize to the Obama administration if you wish (for apparently disagreeing with them calling a spontaneous event an act of terror or vice versa) but I owe them no apology. They work for us and we have the right to scrutinize their behavior and non-sensical releases on an issue such as this. You should be ashamed to think this somehow vindicates the argument you were making. I would be embarrassed if I had your position and now said "told ya so".

[carlfense]

Why are you trying to make it into some kind of conspiracy?

 

Seriously though, the majority of my argument was trying to get you to admit that the administration was treating it as a spontaneous event (highly understandeable now that it looks the CIA intel was off) and that using an "act of terror" phrase does not mean the same thing as terrorism or a terrorist attack or that it couldn't be both.

 

Your bullheadedness in that regard had me much more engaged than any belief in a deep seated conspiracy. You can apologize to the Obama administration if you wish (for apparently disagreeing with them calling a spontaneous event an act of terror or vice versa) but I owe them no apology. They work for us and we have the right to scrutinize their behavior and non-sensical releases on an issue such as this. You should be ashamed to think this somehow vindicates the argument you were making. I would be embarrassed if I had your position and now said "told ya so".

Uh huh.

 

This was you, right?

 

1- They actually thought it was due solely to a spontaneous uprising brought about by some offensive video and then learned two weeks later that was not the case. This option requires us to accept that the powers that be may not fully understand the threats to Americans in places like the Mideast and Libya. It also requires us to accept the extreme coincidence that it happened on September 11th purely by chance. I don't think the administration is that naive, gullible, or clueless. If they are, I am very concerned.

 

2- They realized what really had happened but wanted to spin it so as not to reflect poorly on their foreign policy. A lot of the dems storyline is based on the claim that they can deal with the world in a much better fashion than Bush. i.e. We'll talk to them and be more understanding and then they will like us better. We won't act unilaterally but rather will be build consensus and work through the United Nations. You know the deal. If this is the option, well shame on them for using a tragedy like this in a political manner and for lying to the American people.

 

3- They used this as some kind of coverup story for some failure to act on intelligence or a request for additional security. I realize this is the conspiracy theory route but, this eventuality would be deeply concerning on many levels and IMO totally unnecessary. Nobody is going to have trouble believing there was a terrorist attack on a US Embassy, in the Mideast or Libya, on the anniversary date of 911. Furthermore, I don't think anyone would question that it could still happen even if all possible threats and requests were heeded. So, it does cause me to wonder why the spontaneous uprising story to begin with, then why does Hillary go out of her way just prior to another debate to claim she is responsible for security of State Dept. personell (and at the same time point the finger at their security experts) and then why does Obama come into the debate prepared to accept full responsibility so Johnny-come-lately.

 

If you have a different theory that doesn't fit one of my three options, I would be more than happy to entertain it. But, if it is one of those three, as I believe it must be, then anyway you slice it, it was handled extremely poorly. This has nothing to do with claiming they should've or could've prevented the attack.

[JJ Husker]

Yes it was me. I stated I saw three possible options and, whaddya know, it turns out it was option number one. And, as I stated then I'll reiterate now, I find it deeply concerning that our intel indicated the wrong cause and that the administration seemed to go along with it. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make unless it is to point out that I was correct. Please explain if you feel my option number one does not allow for this new found information.

[carlfense]

Yes it was me. I stated I saw three possible options and, whaddya know, it turns out it was option number one. And, as I stated then I'll reiterate now, I find it deeply concerning that our intel indicated the wrong cause and that the administration seemed to go along with it. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make unless it is to point out that I was correct. Please explain if you feel my option number one does not allow for this new found information.

My take (prior to the release of the CIA talking points):

 

That the message changed with the available intelligence. That the spontaneous mobs in areas other than Benghazi were incited by the video and the various separate attacks were all conflated into one message. (Which can be seen in a smaller scale right here on HB.) The President initially characterized the event as terrorism and made no mention of a spontaneous uprising at all. Many other people from different departments commented on the Benghazi attack and the other attacks . . . often at the same time. The message was terribly muddled. (No arguments there.) After more intel was collected (which took a significant amount of time due to the instability in Benghazi) the picture became clear. This was a premeditated terror attack with the goal of killing Americans. Unfortunately, it was successful.

 

Is that not the simplest explanation?

I guess the CIA is naive, gullible, and clueless. I too find that very concerning.

[ZRod]

As a line in one of my favorite movies goes, "life's imperfect!"