benghazi conspiracy = birthers

[DaShi]

What did the administration do wrong that wouldn't only be obvious in hindsight?

[Zevico]

Call in forces to protect the consulate and the Americans under fire.

[Dinner]

A conspiracy theory would be saying that Obama was deliberately trying to get the Ambassador killed because he knew about his secret sex affair with Miley Cyrus.

Fox said that. Or at least they had some nutjob on who said that and they pretended as if it was actually a plausible theory. They've hosted all sorts of conspiracy nutjobs spinning all sorts of wacky tales.

You're in denial if you think the Benghazi conspiracy bull**** hasn't hit the same level of birtherism weeks ago.

[DaShi]

Call in forces to protect the consulate and the Americans under fire.

I'll agree. I am most bothered about why more wasn't done during the actual attack. However, what does that have to do with Rice's comments?

[Zevico]

I'll agree. I am most bothered about why more wasn't done during the actual attack. However, what does that have to do with Rice's comments?

Rice's comments reflected a broader Administration line, namely, that the cause of these attacks was a video rather than a deliberate attack by Al Qaeda on the Benghazi consulate on the anniversary of the 9/11/2001 attacks. That was either deceptive, incompetent or both. It reflects a broader inability to comprehend that Al Qaeda and Islamism more generally are not "on the run," but "on the rise," for reasons the Administration is unable to admit: Islamists and others in the Middle East feel a strong, grounded animosity towards the United States that is not going to go away whatever policy the United States adopts, no matter how understanding and empathetic their leadership may be. The reason being that the United States is both a powerful nation and a symbol of democratic values that are antithetical to theirs. As Bush it: "they hate us for our freedom."

To admit that would be to admit that the premise of the Administration's Middle East foreign policy has been a failure from day one. Not an appealing line to take on the eve of an election.

[Dinner]

I'll agree. I am most bothered about why more wasn't done during the actual attack. However, what does that have to do with Rice's comments?

Not to mention even Republicans have admitted that Rice's comments were pre-approved by the CIA meaning it was their best analysis at the time though she repeatedly said new information was coming in and the analysis would likely change because of it. There was simply no conspiracy and the Republican revisionism is so obvious in its partisan hackery no one is paying it any bother. And rightly so.

[MRT144]

You know who cares about Benghazi? Sour grapes Republicans who have no outside media reference outside of right wing sources. QED

[DaShi]

Rice's comments reflected a broader Administration line, namely, that the cause of these attacks was a video rather than a deliberate attack by Al Qaeda on the Benghazi consulate on the anniversary of the 9/11/2001 attacks. That was either deceptive, incompetent or both. It reflects a broader inability to comprehend that Al Qaeda and Islamism more generally are not "on the run," but "on the rise," for reasons the Administration is unable to admit: Islamists and others in the Middle East feel a strong, grounded animosity towards the United States that is not going to go away whatever policy the United States adopts, no matter how understanding and empathetic their leadership may be. The reason being that the United States is both a powerful nation and a symbol of democratic values that are antithetical to theirs. As Bush it: "they hate us for our freedom."

To admit that would be to admit that the premise of the Administration's Middle East foreign policy has been a failure from day one. Not an appealing line to take on the eve of an election.

Zev, that's all complete bull****. So go Bush it!

You were wrong on Tunisia, you were wrong on Egypt, and you were wrong on Libya. One attack, no matter how much you wanted it, will not change that.

[Zevico]

You were wrong on Tunisia,

Wrong on what? Ennahda cooperating with Al Qaeda? Because they've openly admitted to having talks with them. So wrong by what measure? Cooperating with Ennahda means strengthening a group that tolerates Al Qaeda and treats it as a potential ally in the war against democracy.

you were wrong on Egypt

Wrong on what? The MB endorsing the 9/11 protests at American embassy in Egypt? Because they've openly expressed that endorsement on Twitter in Arabic. Accompanied by an English language "ooh we condemn violence use peaceful protest" for the Western intelligentsia to fawn over, of course:

he US embassy in Cairo caught the ruling Muslim Brotherhood being two-faced as the protests were under way earlier this week, reports the Hill. The Egypt group's Arabic feed praised the protests, while its American feed expressed support for American staffers:

Brotherhood's tweet in Arabic: "Egyptians rise to defend the prophet."
Brotherhood's tweet in English: "We r relieved none of @USEmbassyCairo staff were harmed & hope US-Eg relations will sustain turbulence of Tuesday's events"
US response to the latter: "Thanks. By the way, have you checked out your own Arabic feeds? I hope you know we read those too."

http://www.newser.com/story/154036/us-embassy-zings-egypt-via-twitter.html

and you were wrong on Libya

Wrong on the invasion empowering Al Qaeda? That's exactly what it did. Al Qaeda operates in Libya openly now as one of many happy-go-lucky militias. And we knew it would because the rebels were openly admitting to cooperating with Al Qaeda during the rebellion, and independent journalists--not just Gaddafi--confirmed it.

One attack, no matter how much you wanted it, will not change that.

Actually it was one attack that resulted in American deaths. Other protests occurred outside the American Embassy in Egypt as already mentioned, and in later days in Yemen and Tunisia. Further protests occurred in Pakistan. These other attacks resulted in property damage, civilian deaths and injuries to security guards. Wikipedia lists the total numbers as 75 deaths, 687 injured.

All because of a video, of course. I've been known to riot over a poor production of Cats myself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_Innocence_of_Muslims#Pakistan

[Asher]

Once the nutters get to the bottom of Benghazi, I hope they spend as much effort into looking into the war in Iraq and the many thousands of deaths caused there by the gross incompetence and malice of the Bush administration.

[DinoDoc]

What did the administration do wrong that wouldn't only be obvious in hindsight?

Pick one. 1) Have an active consulate there to begin in light of the withdrawal of the UK and Red Cross from the area because of attacks. 2) If having a consulate there was that important, refusing requests to increase security there.

[Alexander's Horse]

oh dear - the mass debaters have moved in..

[DaShi]

Pick one. 1) Have an active consulate there to begin in light of the withdrawal of the UK and Red Cross from the area because of attacks. 2) If having a consulate there was that important, refusing requests to increase security there.

1. Hindsight

2. Has what to do with Rice's statements?

DD, if you can't come up with a response, don't try.

[DinoDoc]

1. Hindsight

The consulate itself had been attacked before the 9/11/12. It's called paying attention.

2. Has what to do with Rice's statements?

In the words of Obama she had nothing to do with Benghazi, so why would it have anything to do with her statements?

[DaShi]

The consulate itself had been attacked before the 9/11/12. It's called paying attention.

And you would have us remove consulates from every country. Thank you Captain Hindsight.

In the words of Obama she had nothing to do with Benghazi, so why would it have anything to do with her statements?

Exactly.