Quote:

MR. CARNEY: No, I’m saying that based on information that we — our initial information, and that includes all information — we saw no evidence to back up claims by others that this was a preplanned or premeditated attack; that we saw evidence that it was sparked by the reaction to this video. And that is what we know thus far based on the evidence, concrete evidence — not supposition — concrete evidence that we have thus far.

---

Quote:

Bear in mind that since this time, we have discovered that the State Department watched this unfold in real time and has video of the attack which is still hasn’t shared with Congress. The CIA station chief told them in a cable 24 hours later that this was a terrorist attack, and that they even knew who had commanded it. Finally, we have last night’s revelation that the Situation Room got e-mails from the intel community while the attack was underway that clearly gave evidence that this was no spontaneous demonstration gone amok. They had plenty of evidence — “concrete evidence,” to use Jay Carney’s terminology — that the sacking of the consulate and assassination of our Ambassador was a planned terrorist attack.

---

Seuss said:

> should we compare it to his predecessor?

Is his predecessor holding office?  How far back do we go?  Should we use Andrew Johnson or Woodrow Wilson as justification for our current leaders failings?  I find it rather ironic that the candidate using "Forward" for his campaign slogan continues to remind people of the past.

---

zappaisgod said:

We now know that everything Carney said is a lie, including "and" and "the".  There was no demonstration at all, it was clearly well planned and that the administration knew from the first hours that an al Q affiliate claimed credit within a few hours.

---

guitarguy0123 said:

Comparing President Obama to his predecessor is important because Governor Romney is using 17 of the same Bush advisers for foreign policy!  After the crazy comments that Governor Romney has made, do you really think he'd do better in the same kind of situation?

---

Quote:

He would alienate the U.S. from our allies by taking an overly aggressive approach and not working with any other governments in the process.

---

johnnyrad said:

johnm214 said:

Aggressive on what?  Iran's the only conceivable thing, and we should be more aggressive with them.  Fruitcakes like that do not need nuclear weapons, and there's some evidence of intent in that direction.  Their regime is going to either implode or radically change in the intermediate term, and we don't need them handing off their tech/product to whoever comes next (or to whoever manages to run away with it when their theocracy gets torn down by their people).


Bomb the labs- the world does not need to be dealing with a regime like that with nuclear weapons.

---

Sure, if you want to create countless more enemies of the US and possibly start another world war.

---

johnnyrad said:

Sure, if you want to create countless more enemies of the US and possibly start another world war.

---

Enlil said:

I don't want Iran to have nukes, but it's pretty fucking hypocritical for the US to be trying to stop it when we have a huge stockpile of nukes.

...And we're the only country ever to use atomic weapons against another country.

---

Enlil said:

I don't want Iran to have nukes, but it's pretty fucking hypocritical for the US to be trying to stop it when we have a huge stockpile of nukes.

---

Quote:

...And we're the only country ever to use atomic weapons against another country.

---

Mush 4 Brains said:

If Bush was pulling this kind of stuff

---

Enlil said:

I understand the pragmatic concerns...I do.  It doesn't make it any less hypocritical.

---

Memories said:

The militant multi-culturalism and emotional coddling of younger generations has made emotional concerns with poorly defined ideals the deciding factor in someone's opinion.


I mean for fucks sake, these people have the most oppressive and anti-american regimes that actually take their holy text literally, and they are acquiring nuclear weapons. We can't invade the sovereignty because we have 'no right' to force them to do things according to the irrational pussies.

We live in a violent world, and there are people who refuse to engage in semi-rational discussion that also want to destroy us, but we live in a culture where everyone is becoming fucking pussies through naively wanting to coexist, an idea they are so proud of as to let it grace the back of their bumper with a symbol for islam on it. I wonder if they just plug their ears whenever they are repeatedly explained that the Quran is a barbaric book that the abundant faithful take literally and without question.

If someone were to try to start a new religion and released a book with commandments of the Quran's nature, they would likely be arrested for starting a violent cult.

---

johnm214 said:

What is the administration's defense here?  Rather quickly, when it was revealed the "protestors" had heavy weaponry and acted in a coordinated matter, it seemed strange to think this was anything other than preplanned.


What exactly do they have to say for themselves?  I've not heard anything except the typical pseudo-humility by Obama who doesn't particularly seem to think this whole thing is much of a problem and doesn't feel the need to tell the American people why.

---

Quote:

(CNSNews.com) - The White House is declining to say when President Barack Obama first learned of three e-mails that the State Department sent to the White House on Sept. 11, 2012, directly notifying the Executive Office of the President that the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi was under attack, that U.S. Amb. Chris Stevens was at the Benghazi mission at the time of the attack, and that the group Ansar al-Sharia had taken credit for the attack.

The White House also declined to say when the president first met with the National Security Council after the Benghazi attack.

“I have been asked by one of our spokespeople to relay ‘that we decline to comment,’” said White House National Security Staff aide Debbie Bird in a written response to CNSNews.com.

---

Quote:

After U.S. intelligence, U.S. security officers in Libya, Reps Mike Kelly (R-PA) and Dan Burton (R-IN), and even the State Dept say the Benghazi attack was terrorism, The New York Times is claiming "there is little doubt what occurred" -- it was the video.

Although Under Secretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy referred to the attack as terrorism less than 24 hours after it took place, and even the White House was forced into admitting this truth publicly a few weeks later, the Times says nope -- it was simply a group of Islamic militants reacting "emotionally" in "retaliation for the video."

And how does The New York Times know this? They know it because they spoke to a 20-year old man named Mohamed Bishari who watched the attack,  and Bishari said, "There was no protest or anything of the sort."

In other words, there was no organized attack: it was a spontaneous outburst over a 15-minute YouTube video, carried out by people who don't exactly look like subscribing to internet service is priority one.

The New York Times' article goes on to list previous attacks on other U.S. and Western interests that were allegedly in reaction to videos, depictions, or other insults against "the Prophet."  They even try to show how these occurrences disprove security officer Eric Nordstrom's claims regarding Benghazi.

---