I like to think of it as me not drinking the kool-aide that the media hands me. There's evidence they KNEW it was a terror attack either day-of or the day after, and for two weeks they blame a video and ARREST an American on trumped up charges. excuse me if I seem like I'm wearing a tinfoil hat here, but something doesn't add up.
You're still typing about this situation. Why are you still typing about this?
Because fuck you that's why.
You're adding literally nothing to productive conversation. Every time you add something here, it's just regurgitated talking points from somewhere else. When people confront you with it, you hunker down.
If something doesn't add up, it'll come out in the real investigation and we can consider it then. Using it as an angle to attack the administration to try to score political points is just offensive.
Because the deck is already stacked against me! Look at the title of the thread! And look at what others have said! You automatically think I'm either lying or an idiot no matter what I say!
Because the deck is already stacked against me! Look at the title of the thread! And look at what others have said! You automatically think I'm either lying or an idiot no matter what I say!
No, I think you're either lying or an idiot because everything you say is either idiotic or a lie.
The deck is stacked against you? Have you ever considered why it might be stacked against you? Because you are objectively wrong.
You touched a fucking nerve of mine, and I'm gonna give you a piece of advice. Just shut up about Libya and the Benghazi attack. You seriously have no idea as to what you are talking about, or how personal that attack is and how fucking offensive you're being.
Some of the time Jack and Steve do in-fact get some shit from some people completely undeserved. They have also both dealt out exactly the same stereotyping and other bullshit in spades to the forum as a whole at times.
Ivory tower of intellectual discourse, this thread is not.
Hey, at least this thread is better than political discussions I've witnessed in real life. Real people seem to ONLY be influenced by the dogma and rhetoric on both sides, rather than even vaguely trying to pretend to give a fuck about what's really going on.
So anyway. Could someone explain how our reaction would have been different if the president had called this a terrorist action the next day instead of an attack? Why does this matter?
I don't really think it would. Regardless, it is too early to tell since they are still investigating. Right now everything is going to be tainted by political rhetoric and attacks. Democrats are attacking republicans on cutting the foreign services security budget, republicans are attacking democrats for a disorganized response.
So anyway. Could someone explain how our reaction would have been different if it was called a terrorist action the next day instead of an attack? Why does this matter?
Because in the USA coverup is always worse than the crime.
It also matters because the Obama campaign likes to brag about getting Osama but a successful terrorist attack that kills our ambassador lowers the value of killing Osama in the first place. The fact that the administration tried so hard NOT to acknowledge that it was a terrorist attack also raises questions.
If this were not an election year both parties would want this investigated.
I just don't understand how anyone would perceive this to be a "coverup." It was an attack amidst a sea of various protests and a few riots in the region.
The funny thing here is that there is an investigation going on... So saying we don't want an investigation is complete horseshit Steve. How do people getting killed make anyone else feel good? Arguably a Terrorist attack would make people move towards supporting the incumbent usually. Romney has very little foreign policy strengths...
Also he was calling it an act of terrorism if you don't acccept the 12th speech, the 13th in CO
"Let me say at the outset that obviously our hearts are heavy this week -- we had a tough day a couple of days ago, for four Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Libya. Yesterday I had a chance to go over to the State Department to talk to friends and colleagues of those who were killed. And these were Americans who, like so many others, both in uniform and civilians, who serve in difficult and dangerous places all around the world to advance the interests and the values that we hold dear as Americans. And a lot of times their work goes unheralded, doesn’t get a lot of attention, but it is vitally important. We enjoy our security and our liberty because of the sacrifices that they make. And they do an outstanding job every single day without a lot of fanfare "So what I want all of you to know is that we are going to bring those who killed our fellow Americans to justice. I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished. It will not dim the light of the values that we proudly present to the rest of the world. No act of violence shakes the resolve of the United States of America," he said." September 13th CO
I just don't understand how anyone would perceive this to be a "coverup." It was an attack amidst a sea of various protests and a few riots in the region.
Political expedience only. Steve's been drinking Kool Aid.
I also don't understand how anyone can say that Captain McDronesBombingTheFuckOutOfMultipleCountriesDaily is somehow "soft" in his foreign policy dealings...
So anyway. Could someone explain how our reaction would have been different if it was called a terrorist action the next day instead of an attack? Why does this matter?
Because in the USA coverup is always worse than the crime.
It also matters because the Obama campaign likes to brag about getting Osama but a successful terrorist attack that kills our ambassador lowers the value of killing Osama in the first place. The fact that the administration tried so hard NOT to acknowledge that it was a terrorist attack also raises questions.
If this were not an election year both parties would want this investigated.
Interesting point. I hadn't considered that. I do completely agree with the last point.
It's a silly point though, there is no cover up, there is an investigation, democrats want it investigated, republicans want it investigated, do I want a witch hunt of state department officals, not really, I just want them to find out who did it and Kill or bring them to justice. (most likely with a drone)
While "we" may want an investigation congressional Democrats do not want it and have walked out when Republicans started hearings. That is what I am referring to.
Comments
If something doesn't add up, it'll come out in the real investigation and we can consider it then. Using it as an angle to attack the administration to try to score political points is just offensive.
The deck is stacked against you? Have you ever considered why it might be stacked against you? Because you are objectively wrong.
You touched a fucking nerve of mine, and I'm gonna give you a piece of advice. Just shut up about Libya and the Benghazi attack. You seriously have no idea as to what you are talking about, or how personal that attack is and how fucking offensive you're being.
Ivory tower of intellectual discourse, this thread is not.
@Lyddi, that image gave me a good laugh, but then I made a very exasperated sigh.
Old people.
It also matters because the Obama campaign likes to brag about getting Osama but a successful terrorist attack that kills our ambassador lowers the value of killing Osama in the first place. The fact that the administration tried so hard NOT to acknowledge that it was a terrorist attack also raises questions.
If this were not an election year both parties would want this investigated.
Also he was calling it an act of terrorism if you don't acccept the 12th speech, the 13th in CO
"Let me say at the outset that obviously our hearts are heavy this week -- we had a tough day a couple of days ago, for four Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Libya. Yesterday I had a chance to go over to the State Department to talk to friends and colleagues of those who were killed. And these were Americans who, like so many others, both in uniform and civilians, who serve in difficult and dangerous places all around the world to advance the interests and the values that we hold dear as Americans.
And a lot of times their work goes unheralded, doesn’t get a lot of attention, but it is vitally important. We enjoy our security and our liberty because of the sacrifices that they make. And they do an outstanding job every single day without a lot of fanfare
"So what I want all of you to know is that we are going to bring those who killed our fellow Americans to justice. I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished. It will not dim the light of the values that we proudly present to the rest of the world. No act of violence shakes the resolve of the United States of America," he said."
September 13th CO
Is that clearer?
Who causes acts of Terrors? TERRORISTS :-p
Not that that is different than what we are already doing.
While "we" may want an investigation congressional Democrats do not want it and have walked out when Republicans started hearings. That is what I am referring to.
this is all I could really find...
http://www.nj.com/us-politics/index.ssf/2012/10/bad_blood_over_house_libya_hea.html
Darrel Issa is the biggest hack that ever was an hack, I'd rather see an independent investigation and hearing.