Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here is my previous post in re other options regarding the President's actions. Read this in conjunction with my other post.
Also do you discount that fact that there were protests and violence which erupted all over the region very quickly after the attacks in Cairo and Benghazi and that that violence needed to be addressed?
Now you are making up comments that I never alluded to, nor made. I have not discounted attacks around the world that were in response to the movie, I think we promoted the movie so vigorously, that opportunists took advantage of another reason to protest against American, even 0bama said as much.
We don't have to be at those meetings, we heard testimony from the intel community that said there never was a spontaneous movie protest outside the consulate. So who told Rice that their was??? And who allowed Rice and Hilary, and 0bama to go on TV for weeks, saying there were, for a month????
Those same state department personnel who said there was no protest about a movie at Benghazi, were the same people who sat back and refused to inform the president that he was speaking falsehoods for a month! WHY?
Do you have a rational explanation, for why you think this occurred?
Brit Hume does work for Fox News, but this evening he went further than he ever has about this topic and said that there is plenty of proof that the State Department had reasoned within 24 hours that it was a terrorist attack and even they refused to tell the truth for at least two weeks. Hume has not talked like that up to this evening so I am willing to go along with him, now. Now they have admitted that they knew and for some reason the top man, Hussein Obama, still hasn't admitted what he must have known all along.
The top man, President Obama, was elected to make important decisions like how to respond to events like the ones in the Middle East on 9/11 and for many days thereafter. It's really not, IMO, a matter of what he knew when, but more a matter of how to handle the crisis.
Yes, I am suggesting he focused on the "movie" in order to minimize the spread of protests and VIOLENCE in reaction to the movie. His statement was that while the U.S. rejects such things as that movie, we all must oppose the kind of violence which killed our people. He gave a message that the U.S. does not support in any way efforts to denigrate anyone's religion, as well as the message that EVERYONE should/must oppose violence such as occurred in Benghazi.
It seems to me that the thoughtful and careful wording of the press release, as well as other information cited, is actually the result of trying not to shoot before you aim. Not lying; it's just not spilling your guts immediately, and dealing with first things first.
The Middle East was erupting in violence as a result of that movie which was the critical and major element to deal with at that time because our citizens had already been killed in Behghazi. How many U.S. embassies in the Middle East would, in fact, be/have been attacked by enraged protestors, or set afire, because of the "movie" and other American citizens in those embassies killed? That obviously was an open question. The safety of our embassy personal and other Americans abroad had to be considered FIRST, IMO, which is what I think he did. What's a better option: attempting to calm people down, or wait until the rage is overwhelming and go in with huge military force and getting very large numbers of people killed, including members of our own military? He addressed the issue of the "movie" because that movie was the motivating force behind the eruption and spread of violence across the Middle East, which meant that not only the lives of many innocent Americans were at stake, but other innocent human beings' lives as well.
But we Americans are a very impatient lot it seems and we absolutely expect immediate gratification when we want something, whether it's information or an ice cream cone, which is why the Republicans have been successful in their politicization of this issue. The followers want what they want, and they are used to having problems revolved in their favorite TV programs, or in the movies, within 30 minutes to a couple hours, so OF COURSE they want immediate gratification regarding all knowledge about international events and crises.
Brit Hume does work for Fox News, but this evening he went further than he ever has about this topic and said that there is plenty of proof that the State Department had reasoned within 24 hours that it was a terrorist attack and even they refused to tell the truth for at least two weeks. Hume has not talked like that up to this evening so I am willing to go along with him, now. Now they have admitted that they knew and for some reason the top man, Hussein Obama, still hasn't admitted what he must have known all along.
0bama, Biden and Clinton are asking us to believe that the state department knew the truth, and yet they sat back and allowed the president to tell a lie for a month.
Here is my previous post in re other options regarding the President's actions. Read this in conjunction with my other post.
Also do you discount that fact that there were protests and violence which erupted all over the region very quickly after the attacks in Cairo and Benghazi and that that violence needed to be addressed? The riots, protests, and other violence throughout the region were very important in terms of safety of people and needed to be addressed quickly; those protests and riots were attributed to the "movie" denigrating their prophet by the people who were protesting and rioting and setting things on fire and breaking into buildings, etc. In my opinion. the top priority was to stop that spreading rage that erupted over the movie. NEXT would be to focus publicly on the terrorists who attacked the consular office in Benghazi. I think the President did exactly the right thing. I don't think there was any "lying" going on; it was simply a matter of priorities and revealing information as appropriate. Needless to say, NONE of you were in on security meetings and conversations regarding how to deal with the events as they were unfolding in those few days.
He didn't 'lie,'; all he did was mislead for a higher purpose. As though stating the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others would quell protests and riots. He could have chosen to Not associate what happened in Libya to the movie or events elsewhere. Needless to say, I wasn't in on security meetings and conversations regarding how to deal with the events as they were unfolding in those few days.
The top man, President Obama, was elected to make important decisions like how to respond to events like the ones in the Middle East on 9/11 and for many days thereafter. It's really not, IMO, a matter of what he knew when, but more a matter of how to handle the crisis.
Yes, I am suggesting he focused on the "movie" in order to minimize the spread of protests and VIOLENCE in reaction to the movie. {snip}
Are saying that 0bama purposely mislead us about what really happened in Benghazi for a month, telling us that the movie, as some kind of a propaganda tactic? And you are okay with that?
0bama, Biden and Clinton are asking us to believe that the state department knew the truth, and yet they sat back and allowed the president to tell a lie for a month.
Hillary says that the buck stops at her door. I guess after the confab with Obama the other day she decided that she should either own up or get pitched under the bus. Those ba**ards knew all along and just couldn't let the truth get out.
Now you are making up comments that I never alluded to, nor made. I have not discounted attacks around the world that were in response to the movie, I think we promoted the movie so vigorously, that opportunists took advantage of another reason to protest against American, even 0bama said as much.
We don't have to be at those meetings, we heard testimony from the intel community that said there never was a spontaneous movie protest outside the consulate. So who told Rice that their was??? And who allowed Rice and Hilary, and 0bama to go on TV for weeks, saying that the Benghazi attacks were a movie protest that went badly????
Those same state department personnel who said there was no protest about a movie at Benghazi, were the same people who sat back and refused to inform the president that he was speaking falsehoods for a month! WHY?
Do you have a rational explanation, for why you think this occurred?
I did not attribute to you comments you never made. I simply copied and pasted my response to another poster here because that response addressed the questions you asked me.
No, no, no. It was not "our" drawing attention to that movie that, as you suggest, caused the cascading eruption of violence and protests across the Middle East. IMO, that's a ridiculous thought. The "movie" was broadcast on TV across the Middle East on Saturday on a popular TV show in Egypt. The movie had been translated into Arabic so it was much easier for people to understand what had been said in the "movie." I've posted the link to support this information numerous times in these Libya threads. But once again,
The offensive film clip was almost unknown -- an irrelevant piece of trash on the Internet -- until a film producer managed to place a tiny item in an Egyptian newspaper. But it wasn't until the TV broadcast that things really blew up. The hosts played an extended clip of the video dubbed in Arabic, pondering what should be done. One, Khalid Abdullah (whose past enlightened statements include the analysis, "Iran is more dangerous to us than the Jews"), asked if anyone had apologized. His co-host Mohammed Hamdy declared, "An apology is not enough. I want them convicted." Free Speech in the Muslim World? Ask the Egyptian TV Station That First Aired the Anti-Islam Movie - Steve Inskeep - The Atlantic
And I'm not saying the President didn't have information about the terrorists. I'm saying the President chose to respond in the way he did for what seems to me to be a very good reason.
Please read my other posts. I've explained why I think the crisis was responded to by the President the way he did. He is the elected President. We (the big majority who voted for him) elected him to make such decisions as how to respond to such crises. The Benghazi attack WAS NOT THE ONLY THING GOING ON. Prior to that, there was protests at the embassy in Cairo....that very same night. And the violence was spreading.
Are saying that 0bama purposely mislead us about what really happened in Benghazi for a month, telling us that the movie, as some kind of a propaganda tactic? And you are okay with that?
While he was "misleading" Americans, the rest of the world heard "planned terrorist attack" from both European intelligence and the President of Libya by that weekend.
He didn't 'lie,'; all he did was mislead for a higher purpose. As though stating the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others would quell protests and riots. He could have chosen to Not associate what happened in Libya to the movie or events elsewhere. Needless to say, I wasn't in on security meetings and conversations regarding how to deal with the events as they were unfolding in those few days.
Apparently the president's brilliant tactic was to stand on the mountain tops and shout to the entire world "Hey, there is this vulgar, disgusting movie that no one really knows about, and wow, just wow, does it ever INSULT THE PROPHET MOHAMMAD, let me repeat for weeks and weeks, to make sure everyone on the planet knows about it. Hey! You there, yeah, have you heard about the movie????"
His tactic was to take a video with 600 hits on Sept 10th, and turn it into a viral sensation with 10 million hits a week later. It it worked brilliantly.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
