OOOPS! Maybe it WAS a terrorist attack!

[RandomGuy]

SIX DAYS after the Ambassador was killed the White House was STILL saying publicly that it was just a random spontaneous act of violence protesting that stupid movie.

An FBI team was dispatched immediately after the attack, but held up after the beginning:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...377_story.html

They arrived there yesterday:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...8db_story.html


How long do you think it took to provide a preliminary report to the president from that team?

[RandomGuy]

How have you excluded the possibility that there are diplomatic or other considerations that might have effected the administrations pronouncements?

Oh, they were absolutely trying to cover their ass,

That is a very conclusive statement of fact.

Can you show me evidence of this fact?

(edit)

The fact in this case being to state that the motive in this case was to simply cover up incompetance, and no other factors were involved, by implication.

Watch out, at this rate of denial and blind defense of team blue you may actually turn blue.

I haven't denied anything at all.

I have simply asked you for evidence to support your statement of fact.

Do you have any to support this claim of motivation?

Normally, when someone claims someone is doing something for a reason, acceptable evidence would be direct statements "I bought an ice cream cone, because I like ice cream", would be an example.

[CosmicCowboy]

From your OWN LINK

The bureau declined to comment. But U.S. intelligence officials said that, despite the delay in getting into Benghazi, agencies have been able to draw intelligence from an array of sources, including news footage of the attack, intercepted phone calls and e-mails, and information from human sources recruited by the CIA.

The officials said they have reached a tentative conclusion that the assault was carried out by a group aligned with al-Qaeda but not directed by the terrorist network’s core leadership. The officials stressed the preliminary nature of the assessments, noting that a massive analytic effort involving every agency in the intelligence community is still in its early stages.

That was published SEPTEMBER 14TH.

On September 16th the White House minions were still making the talk show rounds claiming that it was just a random act of violence triggered by riots over the movie.

[RandomGuy]

How have you excluded the possibility that there are diplomatic or other considerations that might have effected the administrations pronouncements?

Oh, they were absolutely trying to cover their ass,

That is a very conclusive statement of fact.

Can you show me evidence of this fact?

(edit)

The fact in this case being to state that the motive in this case was to simply cover up incompetance, and no other factors were involved, by implication.

Watch out, at this rate of denial and blind defense of team blue you may actually turn blue.

I haven't denied anything at all.

I have simply asked you for evidence to support your statement of fact.

Do you have any to support this claim of motivation?

Normally, when someone claims someone is doing something for a reason, acceptable evidence would be direct statements "I bought an ice cream cone, because I like ice cream", would be an example.

From your OWN LINK
"The officials said they have reached a tentative conclusion"

You have presented evidence of analysts tentative conclusions.

Is that a direct statement that has a senior administration official saying directly that they were officially saying it wasn't a terrorist attack solely because they didn't want to appear incompetant?

Yes or no will do.

[RandomGuy]

Cosmic Cowboy, you also did not answer the question posed to you here:

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...4&postcount=26

[TeyshaBlue]

It also suggests a strategy for bypassing that emotional part of the brain, and maybe getting better thinking from conservatives, who so obviously make decisions based on what seems to me to be nothing but pure emotion, as I have noted before.

That is a very conclusive statement of fact.

Can you show me evidence of this fact?

Just sayin'

[CosmicCowboy]

Senior Administration officials were saying publicly as late as Sunday that there was no evidence that it was not just a random act of violence triggered by riots caused by the movie. You linked intelligence analysts stating days earlier that it appeared to be the work of Al Quaida. The administration officials were either lying or incompetent.

Take your pick.

[RandomGuy]

So I guess the red teamers want the US govt to run off and start throwing around accusations before all of the intel is available... ooookkkkk

That would appear to be the preferred course of action.

Act first, think later.

The sole reason this course of action is preferred by the right and Bull Mountain, is that this course of action is the opposite of the one the Democratic president took.

Had the president come out and forcefully, immediately, claimed it was a terrorist attack, the fact tha the FBI team took days before they were allowed in and a more official report to be generated, the narrative would be that he should have waited for all the infromation to come in before saying something quite so incindiary.

The goal here is not to get at good policy, but good sound bites for the election.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Bush did X. Republicans said X was a great policy.
Obama did X. Republican said X was a horrible policy.

Stewart pretty much nailed Fox News talking heads doing and saying that pretty much exactly, and rather plainly.

http://entertainment.nbcnews.com/_ne...s-aka-fox-news

[CosmicCowboy]

Cosmic Cowboy, you also did not answer the question posed to you here:

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...4&postcount=26

That didn't even deserve a response.

If the administration can't make some obvious preliminary conclusions from the known facts without getting a detailed FBI report weeks after the fact then they shouldn't be there.

you know they had to have a pretty damn good idea that this was an Al Quaida operation intentionally run on 9/11, especially since libyan intelligence warned them before it happened.

[RandomGuy]

Just sayin'

I can actually, and intend on doing just that. I have about three rather concrete examples in mind when I wrote that.

[RandomGuy]

That didn't even deserve a response.

If the administration can't make some obvious preliminary conclusions from the known facts without getting a detailed FBI report weeks after the fact then they shouldn't be there.

you know they had to have a pretty damn good idea that this was an Al Quaida operation intentionally run on 9/11, especially since libyan intelligence warned them before it happened.

It does deserve a response. It is a fair question, politely asked, and very pertinant to the topic at hand.

If the FBI team got there yesterday, how long do you think it would take for their first report to hit the presidents desk?

[CosmicCowboy]

That would appear to be the preferred course of action.

Act first, think later.

The sole reason this course of action is preferred by the right and Bull Mountain, is that this course of action is the opposite of the one the Democratic president took.

Had the president come out and forcefully, immediately, claimed it was a terrorist attack, the fact tha the FBI team took days before they were allowed in and a more official report to be generated, the narrative would be that he should have waited for all the infromation to come in before saying something quite so incindiary.

The goal here is not to get at good policy, but good sound bites for the election.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Bush did X. Republicans said X was a great policy.
Obama did X. Republican said X was a horrible policy.

Stewart pretty much nailed Fox News talking heads doing and saying that pretty much exactly, and rather plainly.

http://entertainment.nbcnews.com/_ne...s-aka-fox-news

Oh, you....I never called for a course of action or retaliation, but trying to deflect all the responsibility for the ambassadors death to that stupid movie was pretty damn transparent and lame. Poor er didn't even have a security detail when he was killed. And then they arrested the guy that made the movie? Whats up with that? You really don't think that's just more deflection?

[CosmicCowboy]

It does deserve a response. It is a fair question, politely asked, and very pertinant to the topic at hand.

If the FBI team got there yesterday, how long do you think it would take for their first report to hit the presidents desk?

Probably several weeks or even several months.

That's why your claim that the Administration can't do or say anything without the FBI's report is just ignorant as .

And if you say they can't then you don't put people out there stating as FACT that they have no evidence that the killing wasn't just a spontaneous event (knowing it's probably not true) triggered by that stupid film.

A simple "no comment until we get more facts" would have sufficed.

[boutons_deux]

The Repug network is pushing the "ex-Gitmo" guy as alleged leader of the alleged terrorist attack. Obviously, they want to tatoo a dead ambassador to Obama.

[CosmicCowboy]

The Repug network is pushing the "ex-Gitmo" guy as alleged leader of the alleged terrorist attack. Obviously, they want to tatoo a dead ambassador to Obama.

The guy was released by Bush, dumbass.

[RandomGuy]

Probably several weeks or even several months.

That's why your claim that the Administration can't do anything without the FBI's report is just ignorant as .

So the very first report of any kind that might be given to the president concerning the death of an embassador, that analysts were concluding was likely a terrorist attack, would take weeks or months?

Does this estimation include preliminary informal reports as well?

If you were president, how long would you wait for information regarding this?

Would you want daily updates?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Probably several weeks or even several months.

That's why your claim that the Administration can't do or say anything without the FBI's report is just ignorant as .

And if you say they can't then you don't put people out there stating as FACT that they have no evidence that the killing wasn't just a spontaneous event (knowing it's probably not true) triggered by that stupid film.

A simple "no comment until we get more facts" would have sufficed.

uh they prefaced their statements with the knowledge they had available at that time... why don't you acknowledge that?

[CosmicCowboy]

So the very first report of any kind that might be given to the president concerning the death of an embassador, that analysts were concluding was likely a terrorist attack, would take weeks or months?

Does this estimation include preliminary informal reports as well?

If you were president, how long would you wait for information regarding this?

Would you want daily updates?

Pffft.

Obama only goes to about half his national security briefings.

It's about getting re-elected, not running the country.

[RandomGuy]

Oh, you....I never called for a course of action or retaliation, but trying to deflect all the responsibility for the ambassadors death to that stupid movie was pretty damn transparent and lame. Poor er didn't even have a security detail when he was killed. And then they arrested the guy that made the movie? Whats up with that? You really don't think that's just more deflection?

You have mis-read what I wrote.

By "action" I meant the action of blaming it on a terrorist attack, without having enough supporting evidence to more conclusively make a rather important assertion.

[CosmicCowboy]

uh they prefaced their statements with the knowledge they had available at that time... why don't you acknowledge that?

Because they CLEARLY had contradicting knowledge. Again, they lied.

[CosmicCowboy]

You have mis-read what I wrote.

By "action" I meant the action of blaming it on a terrorist attack, without having enough supporting evidence to more conclusively make a rather important assertion.

Reading comprehension issues?

Probably several weeks or even several months.

That's why your claim that the Administration can't do or say anything without the FBI's report is just ignorant as .

And if you say they can't then you don't put people out there stating as FACT that they have no evidence that the killing wasn't just a spontaneous event (knowing it's probably not true) triggered by that stupid film.

A simple "no comment until we get more facts" would have sufficed.

[RandomGuy]

Pffft.

Obama only goes to about half his national security briefings.

It's about getting re-elected, not running the country.

So you avoided my questions again, and answered the questions you wanted to answer.

If someone avoids answering fair questions with honest answers does that indicate they are being honest with you?

[TeyshaBlue]

I can actually, and intend on doing just that. I have about three rather concrete examples in mind when I wrote that.

I'm sure you do......now.

[Wild Cobra]

Random, when it comes to you, do any of us take you serious?

[TeyshaBlue]

Random, when it comes to you, do any of us take you serious?

Probably infinitely more than take you seriously, tbh.