×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Obama Lied About Benghazi

pudge (3605) writes | about 6 months ago

User Journal 8

Some people don't know that Obama lied. But it's obvious fact based on the evidence. In another discussion some apparent trolls were complaining about the claim, but I am uninterested in discussing it, but for those who are interested, the basic summary is this:

* The administration said, for weeks, that the video and the unrest around it was a cause of the attack on the embassy in Benghazi.

* They claimed that the evidence led them to say so.

Some people don't know that Obama lied. But it's obvious fact based on the evidence. In another discussion some apparent trolls were complaining about the claim, but I am uninterested in discussing it, but for those who are interested, the basic summary is this:

* The administration said, for weeks, that the video and the unrest around it was a cause of the attack on the embassy in Benghazi.

* They claimed that the evidence led them to say so.

* They have never provided any such evidence. Some of what they claimed happened -- such as protests existing at the embassy in Benghazi -- was false, and there was never any evidence it was true (maybe in the first hours, but not after the first days).

* There was much evidence, even in the first days, that the attack was preplanned, but it was ignored in favor of the nonexistent evidence of spontaneity.

* The documentary evidence shows that, from the beginning, they had evidence that it was preplanned, and the only "evidence" of spontaneity cited was that it happened soon after protests in Cairo.

Draw your own conclusions, but I do not believe that the President would say it was a spontaneous reaction to the video without some evidence of it, and he had none. He said it because he thought it was believable and wanted to win an election, and if it were preplanned then it is a failure of his administration.

If you want more, check out last week's 60 Minutes report by Lara Logan. Most of it has to do with showing that we a. knew the attack was coming and b. didn't take reasonable steps to prevent it.

8 comments

Since you yourself can't produce hard evidence (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 6 months ago | (#45304639)

. . .there is nothing to see here. You must move along. You are a hyperpartisan/racist/hypocritical/fanatic/revanchist booger for being on this in the fashion of the hound dog with a bone.
I think I have summarized damn_registrars for you effectively here.

What still hangs me up to this day (1)

Daniel_Stuckey (2647775) | about 6 months ago | (#45304649)

You'd think, if something like a YouTube video [youtube.com] had caused such an event, and that there was actual certainty there, that everyday people wouldn't have been able to keep their eyes off of it.

I think it says something about the general messaging—on Hilary's part (& her stroke), and on Obama's part—that lacks any confidence in the first place.

That most people I've ever asked, "Have you ever watched Innocence of Muslims?," have all said no still really weirds me out. We know that the administration latched onto the video, despite it having the supposed effect it did. They moreso acknowledged that they had lied. I just find it compelling almost, that no one has really studied the evidence that they'd tried to pass off.

I mean, what could be more off-the-wall than the idea that a YouTube video was to blame for an attack? Nevertheless, it's the narrative we were presented with right off the bat. In my case, I actually saw the video before I knew the details of the raids.

http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/the-film-that-caused-the-egyptian-embassy-raid [vice.com]

http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/interview-terry-jones-takes-death-threats-with-cups-of-decaf [vice.com]

Or... (1)

Austrian Anarchy (3010653) | about 6 months ago | (#45304777)

Draw your own conclusions, but I do not believe that the President would say it was a spontaneous reaction to the video without some evidence of it, and he had none. He said it because he thought it was believable and wanted to win an election, and if it were preplanned then it is a failure of his administration.

That is a fully rational theory. However, there is the possibility that this was indeed what he was told and he did not bother with asking for anything to support it. Someone concocted a narrative and he bought it.

Re:Or... (1)

pudge (3605) | about 6 months ago | (#45305281)

I think that belief is essentially irrational. While possible, it is not even remotely plausible to me, especially after that Sunday when Susan Rice went out and said "it's the video" on five different shows, and there was massive pushback from many across the media and in government. At that point, it is beyond belief that President Obama would not have asked someone, "can you show me why we think it is the video?" Or if he didn't ask that ... because he didn't want to know the answer.

Either way, when he went on Letterman two days later, he was clearly lying when he said, "Extremists and terrorists used [the video and the outcry from it] as an excuse to attack a variety of our embassies, including the consulate in Libya." The video had nothing at all to do with it, and it wasn't even used as an excuse, and there was zero evidence that backs up that claim, even at the time he said it.

Re:Or... (1)

Austrian Anarchy (3010653) | about 6 months ago | (#45305491)

While I agree that belief in that sort of narrative is ridiculous, I do not put this level of ridiculous past the president, and those who surround him, for this period of time or longer. I would not doubt that if they ever stopped believing it, that was about the time it was dropped. They believe all sorts of other things too, like the fairness of central planning, so this is not beyond them at all.

Re:Or... (1)

pudge (3605) | about 6 months ago | (#45305985)

Either he knew, or he didn't want to know. Because if he didn't know but wanted to, he would have asked and found out that there was no evidence for the story he was telling.

The attack was September 11, Rice went on the Sunday shows on September 16, and September 17 and 18 (leading up to Obama's appearance on Letterman) almost all the news was about Benghazi, continuing for the rest of that week. The story was not dropped before or soon after it.

Re:Or... (1)

Austrian Anarchy (3010653) | about 6 months ago | (#45306055)

Like I said earlier, otherwise stated, look at the rest of the stuff they believe for your answer.

Re:Or... (1)

pudge (3605) | about 6 months ago | (#45306143)

But those are two completely different types of belief. On one we have a values belief, which is hard to falsify, and is often even maintained despite falsification. That's human nature. But this is about simple facts of things that happened, which don't affect their values in any way. It only affects their narrative, hence the deception.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...