pudge's Journal: Obama Lied About Benghazi

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.

Since you yourself can't produce hard evidence

[smittyoneeach]

. . .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

[Daniel_Stuckey]

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 admin

Or...

[Austrian Anarchy]

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

Re:

[pudge]

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 h

Re:

[Austrian Anarchy]

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:

[pudge]

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:

[Austrian Anarchy]

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

Re:

[pudge]

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.