Benghazi attack timeline: http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/10/15/1014241/timline-benghazi-attack/?mobile=nc
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@...> wrote: > > And oh, by the way, from remarks by the president in Golden, Colorado, > September 13, 2012, concerning the Benghazi attack: > > "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." > > http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/13/remarks-president-golden-co > > > http://tinyurl.com/9ulcxkt > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" > > <anartaxius@> wrote: > > > > > > Ah semantics. When something like Benghazi happens, governments have a > > > lot to think about. What happened? Did we screw up somehow? Do we have to > > > cover our asses? How shall we respond? There is also the concern that > > > saying something abrupt might endanger relations with the government in > > > the country where the incident took place. > > > > > > I do not think Obama actually said it was a terrorist attack. He spoke of > > > 'acts of terror' in a general sense. > > > > He clearly included the Benghazi attack in "acts of terror," > > and he repeatedly referred to it as an "attack" in the > > statement. > > > > > This is diplomatic-speak so that later on, if the statement is general > > > enough, one can connect dots between different parts of a statement. It > > > is interesting that the transcript of this speech on the White House > > > website is far more truncated than what he actually said. The White House > > > transcript is rather short and mentions the word attack only once in the > > > title, and none of the statement mentions the word terror: > > > > Here's the full transcript (which refers to it as an > > "attack" multiple times and includes the phrase "acts of > > terror"); I gather you didn't bother to look at it when I > > posted the link: > > > > http://whitehouse.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/12/president-vows-justice-will-be-done-after-killing-of-u-s-ambassador-to-libya-and-three-american-diplomats/ > > > > http://tinyurl.com/9y9hj7n > > > > This is a truncated version: > > > > > 'Statement by the President on the Attack in Benghazi' > > > > > > 'I strongly condemn the outrageous attack on our diplomatic facility in > > > Benghazi, which took the lives of four Americans, including Ambassador > > > Chris Stevens. Right now, the American people have the families of those > > > we lost in our thoughts and prayers. They exemplified America's > > > commitment to freedom, justice, and partnership with nations and people > > > around the globe, and stand in stark contrast to those who callously took > > > their lives.' > > > > > > 'I have directed my Administration to provide all necessary resources to > > > support the security of our personnel in Libya, and to increase security > > > at our diplomatic posts around the globe. While the United States rejects > > > efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all > > > unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives > > > of these public servants.' > > > > > > 'On a personal note, Chris was a courageous and exemplary representative > > > of the United States. Throughout the Libyan revolution, he selflessly > > > served our country and the Libyan people at our mission in Benghazi. As > > > Ambassador in Tripoli, he has supported Libya's transition to democracy. > > > His legacy will endure wherever human beings reach for liberty and > > > justice. I am profoundly grateful for his service to my Administration, > > > and deeply saddened by this loss.' > > > > > > 'The brave Americans we lost represent the extraordinary service and > > > sacrifices that our civilians make every day around the globe. As we > > > stand united with their families, let us now redouble our own efforts to > > > carry their work forward.' > > > > > > http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2012/09/12/president-obama-speaks-attack-benghazi > > > > > > So obviously he said more than this but even in a full transcript 'No > > > acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation' is > > > pretty vague as a direct reference to this specific attack since he used > > > the word 'acts', not specifically referring to this one at Benghazi. > > > > Oh, please. I posted the mention of "acts of terror" in > > full context, but you didn't read that either. It's crystal > > clear that it includes this specific attack: > > > > "Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked > > the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. We mourned with the families who > > were lost on that day. I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate > > sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of > > ArlingtonCemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some > > of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed. And then last night, we learned the > > news of this attack in Benghazi. > > > > "As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained > > because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for > > it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as > > strong as the character of our people and the service of those both > > civilian and military who represent us around the globe. > > > > "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter > > that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today > > we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United > > States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice > > is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done." > > > > Obviously he wanted it understood that he was including > > Benghazi in "acts of terror." He even used a very similar > > phrase for it, "terrible act," two sentences later. That > > was not an accident. > > > > As I pointed out earlier, imagine if someone had *objected* > > to his having called the Banghazi attack an act of terror > > and he wanted to make it seem that he hadn't--what could > > he possibly have said that would have been convincing? > > > > > An act of terror is not necessarily terrorist in nature, > > > people just have to experience terror. > > > > Give it up, Xeno, that's about as implausible as it gets. > > Nobody refers to an "act of terror" except in the context > > of terrorism. > > > > > Obama called it a 'terrible act'. He called it 'this type of senseless > > > violence'. > > > > And "outrageous and shocking." > > > > > He spoke of 'brutal acts' in a general sense. It seems to me that > > > depending on who you support in the election, and your prior beliefs - > > conservative or liberal - anyone can pick and infer whatever they want. > > > > Not in context, not *honestly*, nope. > > > > <snip> > > > So the advice is to speak in the vaguest terms possible so that you > > > cannot be specifically pinned down for having said something to the > > > point. The downside to this is, depending on ones views, such statements > > > can be read in many different ways if you assume statement x is really > > > connected to statement y and is bolstered by comment z. > > > > No honest reading of the statement could possibly conclude > > that it was too vague to discern for sure that Obama meant > > that morning to characterize it as a terrorist attack. It > > was only as time went on and information began to come in > > from the field that it seemed prudent not to be specific > > until the full story was known. If anything, Obama jumped > > the gun in labeling it terrorism. There was a real question > > for a while as to whether it had actually been a > > spontaneous demonstration against that vile video. > > > > > If Obama has said unequivocally 'this is a terrorist attack and the > > > embassy did not have adequate protection in place' then this thread on > > > FFL and similar ones on other sites would not have much going for them. > > > > > > We do seem to know now that it was a terrorist attack. And that it was > > > successful. Therefore whatever protection was in place was inadequate, by > > > definition. > > > > Which is why he didn't need to say that it was inadequate > > when he was making his first statement. The only issue is > > *why* it was inadequate, and he didn't know that then. > > >
