The Benghazi Lie in Black and White

[Bodakane]

1.an attempt to prevent people's discovering the truth about a serious mistake or crime.
synonyms: whitewash, concealment, false front, facade, camouflage, disguise, mask, veneer, pretext; informalblame game
"the aides were implicated in the cover-up"

2.a loose outer garment, as worn over a swimsuit or exercise outfit.

I'd say it fits the definition perfectly. They weren't trying to cover up that it ever happened, only the truth surrounding WHY it happened.

Jesus that's not what happened.

They didn't try to cover up that it happened. They didn't try to keep the truth form coming out.

Instead of it being a terrorist attack in response to terrorists hating America and a movie, it was just a terrorist attack in response to terrorists hating America.

The fact that you're so up in arms over that is an indictment of partisanship.

[Reeve]

it's a run of the mill fuck up that was covered up that it was a fuck up. I don't think Clinton did anything criminal I just think shes a dumbass

What's the cover up? People keep saying this, but keep failing to show how it was covered up.

[Machismo]

Where was the lie?

You keep dodging that question and coming back with vague comments and insults.

Just be clear so we're on the same page: Where, exactly, is the lie?

The lie was in pushing the narrative that the attack was in retaliation for a video that some d-bag made. They knew that wasn't the case, yet they continued to push the narrative.

[Reeve]

Spur of the moment: Angry mob vs. Planned: Terrorist attack.

Which again, changes nothing.

[ControlWarrior]

Sure, but proper embassies can repel those attacks either way. Our security there was simply poor, and that's why the ambassador is dead.

That's the crux of the issue. There's no actual benefit to be gained from changing the label applied to the attackers because the overall fuckup is the problem.

I know the argument I'm making must seem very gray scale, but there is a political benefit to selling the narrative a certain way. Even if that benefit is small, politicians always try to make themselves appear in the best light possible. I don't like it personally, but its how the game is played.

[Reeve]

The lie was in pushing the narrative that the attack was in retaliation for a video that some d-bag made. They knew that wasn't the case, yet they continued to push the narrative.

She apparently didn't actually say this, only that some may use the video to justify the attack. Which isn't a lie.

I'll be willing to change that position if you can find a clinton quote where she claims the attack was a result of the video.

[ControlWarrior]

Which again, changes nothing.

It does, you just never saw it play out. Luckily for the administration, the Republicans and not the media picked this story up. Now, they could argue a witch hunt by the opposing party.

[Machismo]

Jesus that's not what happened.

They didn't try to cover up that it happened. They didn't try to keep the truth form coming out.

Instead of it being a terrorist attack in response to terrorists hating America and a movie, it was just a terrorist attack in response to terrorists hating America.

The fact that you're so up in arms over that is an indictment of partisanship.

Actually, my issue is with the events leading up to it. I simply find it hilarious that people refuse to even admit the administration lied. People on this forum refuse to admit they lied... That's an indictment on partisanship, and I'm gladly pointing it out. I don't much give a shit that they lied, that's what politicians do. However, I'm not going to pretend that a lie never happened. So, if you want to see true partisanship, look no further than those who refuse to admit that a lie ever occurred.

[Reeve]

I know the argument I'm making must seem very gray scale, but there is a political benefit to selling the narrative a certain way. Even if that benefit is small, politicians always try to make themselves appear in the best light possible. I don't like it personally, but its how the game is played.

No one has shown in any way how that benefit plays out. And if there was a benefit to the spin, it was so miniscule that I really have to wonder why we're still talking about it now, several years later.

- - - Updated - - -

It does, you just never saw it play out. Luckily for the administration, the Republicans and not the media picked this story up. Now, they could argue a witch hunt by the opposing party.

How does premeditated attack vs. spontaneous attack change the way that the administration should have handled the attack?

In both cases, they should have had better security arrangements. That's pretty much it.

[zenkai]

What's the cover up? People keep saying this, but keep failing to show how it was covered up.

They said the attack was spontaneous and was triggered over a Youtube video. They even went as far as to crucify the guy who made the movie. When in reality a attack was eminent which is why other countries pulled their people out and the request for additional security was denied. If the government had done their job and headed the warnings those men would be alive today.

[Machismo]

She apparently didn't actually say this, only that some may use the video to justify the attack. Which isn't a lie.

I'll be willing to change that position if you can find a clinton quote where she claims the attack was a result of the video.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...s-people-who-/

Mind you, I have always said the entire administration lied. It wasn't just about Hillary, she was simply part of the mechanism pushing the narrative.

- - - Updated - - -

That was never said, as best as I can tell. Please find where Clinton said that the attack was "in retaliation" (or equivalent verbiage) for a video.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...s-people-who-/

[Reeve]

They said the attack was spontaneous and was triggered over a Youtube video. They even went as far as to crucify the guy who made the movie. When in reality a attack was eminent which is why other countries pulled their people out and the request for additional security was denied. If the government had done their job and headed the warnings those men would be alive today.

Additional security should have been granted regardless of whether the attack was spontaneous or not, though. It was underprotected for being in such an unstable country.

[Tonkaden]

depends what you call wrong doing did she break any laws no
did she blatantly lie to the American pubic yes
but I guess many don't conceder that wrong doing

Oh, so she is exactly like every other politician in the US and in the world for that matter? Gotcha. Didn't think everyone here knew that already. /s

[Reeve]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...s-people-who-/

From your link:

"In conclusion

It is impossible to know with certainty what Clinton told these families in brief conversations at a private reception only three days after Benghazi. Some, but not all, family members who have spoken to the media said Clinton mentioned a video or protests in their meeting. Some said she didn’t mention a video. Clinton says she did not.

If she did say something about the video, would it have been an intentional lie? It’s very possible that this is one of the many conflicting pieces of intelligence that the administration was working with at the time.

There simply is not enough concrete information in the public domain for Rubio or anyone to claim as fact that Clinton did or did not lie to the Benghazi families."

[zenkai]

Oh, so she is exactly like every other politician in the US and in the world for that matter? Gotcha. Didn't think everyone here knew that already. /s

It says something about our government when lies and corruption are pretty much OK with us because they all do it. By the time people actually care what these liars and thieves are doing, it's going to be too late

[ControlWarrior]

No one has shown in any way how that benefit plays out. And if there was a benefit to the spin, it was so miniscule that I really have to wonder why we're still talking about it now, several years later.

- - - Updated - - -



How does premeditated attack vs. spontaneous attack change the way that the administration should have handled the attack?

In both cases, they should have had better security arrangements. That's pretty much it.

In the last two months of tight a presidential race? C'mon now.

[Reeve]

In the last two months of tight a presidential race? C'mon now.

The timing of the irrelevant statement doesn't really make it any more relevant as a "cover up."

[Machismo]

Yeah, I'm not sure what the "political gain" would be in "lying" about the incident to make it seem like a disorganized mob successfully killed the ambassador.

If the issue at hand is the lack of security and overall fuckups surrounding the situation, I don't see how saying, "It wasn't terrorists, it was just some random dudes on the street." helps your cause. Seems like you'd want to say, "No, it was some Navy Seal level shit from the attackers!"

It's all about deflecting responsibility. By saying that it was a spontaneous mob who was outraged by a video, they get to absolve themselves of some of the blame for the shitty security. They also get to try and dodge some of the blame for having people in the country in the first place, when very few think that there should have been a diplomatic mission at that time, and in that location.

[ControlWarrior]

The timing of the irrelevant statement doesn't really make it any more relevant as a "cover up."

I personally never said it was a cover up. More a tinting of the facts to make themselves look better

[Reeve]

It's all about deflecting responsibility. By saying that it was a spontaneous mob who was outraged by a video, they get to absolve themselves of some of the blame for the shitty security. They also get to try and dodge some of the blame for having people in the country in the first place, when very few think that there should have been a diplomatic mission at that time, and in that location.

No, they don't. They don't get to absolve themselves of anything. People still got attacked and killed in their service. If anything, the idea that a disorganized mob could successfully carry out such an attack makes them MORE guilty of having inadequate security, not LESS.

- - - Updated - - -

I personally never said it was a cover up. More a tinting of the facts to make themselves look better

Except it kind of makes them look worse.

If you're going to lie about someone kicking your ass, do you want to claim that Seal Team 6 kicked your ass, or do you want to claim that some rowdy kindergartners did?