Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    25 Oct '12 00:55
    Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) on Wednesday told the local CBS station in San Francisco that Obama initially called the attack that killed the U.S. ambassador and three Americans an “act of terror” in the days after the Sept. 11 assault on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi. She suggested the administration initially linked the attack to an anti-Islam video based on the assessment of Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.

    Clapper — a “very good individual” according to Feinstein — “put out some speaking points on the initial intelligence assessment,” she said. “I think that was possibly a mistake.”

    -snip-

    Feinstein said there's now no question the attack was an act of terrorism.

    “I think we do know what happened,” she said. “There's no question but that it was a terrorist attack. There's no question that the security was inadequate. And I think there's no question that we need to work on our intelligence.”

    The senator said she would hold a hearing next month after the independent review board charged with investigating whether intelligence and security failures contributed to the deaths in Benghazi issues its report.

    http://thehill.com/video/senate/262757-feinstein-faults-intelligence-director-for-mixed-messages-on-benghazi-attack

    So, it appears that Senator Feinstein "doesn't read the papers" (according to Chris Matthews) and seems to concur that:

    a) There was an intelligence failure here

    b) The administration initially maintained the link between the video and the attack

    c) That turned out to be incorrect.


    Hmmm. She must be a racist.
  2. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    25 Oct '12 01:44 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by sh76
    [quote]Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) on Wednesday told the local CBS station in San Francisco that Obama initially called the attack that killed the U.S. ambassador and three Americans an “act of terror” in the days after the Sept. 11 assault on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi. She suggested the administration initially linked the attack to an anti-Islam vide eo and the attack

    c) That turned out to be incorrect.


    Hmmm. She must be a racist.
    A) Maybe not;

    B) Yes;

    C) Probably not based on Libyan eyewitnesses.

    From my post on the last page of the "Debate #2" thread:

    To those on the ground, the circumstances of the attack are hardly a mystery. Most of the attackers made no effort to hide their faces or identities, and during the assault some acknowledged to a Libyan journalist working for The New York Times that they belonged to the group. And their attack drew a crowd, some of whom cheered them on, some of whom just gawked, and some of whom later looted the compound.

    The fighters said at the time that they were moved to act because of the video, which had first gained attention across the region after a protest in Egypt that day. The assailants approvingly recalled a 2006 assault by local Islamists that had destroyed an Italian diplomatic mission in Benghazi over a perceived insult to the prophet. In June the group staged a similar attack against the Tunisian Consulate over a different film, according to the Congressional testimony of the American security chief at the time, Eric A. Nordstrom.

    At a news conference the day after the ambassador and three other Americans were killed, a spokesman for Ansar al-Shariah praised the attack as the proper response to such an insult to Islam. “We are saluting our people for this zeal in protecting their religion, to grant victory to the prophet,” the spokesman said. “The response has to be firm.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/16/world/africa/election-year-stakes-overshadow-nuances-of-benghazi-investigation.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&ref=daviddkirkpatrick
  3. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    25 Oct '12 02:58
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    A) Maybe not;

    B) Yes;

    C) Probably not based on Libyan eyewitnesses.

    From my post on the last page of the "Debate #2" thread:

    To those on the ground, the circumstances of the attack are hardly a mystery. Most of the attackers made no effort to hide their faces or identities, and during the assault some acknowledged to a Libyan journalist worki ...[text shortened]... akes-overshadow-nuances-of-benghazi-investigation.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&ref=daviddkirkpatrick
    I don't know which is worse - if it was a planned attack for the anniversary or if it was a response to the video. Either way, not having US gunships on site sending these savages to meet their seventy-two virgins is inexcusable.