Originally Posted by spence
The piece presents NOTHING that proves the Administration lied about the attack. What it does is juxtapose known information with narrow opinions to come to conclusions it couldn't defend if called to.
No, there is no absolute proof that someone has told a lie. Even an admission by the liar that he lied is not absolute proof. There is very strong evidence that the administration knew that the attack was not because of an anti-Muslim video. Besides the strong evidence, it makes far less sense that the attack was instigated by the video, and far more sense that the terrorist events leading up to it, and Al Qaeda's promise to attack Americans make it more likely that the event was terrorist inspired and executed.
Ultimately it comes down to the idea were our people left ti die...again, the piece provides NOTHING to contradict the notion the response was withheld.
Correct, the piece provides nothing to contradict the "notion" that a response was withheld. It actually provides things that SUPPORT the "notion" that it was withheld. And because of that our people were left to die.
Weak security has already been assessed and deemed a systemic failure within the State department...it's old news.
No, if it appeared on October 27 it is not old news. And by CBS not FOX. And the presentation implies something far worse than systemic failure . . . whatever that is. Systemic failure of security means that such failure in the State Dept. is built in, continuous, and unresolved. That is obviously not the case. But a failure that is either willful or incompetent is another matter, and can be attributed to personnel. And an effort to deflect the blame away from the persons responsible is lying.
Usually it's frowned upon. FOX was initially interested in his story but cut him off when he demanded to be paid. Doesn't sound like someone trying to get the truth out for a noble cause.
And yet FOX, and NBC, and CBS, and ABC, and CNN, and so on, all demand to be paid for trying to get the truth out, or even for obfuscating, distorting, and dismissing the truth. And a lot of them get paid far more than Morgan would have gotten. I'll put my bet on the guy who was there to tell the truth, paid or not, rather than the network "investigators" who ferret out, second or third hand, the "truth" they wish to report.
al Qaeda flags were already to have known to be flying, but that's a far cry from proof that al Qaeda led the attack. The State department documents which would capture any knowledge of advance warning have been part of multiple reviews.
Al Qaeda in Libya boasted that it would attack the Red Cross, the British Embassy, and the Americans. They made good on the first two threats. Lt. Colonel Andy Wood, based in Tripoli, warned State that he believed Al Qaeda was in the final planning stages for that third attack and it also became known that Abu Anas Al-Libi was in Libya to set up a terror network. Wood said the administration wouldn't relocate the consulate after the situation deteriorated before the attack.
Morgan Jones warnings and requests were ignored.
Hicks' request for help during the attack were ignored.
Ambassador Stevens' requests for more security were not responded to.
A series of attacks besides those on the Red Cross and British Embassy had taken place.
Al Qaeda flags were flying.
Nah, no proof that Al Qaeda had anything to do with the attack. More likely it was an obscure video.
Why hasn't the House led witch hunt produced any witches? It is nearly Halloween after all...
-spence
|