Valerie
Platinum Member
- Sep 17, 2008
- 31,521
- 7,390
- 1,170
Nov 18, 2012
An open challenge
QUOTE="Valerie, post: 6365552, member: 11971"
That's why this whole frenzy over these word semantics is so stupid, because the event just was what it was...The murder of Americans and the destruction of our embassy...It never mattered what to call it until partisans pounced and acted as if it mattered, the very next day no less...
There was no lie about the results of the violence that occurred that day..it was an active investigation of a violent crime scene, an unfolding news story where information was being spread and repeated very quickly, information got mixed up from violent events across the globe at other embassies that day where outrage was being expressed toward the US in general, obviously because it was the anniversary of 9/11 which is obviously about more than just some video...and yes there were reports of spontaneous uprisings over some video including in Libya and the president spoke of them too, why shouldn't he?
It's not like anyone really believes blood thirsty jihadist wouldn't find any other excuse to focus their rage anyway, but that video and others like it are true precipitating factors to terror and we are currently in the midst of a diplomatic effort over there, so we simply acknowledge that fact as we gathered other facts and reacted to the events in whole. Not because we wanted to pretend to the terrorists we weren't "on to them". They blew up our effing embassy and killed our guys it was pretty obvious we were going to be all over them henceforth regardless.
Despite all the partisan parsing, the President and the Secretary of State both made strong, honest and diplomatic statements in the days following this terror event. No one claimed it wasn't terror.
When people like QW ask why did they do it that way, why did they lie? I say, I don't see it that way at all, and I don't accept your premise that there was a lie...[/QUOTE]
An open challenge
QUOTE="Valerie, post: 6365552, member: 11971"
That's why this whole frenzy over these word semantics is so stupid, because the event just was what it was...The murder of Americans and the destruction of our embassy...It never mattered what to call it until partisans pounced and acted as if it mattered, the very next day no less...
There was no lie about the results of the violence that occurred that day..it was an active investigation of a violent crime scene, an unfolding news story where information was being spread and repeated very quickly, information got mixed up from violent events across the globe at other embassies that day where outrage was being expressed toward the US in general, obviously because it was the anniversary of 9/11 which is obviously about more than just some video...and yes there were reports of spontaneous uprisings over some video including in Libya and the president spoke of them too, why shouldn't he?
It's not like anyone really believes blood thirsty jihadist wouldn't find any other excuse to focus their rage anyway, but that video and others like it are true precipitating factors to terror and we are currently in the midst of a diplomatic effort over there, so we simply acknowledge that fact as we gathered other facts and reacted to the events in whole. Not because we wanted to pretend to the terrorists we weren't "on to them". They blew up our effing embassy and killed our guys it was pretty obvious we were going to be all over them henceforth regardless.
Despite all the partisan parsing, the President and the Secretary of State both made strong, honest and diplomatic statements in the days following this terror event. No one claimed it wasn't terror.
When people like QW ask why did they do it that way, why did they lie? I say, I don't see it that way at all, and I don't accept your premise that there was a lie...[/QUOTE]