Re: CBS' Charlie Rose Pushes Back Against Marco Rubio's False Claim That "Hillary Cli
When you start talking about the sentence before or after or the context you should understand that other reasonable people may disagree.
I'd say that depends. But let me say yer position is reasonable, imo. I'm not saying fair-minded people can't disagree about the way the way the Administration handled its communications on this in the days following the attacks in Benghazi. But the hysteria you hear from some (many?) on the Right about how she was "clearly lying" and that the WH was orchestrating a coverup designed to defend a claim that Al Qaeda and its affiliates in the region were somehow "incapable" of launching such attacks is absurd, isn't it?
What'd they require? A dozen or so men armed with automatic weapons and some diesel fuel to start a fire at the consulate, and then a trained mortar crew to direct fire at the annex. Was Obama saying they didn't have that capability?
She keeps bringing up the video and saying that "we" have nothing to do with it.
I'd say that was properly considered an important element of our public position. Wouldn't you
want to emphasize that to help protect our other facilities in the Middle East?
>>she keeps bringing up the video, bringing up the fact that some people have blamed the attack on the video
Was she saying that some people blamed the attacks in
Benghazi on the video? First, I think some news reports
did suggest that. And secondly, I don't recall her making that claim.
>>She could easily also include in her statements a point black denial like she gave the Egyptian PM. She could also tell the public "We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack—not a protest."
Isn't it reasonable to wait until we were certain before making a definitive public statement? And let me repeat a point I've made in this forum before: We all saw Romney at an October debate going after the president on this issue. Now I know some have criticized Mr. Romney (condemned him even) for not slamming Obummer on this, calling him a liar or whatever. Fwiw, I think his instinctive reaction was the correct one — raise the issue, draw clear attention to it, and then leave it to develop over the three weeks remaining before the election.
In Jan 2009, he did make a statement that he thought Crowley should not have supported the president's claim regarding his Rose Garden statement, and that he was prepared to immediately challenge Obama for "misrepresenting" the nature of the attacks. But my read is that he would simply have been digging a hole for himself.
All the vitriol we've heard over the past three years was tossed out in the days before the election … and it didn't lead to an Obummer defeat.
> >Simple, direct, to the point. Why doesn't she? Why does she say all the other things about the video,
other than that?
Like I said, I think the comments about the video were intended to disassociate the US government from its production and dissemination. It had led to strong anti-American sentiment in the region that created a dangerous environment for all Americans.
Stop talking about each other and stick to the OP.
