Schieffer: Not Sure Benghazi Was Terrorism

[TheResearcher]

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-T...-Was-Terrorism

"Let me just ask you this, because this is a question that people ask me; If the administration misled people, if the administration was reluctant to say that this was a work of terrorists -- if, in fact, it was -- why would they be so reluctant to say that?"

Well, Bob, you "news" reporter, lemme 'splain it to you. Hussein is a muslim. The violent thugs in Benghazi are muslims. Now, using your finely-honed investigative reporting skills, make a connection...you doofus.

[Marshan Man]

Crack kills...

MERGE!!

[Creekman]

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-T...-Was-Terrorism

"Let me just ask you this, because this is a question that people ask me; If the administration misled people, if the administration was reluctant to say that this was a work of terrorists -- if, in fact, it was -- why would they be so reluctant to say that?"

Well, Bob, you "news" reporter, lemme 'splain it to you. Hussein is a muslim. The violent thugs in Benghazi are muslims. Now, using your finely-honed investigative reporting skills, make a connection...you doofus.

I don't think that stupidity is a reversible condition. But keep listening to breitsmart and maybe you will get worse. Its worth a try.

[bullmikey]

Let me just ask you this, because this is a question that people ask me; If the administration misled people, if the administration was reluctant to say that this was a work of terrorists -- if, in fact, it was -- why would they be so reluctant to say that?"

Because it would have disturbed the campaign narrative: “Osama bin Laden is dead, al Qaeda is on the run.” Axelrod and the Chicago junta wouldn’t stand for that. Just keep saying, “Osama bin Laden is dead, al Qaeda is on the run” and don’t worry about the bodies, we’ll clean up later. The goal was to win the election, not to save anyone’s life.

[dsummoner]

The reluctance is two-fold. First, it drives a stake into the heart of the 'Qaida is on its heels' narrative. Secondly, it shows that the current administration Bushblundered by engaging in regime change in Libya. An unstable Libya with Qaida inspired and/or affiliated groups operating freely while al Gaddafi's substantial weapons stores are dispersed shows how poorly thought through the 'regime change' actually is turning out to be and will turn out to be.

[Marshan Man]

Because it would have disturbed the campaign narrative: “Osama bin Laden is dead, al Qaeda is on the run.” Axelrod and the Chicago junta wouldn’t stand for that. Just keep saying, “Osama bin Laden is dead, al Qaeda is on the run” and don’t worry about the bodies, we’ll clean up later. The goal was to win the election, not to save anyone’s life.

How wouyld that have distubred the narrative. Osama IS dead. Al Qaeda certainly doesn't have the capacity to pull off an attack the magnitude of 9/11/01. Do they?

I mean think about it... not to trivilalize anyone's death, but they went from 2500+ to 4. Is that not significant?

[dsummoner]

How wouyld that have distubred the narrative. Osama IS dead. Al Qaeda certainly doesn't have the capacity to pull off an attack the magnitude of 9/11/01. Do they?

I mean think about it... not to trivilalize anyone's death, but they went from 2500+ to 4. Is that not significant?

The Countering Terrorism Center (CTC) at West Point has released the translations of a number of documents that were obtained from UBL's hideout. When looked at objectively (i.e. apolitically) they paint a picture of UBL being reduced to a titular figurehead.

The magnitude of any particular attack is comprised of factors that fall into two general categories. The first is the capacity of the organization in question and the second is the capacity of the target state to mitigate the efforts of the former. In regards to the 2001-09-11 Raid on New York, the exhibited capacity of Qaida was minimal (a limited number of operatives equipped with box cutters) while the defensive capacity of the US was even more minimal. It would actually take very little for Qaida or any other organization to inflict a similar magnitude attack on the US given the rich diversity of targets present and a security regime that is more interested in stripping away the rights of American citizens than it is in much of anything else (the operational incompetence of the latest cadre of would-be jihadists doesn't help their cause).

[Wizard777]

The reluctance is two-fold. First, it drives a stake into the heart of the 'Qaida is on its heels' narrative. Secondly, it shows that the current administration Bushblundered by engaging in regime change in Libya. An unstable Libya with Qaida inspired and/or affiliated groups operating freely while al Gaddafi's substantial weapons stores are dispersed shows how poorly thought through the 'regime change' actually is turning out to be and will turn out to be.

Let's examine that and do the arithmetic.

9/11/01 - 4,363 Americans dead in NY, DC and PA.
9/11/12 - 4 Americans dead in Libya

Reduction in dead Americans on 9/11 - 4,359

On their heels is an understatement. More like on their arses. Their ability to kill Americans has been greatly reduced and their ability to kill Americams in America has been eliminated for the time being.

[bullmikey]

How wouyld that have distubred the narrative. Osama IS dead. Al Qaeda certainly doesn't have the capacity to pull off an attack the magnitude of 9/11/01. Do they?

You mean they don't have a handful of true believers and some box cutters?

I mean think about it... not to trivilalize anyone's death, but they went from 2500+ to 4. Is that not significant?

No, you think about it, if they are successfully killing your ambassadors, they are on the offensive, not in retreat.

[dsummoner]

Let's examine that and do the arithmetic.

9/11/01 - 4,363 Americans dead in NY, DC and PA.
9/11/12 - 4 Americans dead in Libya

Reduction in dead Americans on 9/11 - 4,359

On their heels is an understatement. More like on their arses. Their ability to kill Americans has been greatly reduced and their ability to kill Americams in America has been eliminated for the time being.

'Qaida on its heels' is substantively different from 'Qaida on its heels when it comes to killing Americans.' Through agent dispersion and more importantly ideological dispersion, Qaida has spread far and wide (the resources being poured into the African Command attest to this).

Of course the excessively low sampling rate that you have used completely misses the Americans killed by Qaida central agents, Qaida affiliated groups and Qaida ideologically inspired groups in Afghanistan.

[soulflower]

Because it would have disturbed the campaign narrative: “Osama bin Laden is dead, al Qaeda is on the run.” Axelrod and the Chicago junta wouldn’t stand for that. Just keep saying, “Osama bin Laden is dead, al Qaeda is on the run” and don’t worry about the bodies, we’ll clean up later. The goal was to win the election, not to save anyone’s life.

Right because foreign policy was the most important issue in the 2012 election

[bullmikey]

Let's examine that and do the arithmetic.

9/11/01 - 4,363 Americans dead in NY, DC and PA.
9/11/12 - 4 Americans dead in Libya

Reduction in dead Americans on 9/11 - 4,359

On their heels is an understatement. More like on their arses. Their ability to kill Americans has been greatly reduced and their ability to kill Americams in America has been eliminated for the time being.

I imagine that's how the Chicago gangsters measure success and do the math too.

One more time, just for you, if they are killing your ambassadors, they are on the offensive, not in retreat.

[Marshan Man]

You mean they don't have a handful of true believers and some box cutters?



No, you think about it, if they are successfully killing your ambassadors, they are on the offensive, not in retreat.

Okay. AGAIN if this is their offensive now compared to 2001, I'll take it.

[bullmikey]

Right because foreign policy was the most important issue in the 2012 election

No, but it was one pleace where Obama was supposed to be strong and Romney was supposed to be weak. The economy was certainly not something Obama was going to make a campaign narrative of, for obvious reasons.

[soulflower]

You mean they don't have a handful of true believers and some box cutters?



No, you think about it, if they are successfully killing your ambassadors, they are on the offensive, not in retreat.

They got lucky. The ambassador died from smoke inhalation

[bullmikey]

Okay. AGAIN if this is their offensive now compared to 2001, I'll take it.

Well, that's very big of you.

[bullmikey]

They got lucky. The ambassador died from smoke inhalation

Why, were they running out of time to kill him in?

[Marshan Man]

No, but it was one pleace where Obama was supposed to be strong and Romney was supposed to be weak. The economy was certainly not something Obama was going to make a campaign narrative of, for obvious reasons.

Obama won on the economy...

Romney was just weak all around..economy foreign policy...you name it. No one trusted him. the election's over and his sorry supporters have little better to do than cheerlead for Al-Qaeda. Yay!

[soulflower]

Why, were they running out of time to kill him in?

I don't think he was the target of the attack. People usually don't get assassinated by smoke

[soulflower]

No, but it was one pleace where Obama was supposed to be strong and Romney was supposed to be weak. The economy was certainly not something Obama was going to make a campaign narrative of, for obvious reasons.

The Benghazi issue doesn't register with people who don't live in the right-wing bubble