Wednesday, October 17, 2012

A hypothetical, inspired by last night's debate

Say you're a police investigator, and you find a dead body with no clear cause of death. It's a high-profile case, and the public wants to know if there was foul play. You give a press conference in which you say, "One thing's for sure: no act of murder will ever shake our resolve." By making that statement, have you announced that the person was definitely murdered? No. You've just uttered a platitude to express the fact that you're taking the case seriously, without committing to a position on what actually happened.

(See the "10:15" update on my live-blog of the debate.)

18 comments:

Anonymous said...


I don't get this whole issue. I am just baffled that people largely seem to not get this: What other agency besides State was the target of this attack?

The USA couldn't go on TV and announce that terrorists groups had discovered that CIA were also using the consolate. The CIA safe house was also attacked. That the terrorists also knew about the safe house is the tell. A CIA cover was blown.

Why are people trying to get their own government to admit this in public?

It was good timing for the terrorists to attack because of the Egypt riots in response to the video. Initially there probably was some confusion. Afterwards the administration couldn't admit what happened because it puts US diplomats in danger. Were there also political calculations for Obama -- of course. But he can't say who made the decision about security.

But the USA can't admit what happened. It would put other diplomats at risk around the world.

Obama certainly can't admit that it was the CIA not State who was responsible for making certain decisions regarding security in that compound.

I mean, what is he going to say? "Yeah, somebody in the CIA didn't think it was a good idea to up security or to withdraw?"

Obviously the original security question didn't get to the desk of the president. I am pretty certain it wasn't in State making the decision, but somebody in the CIA. But...the USA would be idiotic to admit that the CIA is involved in any way, shape, or form.

Obama also can't say why the diplomat was in that city and not in the capitol -- to liase and share information with the CIA.

Good grief.

Anonymous said...

It gets worse. This was in a televised hearing.

Of course Obama knew all of this. But do people expect him to explain this in public? Why the CIA didn't pull out or beef up security? Seriously?

"And whose control might they have fallen under? Well, presumably it’s the “other government agency” or “other government entity” the lawmakers and witnesses referred to; Issa informed the public that this agency was not the FBI."

Anonymous said...


Just in case anybody doesn't understand:

Terrorists will use the excuse of CIA involvement & spying to attack US diplomats.

The USA can't and should NOT admit CIA involvement.

Anonymous said...

From a security perspective, it's a MUCH better idea for the USA to say this attacked was caused by a video. It's a good cover for the news coverage that followed this incident.

They certainly can't say: "yeah, you're right. This was not about the video. The target was the CIA."


"In addition to all those, there is an additional security force at another U.S. compound two kilometers away. It serves as a rapid reaction force, a quick reaction security team -- a quick reaction security team, okay?"

http://www.theatlantic.com/garance-franke-ruta/

Anonymous said...

Above was an excerpt from a state department summary of the attack.

"A quick reaction security team, ok?"

boballab said...

In reply to anonymous:

Horseshit!

CIA has nothing to do with Consulate or Embassy Security, that is between the State Department and DOD. The only ones that can override the SecState and SecDef is certainly not the CIA it is the President. The bottomline is that Ambassador should not have been at a consulate that had already been attacked once and that done by the so called Libyan Guards.

Take some time away from the leftwing sites and educate yourself first.

Anonymous said...

There's no reason to be admitting anything about the CIA.

But that doesn't change whether you can admit it was a planned attack by terrorists in the slightest.

Reuters had night-vision film from an embed -in- the attack on British television the next day.

If you don't want people digging for info here, it's farking moronic to float completely obvious lies. That one snippet of video has (a) no protest ongoing, (b) assault rifles, (c) RPGs, (d) clear organization (compared to a -mob- anyway). And that's ignoring the widespread reports of mortarfire.

If nothing else, the administration is highlighting that they can't even lie competently.

Darcy said...

Why, you know what, Anonymous!

You're right! We should just trust that all the secrets the government keeps are for our own good, see?

No. We should not ask questions about this. Pity about the poor men killed, though. Well, anyways, let's move on to the really important stuff now.

I would like to know if my contraceptives are in danger of not being covered if Romney wins?

What do you think, Anonymous? I'm awfully concerned about this. I wish we would quit talking about Libya and just trust the CIA.

chickelit said...

I thought the left hated the CIA with a passion. Nixon-era lefties did. When did lefties get all cool with the CIA?

Obama's not a leftie? He's lefthanded. He votes leftie values. He promotes leftie values.

Obama's detractors (rightwingers who instinctively love the CIA) are supposed to get scared and back off, I guess.

BJM said...

@Jaltcoh

You've missed a few key points.

I FIFY:

Say you're a police investigator, and you find a dead body with no clear cause of death. Upon calling in the crime you discover that Police headquarters was in real-time contact with the high profile deceased as they were assigned his/her security by the Mayor.

While the deceased was in mortal jeopardy for 6-8 hours, they even managed to send a drone with video over the crime scene.

It's a high-profile case, and the public wants to know if there was foul play. You give a press conference in which you say, "One thing's for sure: no act of murder will ever shake our resolve."

The Governor, Mayor, Police Chief and police dept spokespersons then make many TV appearances blaming an obscure Utube snuff video as motive for the attack for two weeks before admitting that they knew that it was not a crime of passion triggered by a video, but was a mafia hit.

It is also revealed that the police failed to protect the deceased because they outsourced the security detail to an second rate outfit to save money that they then spent on electric cars for other police depts.

SH said...

This use of fluff platitudes by Obama has turned out being pretty useful for him. His speeches sound better, if your not paying attention, by hitting on important themes even though he is often arguing nonsense... and later he can claim to be misquoted since a paragraph of nebulous contradictory themes can confuse the issue at hand. Your exactly right; his speech about the embassy attacks attempted to pin the blame on a spontaneous demonstration due to that video. Throw in fluff about not tolerating [actual] terrorism and bingo. Semi plausible deniability.

SH said...

This use of fluff platitudes by Obama has turned out being pretty useful for him. His speeches sound better, if your not paying attention, by hitting on important themes even though he is often arguing nonsense... and later he can claim to be misquoted since a paragraph of nebulous contradictory themes can confuse the issue at hand. Your exactly right; his speech about the embassy attacks attempted to pin the blame on a spontaneous demonstration due to that video. Throw in fluff about not tolerating [actual] terrorism and bingo. Semi plausible deniability.

Anonymous said...

I could care less if you want to debate when and where your president should have said "Act of Terror." Go to it all you want in your election.

Frankly, I would think an unorganized attack from a protest is also a "Act of Terror." Just as a planned attack is also an "Act of Terror." But whatever - I don't see the importance of it one way or another.

BUT - it sounds like people still don't get what happened.

That compound 2 km away with the "quick reaction team" was the CIA safe house. The cover got blown in the televised investigation. The "quick action team" were CIA employees. They were not under the supervision of the State department.

If you read the report from State, you will see that the second compound was ALSO under attack. This was not a PUBLIC building. The cover of this second building was blown because CIA don't advertise their safe houses.

The attack was not motivated by the video. The attack was probably motivated by leaked information that blew the cover of the CIA in that city.

Your president cannot tell you this.

All of your politicians with appropriate clearance understand that CIA employees were in that embassy and in the second compound 2 km away. Very few of them knew about the CIA involvement until the televised hearing revealed it. You can tell who had clearance and who did not by watching that televised hearing.

rcommal said...

John: Good job.

SH said...

Anonymous said...

"Frankly, I would think an unorganized attack from a protest is also a "Act of Terror.""

Yeah; but legally it has to be preplanned to be terrorism. Just another reason Obama can't have it both ways btw imo.

SH said...

Anonymous said...

"Frankly, I would think an unorganized attack from a protest is also a "Act of Terror.""

Yeah; but legally it has to be preplanned to be terrorism. Just another reason Obama can't have it both ways btw imo.

E said...

"You've just uttered a platitude to express the fact that you're taking the case seriously, without committing to a position on what actually happened"

So, in other words, you've voted "present".

karen said...

I saw the video of this Rose Garden televised report and nowhere did i hear anything about terror- the word was not used anywhere(that i can recall)- yet, it was in the transcript?

They were ~outrageous acts~.

As far as i'm concerned, our presence in Libya was not even legal- in the sense that we went to war w/them w/out Congressional voting power. That's my take- yeah, we had an Ambassador there, et al- but, the Faction friction against us comes due to our interference w/an internal issue. Half-assed, in a sense.

Maybe Obama and Co couldn't tell the truth, according to Anon, but they sure as hell didn't have to tell such and outright, obvious lie and arrest a dude for exercising free speech.

ps- for Chicklit: not all left-handed folk lean to the left. Where my handedness is concerned, my right brain taketh over:0). And, i thank God for that!!