Concerning Fox's emails... do I have this straight?

[Impious]

1- Obama said the attack was an "act of terror" from his very first address on the matter, so Fox's contention that Obama covered up a terrorist attack by saying it was the product of a spontaneous demonstration makes no sense, whatsoever... except to Fox lovers.

2- The emails don't prove who was responsible for the attack. Among conflicting bits of incoming information, Fox's emails only show that some social media sites were reporting that some organization was claiming responsibility. So the Fox contention that Obama "knew" within 2.5 hours who was responsible for a terrorist attack makes no sense, whatsoever... except to Fox lovers.

3- There is no basis in logic nor within the definition of terrorism that an act of terror can't arise from a spontaneous military operation... So the Fox contention that Obama "lied" by calling the attack an escalation of anger over the film makes no sense, whatsoever... except to Fox lovers.

4- Even IF (big IF) an Al Qaeda-affiliated group was responsible for the attack, that doesn't prove it was the result of lengthy preplanning nor that any preplanning should automatically be known by our intelligence. So any Fox contention that Obama ignored or was negligent in any way regarding such planning makes no sense, whatsoever... except to Fox lovers.

5- CIA documents support the State Department's and Susan Rice's early reports that the attack was a reaction to Arab anger about an anti-Muslim video LINK. Therefore, any Fox contention that Obama falsely blamed the video to cover up a terrorist attack makes no sense, whatsoever.... except to Fox lovers.

[justiceischeap]

1. What I'm seeing wingers claim is this

1) The email proves President Obama had plenty of time to call in the 'calvary' so to speak (because of the timing of this email) and protect the Ambassador but instead opted to go to bed, then to Vegas

2) He's covering everything up because he either knowingly or unknowingly sold weapons to Al Qaeda

3) He's black, so everything he does is suspect.

[Impious]

3. Well, regarding your first point...

How much calvary did we have in the area to employ?

Seems to me that Republicans were staunchly opposed to American interventionism in Libya?

[justiceischeap]

5. Or providing funding for foreign security

but they like to conveniently ignore those facts... 'cause they hate those pesky things, like facts, truth, veracity.

[ieoeja]

7. Ambassador was downed in the first minutes of the attack. Libyan troops arrived within 30 minutes.

Ex-SEALS working security were killed after the arrival of American forces from the embassy.

What does that last point tell you? It tells me they joined the American/Libyan troops in the fighting because that's what they do. They weren't killed because of a lack of support. They had plenty of support.

But they jumped into the thick of the fight instead of sitting on the sidelines because ... that's what they do. They're fucking ex-Navy SEALS and the rightists claims are denigrating these brave men.

[justiceischeap]

8. You're preaching to the choir

I didn't claim that THEIR claims had any validity, but it is what they're saying and what they believe and what Faux News, Beck and others are telling them.

[dchill]

2. Yes, I think you have it straight...

But FOX isn't interested in getting anything straight. That's not what they do.

[BellaKos]

4. For gawd's sake

The Right Wing criticize everything the President says and does -- including what Michelle Obama eats!
The problem here is that so-called respectable journalists are giving this trumped-up nonsense any credence at all.

[Scuba]

6. +1