Did The Obama Administration Cover Up Benghazi

There are a few things I'd like to get to in this argument. First, I did not know that my opponent was a girl, so my sincerest apologies for referring to her as "he." Second, calling people like me "brain washed" and "ignorant" should be seen as nothing other than a stream of ad-hominem attacks, and I would highly advise voters to consider these when dolling out conduct points. Third, my opponent has not actually made an argument, nor has she provided proof. She can't simply provide three links and say, "The proof is in these links." This is a debate site. We are not expected to explore your links, nor are the links capable of making the arguments for you. You need to make the arguments yourself. Fourth, even the sources that my opponent has provided are highly biased right-wing websites. I asked for objective proof, and the best she can provide is Fox News, which has been fact-checked and proven wrong at several occasions beating the drums of Benghazi. I would highly advise my opponent to make the arguments, even citing these if she so chooses, and we will debate over the particulars.Fifth, how in the world is the tragedy in Nigeria even remotely relevant to this? Pro claims that the President and his Administration didn't care about the deaths of four Americans. That is a flat-out, bold-faced lie. Both President Obama and Vice President Biden vowed to get to the bottom of it. Invoking the tragedy in Nigeria is nothing more than a petty, unsubstantiated partisan attack. Sixth, I would like to re-explore my opponent's burden of proof. She must not only prove that there was a Benghazi coverup -- which inevitably entails explaing how it was covered up, the intent of covering up, proof that it was covered up, etc. -- but, perhaps most importantly, how the points she is raising connect to a coverup. It's one thing to suggest that something appears suspicious, but another to say, "And this is how I know with 100% certainty that the Obama Administration covered up Benghazi." If she cannot prove this beyond a reasonable doubt, she cannot possibly win this debate.But there were a few contentions that my opponent raised, but has not properly sourced. I will respond to these contentions at this point.These contentions were:1. "Explain the emails found!"2. "Explain why though Obama Knew about it being a terrorist attack but he blamed it on the youtube video."Contention 1 Rebuttal: Because Pro hasn't provided a source for this, I can only conclude that she is speaking of the Ben Rhodes e-mail from September 14, 2012 that Fox News mendaciously ran with and distorted. But this story has already been debunked, and the email is public record and was released, even, by a conservative group, Judicial Watch [1. http://tinyurl.com...].Basically, there is nothing incriminating in this e-mail, and all it does is detail possible questions and answers along with goals for the Sunday talk shows. There was nothing suspicious about the e-mail, and in fact, everything in it was consistent with prior intelligent briefings and discusses more issues than simply Benghazi. At the time the e-mail was sent, actually, there were anti-American protests across the world -- in countries such as Egypt, Indonesia, Quatar, Pakistan, Sudan, Bangladesh, and Yemen -- in response to an anti-Islam [2. http://tinyurl.com...]. The Congressional Research Service released a report saying this same thing as of September 14, 2012 when the email was sent [3. http://tinyurl.com...]. The report says the following:"Muslims in a number of countries have responded in recent days with anger at the United States that many observers describe as a response to a privately produced film circulating on the Internet that denigrates Islam and the prophet Mohammed."To get more into the specifics of the e-mail, though: in 20 paragraphs of Rhodes advising Susan Rice on what to say, there were only two references to Benghazi: one was that the Libyan government supported U.S. diplomatic actions in Libya, and the other debunked the notion that there was ever "actionable intelligence" prior to the attack. Rhodes states [4. http://tinyurl.com...]:"[T]he currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US Consulate and subsequently its annex." Note that this language was identical to the CIA talking points created earlier that day [5. http://tinyurl.com...].Contention 2First, the president did call the attack in Benghazi an act of terror -- several times, almost immediately following the attack. It is flat out wrong to suggest that he didn't. To provide you with three quotes, all from the Washington Post [6. http://tinyurl.com...]:Quote 1"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for." (6) -- Rose Garden speech, September 12, 2012Quote 2"We want to send a message all around the world -- anybody who would do us harm: No act of terror will dim the light of the values that we proudly shine on the rest of the world, and no act of violence will shake the resolve of the United States of America." (6) -- campaign speech in Las Vegas, September 13, 2012 Quote 3 "I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished. It will not dim the light of the values that we proudly present to the rest of the world. No act of violence shakes the resolve of the United States of America." (6) -- campaign speech in Colorado, September 13, 2012 Also, CIA acting director Morrell testified that the CIA station chief in Libya also believed that the video may have been the motivation behind the attacks [7. http://tinyurl.com...]. And, not to mention, a report by the Senate Select Committee in January 2014 further supports such a conclusion, saying the following [8. http://tinyurl.com...]:"Some intelligence suggests the attacks were likely put together in short order, following that day's violent protests in Cairo against an inflammatory video."Let us also bear in mind that a Senate report already debunked Pro's entire resolution. The report states as follows [9. http://tinyurl.com...]:"There were no efforts by the White House or any other Executive Branch entities to 'cover-up' facts or make alterations for political purposes."Conclusion:I have already negated Pro's resolution, so this debate is largely over. She has not made a single credible, substantiated argument to prove her case, and I've provided plenty of evidence proving her wrong. I highly advise that you vote Con.Sources:1. http://tinyurl.com...2. http://tinyurl.com...3. http://tinyurl.com...4. http://tinyurl.com...5. http://tinyurl.com...6. http://tinyurl.com...7. http://tinyurl.com...8. http://tinyurl.com...9. http://tinyurl.com...