U.S. Ambassador to Libya Killed in Rocket Attack (8 Viewers)

[Todd Andrews]

BoneYardKook = kookstownkiller

 

[pittstownkiller]

BoneYardKook = kookstownkiller

You must have the highest percentage of inane posts of any member here; that is saying something.

 

[Todd Andrews]

BoneYardKook = kookstownkiller

You must have the highest percentage of inane posts of any member here; that is saying something.

I WIN!!!

 

[datonn]

My silence is because I got off the internet for the night and I spent all day today working...Again either your a liar or ignorant because you could not have watched the hearings and taken away the drivel you posted from what you heard...

Governor Mitt Romney objected heatedly to an Obama spokeswoman's dismissal of criticism of his Administration's handling of the Libya crisis as a political issue driven by Romney and Paul Ryan.Obama and his campaign "fail to grasp the seriousness of the challenges we face here in America," Romney said."No, President Obama, it is an issue because this is the first time in 33 years that a United States Ambassador has been assassinated," Romney said during a campaign stop in Asheville, North Carolina. "Mr. President, this is an issue because we were attacked successfully by terrorists on the anniversary of 9/11. President Obama, this is an issue because Americans wonder why it was that it took so long for you and your Administration to admit this was a terrorist attack.""This is a very serious issue, these are very serious questions, the American people deserve serious answers, and I hope they come soon" he said.

So everyone who doesn't agree with your POV and world-view is either lying to cover up their ignorance, or just ignorant. Got it. Wow man, you win. I just don't think I can top that rock-solid logic. Much less the debate skills that would make Romney, Obama, Ryan, and Biden all look like various forms of plankton behind the microphone and teleprompter. Jim11 been coaching you? Wow...color me impressed.

 

[datonn]

That's all well and good, but it rings hollow when it follows this bit of (anti)partisan hackery. If you want to be taken seriously, pls try to keep broad-stroke political drivel to a minimum, especially in a thread about current events.

True...and I have trouble keeping my cool/tongue, just like a lot of the rest of you guys. But my goodness am I frustrated. Frustrated with the Republican Party. The Party I called home for 15+ years...who became hijacked and sidetracked by the agenda of a minority who have completely destroyed it. I am HARD on the Republican Party...very hard. Not because I'm a Democrat! But because the Republicans have gone SOOOOOOOO far off-target and off-message (the core message of fiscal conservativism while being socially moderate/tolerant and accepting of other beliefs/lifestyles) that I feel wronged and betrayed.I'm not claiming to be a saint or perfect...far from it! I've just become entirely jaded and disillusioned by how quickly and easily the Republican Party has allowed itself to be dismantled.

I hear you and understand completely, but there are plenty of other threads for that. I'm certainly no thread cop, but when I want to read about this situation and all I see is "Obama did this" or "evil republicans did that", I find it extremely frustrating. I have been ignoring anyone who posts overtly political messages in non-political threads...on both sides of the aisle. Now it seems like every other poss is automatically ignored.

Agreed. The true problem is this: Pretty much since Clinton couldn't remember what the definition of 'is' is, *every* topic in American society is political. Finance/Economics. Science. Education. Heck, sports (a la Tebow and the rankering it generates between religious and less/non religious)! Start talking about movies, and some schlub will start talking about how Timothy Robbins is a sounding board for liberal politics/policy (when I just wanted to talk about how awesome a movie Shawshank Redemption is). On a local talk radio's Vikings board, their servers were practically crashing because former Minnesota Vikings center Matt Birk wrote an open letter talking about how marriage should be between one man and one woman (an anti-gay marriage amendment that is on the Minnesota ballot in November), while current Vikings punter Chris Kluwe was basically doing the same, only on the pro gay marriage side of the issue. Start talking about corn yields out here on the prairie, and I guarantee you it'll devolve into a discussion about Obama or ??? trying to bring an end to farmer subsidies or _________ within 10-15 minutes.

Find me one topic that can be discussed without it devolving into Left v. Right, Red v. Blue. Please. Maybe "Who's Hotter?" polls/threads aren't as mind-numbingly stupid as I've always made them out to be?! Though I suppose that could devolve into a debate over whether guys prefer "T" or "A" ...since nobody can seem to carry on a conversation about anything that isn't us v. them anymore.

 

[moleculo]

That's all well and good, but it rings hollow when it follows this bit of (anti)partisan hackery. If you want to be taken seriously, pls try to keep broad-stroke political drivel to a minimum, especially in a thread about current events.

True...and I have trouble keeping my cool/tongue, just like a lot of the rest of you guys. But my goodness am I frustrated. Frustrated with the Republican Party. The Party I called home for 15+ years...who became hijacked and sidetracked by the agenda of a minority who have completely destroyed it. I am HARD on the Republican Party...very hard. Not because I'm a Democrat! But because the Republicans have gone SOOOOOOOO far off-target and off-message (the core message of fiscal conservativism while being socially moderate/tolerant and accepting of other beliefs/lifestyles) that I feel wronged and betrayed.I'm not claiming to be a saint or perfect...far from it! I've just become entirely jaded and disillusioned by how quickly and easily the Republican Party has allowed itself to be dismantled.

I hear you and understand completely, but there are plenty of other threads for that. I'm certainly no thread cop, but when I want to read about this situation and all I see is "Obama did this" or "evil republicans did that", I find it extremely frustrating. I have been ignoring anyone who posts overtly political messages in non-political threads...on both sides of the aisle. Now it seems like every other poss is automatically ignored.

Agreed. The true problem is this: Pretty much since Clinton couldn't remember what the definition of 'is' is, *every* topic in American society is political. Finance/Economics. Science. Education. Heck, sports (a la Tebow and the rankering it generates between religious and less/non religious)! Start talking about movies, and some schlub will start talking about how Timothy Robbins is a sounding board for liberal politics/policy (when I just wanted to talk about how awesome a movie Shawshank Redemption is). On a local talk radio's Vikings board, their servers were practically crashing because former Minnesota Vikings center Matt Birk wrote an open letter talking about how marriage should be between one man and one woman (an anti-gay marriage amendment that is on the Minnesota ballot in November), while current Vikings punter Chris Kluwe was basically doing the same, only on the pro gay marriage side of the issue. Start talking about corn yields out here on the prairie, and I guarantee you it'll devolve into a discussion about Obama or ??? trying to bring an end to farmer subsidies or _________ within 10-15 minutes.

Find me one topic that can be discussed without it devolving into Left v. Right, Red v. Blue. Please. Maybe "Who's Hotter?" polls/threads aren't as mind-numbingly stupid as I've always made them out to be?! Though I suppose that could devolve into a debate over whether guys prefer "T" or "A" ...since nobody can seem to carry on a conversation about anything that isn't us v. them anymore.

So? Take a stand. Cut people off when they start that crap, don't join in. Let stuff go, let's at least try to de-politicize things like this. I'm not ready to throw in the towell, i'm ready to fight to take back our conversations.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

I honestly stopped following the story when I was told it was because of that movie...I thought that was the story and I just try to limit too much news, just negs me out. That said I start listening to ABC news playing catch up the last couple of days, doesn't sound good. Seems like now it is being a labeled a terrorist attack on one of our embassies. Seems like I have heard this story before.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Agree with Moleculo, would like to read more facts and less GOP/DNC slant.

 

[Max Power]

I feel like all of this has come around full circle now. I don't forsee anything "new" coming out. It was an event that no one saw coming and was initially blamed on the wrong thing (protests about the movie).

The Dept. of State messed up bad in this case. I wouldn't be shocked if someone was fired for it. Hopefully something positive can come as a result and we put more security in place for other locations.

However, this is now a political issue for me. Even to the point where it may sway my vote. I've grown increasing frustrated with the lack of a response from the US. We have been WAYYYY too diplomatic about this. To avoid upsetting the Libyans, we are letting them try to bring these terrorists to justice and no putting boots on ground ourselves. We have no agreements in place to extradite the people responsible IF (BIG IF) the Libyans do locate and arrest them. The Libyan court system is non-exsistent. Laws are barely in place and we are going to let these people hold trial on terrorists?!?! I dont trust that one bit.

Yes, the FBI is "investigating" this as well. But they are not doing it on the ground in Benghazi. We are the US, we can put boots on ground and ISR in the sky and find these people. But we aren't. I don't see how people can be ok with this? Instead everyone wants to point fingers and talk about why it happened.

Look, I don't need revenge for the deaths. I don't think the US should be the world police and right every wrong. But we also can't stand by after a government official is murdered in a lawless country and expect that same country who failed to protect him, to bring the killers to justice.

 

[Sam Quentin]

The other thing that's disturbing is the immediate meme of placing the blame of free speech. That and they go and dig up an excuse to have this filmmaker arrested in the middle of the night, making a big show of it.

It's absolutely revolting. Despite the lip service, these people in power despise free speech.

 

[BoneYardDog]

House letter: Benghazi consulate was attacked previously, requested securityPrior to the deadly September 11th terrorist attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, the diplomatic outpost was attacked on at least two occasions according to a new House Oversight committee letter — and had requested additional security resources from Washington in vain.In a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, chairman Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) and subcommittee chairman Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) identify at least two separate attacks on the outpost prior to the deadly September attacks.Two former security guards threw explosive devices over the fence in April, while militants detonated an explosive at the gate of the consulate in June. Only the latter attack had been previously reported, by the Wall Street Journal. The report also indicates that militants made a specific threat on Facebook against the late Ambassador Chris Stevens' life, causing him to stop his morning jogs when he was working at the embassy in Tripoli.The House letter also says that multiple U.S. federal government officials confirmed they made repeated requests for better security in Benghazi, but their requests were denied by officials in Washington.The House letter to Clinton was first reported by the Daily Beast's Eli Lake — who has previously reported that intelligence officials suspected a terrorist connection in the attacks since the beginning.The Benghazi attacks have emerged as a major point of criticism against the Obama administration, which initially sought to blame the attacks on an anti-Islamic film circulating in the region.Those initial statements have since been retracted by the Obama administration, which has subsequently acknowledge that the attack was a planned, deliberate terrorist strike against American targets.

 

[snowmonkey501]

Hillary takes blame

Lima, Peru -- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said she takes the blame for security ahead of a deadly assault on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

The attack killed Chris Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya, along with three other Americans at the consulate.

She told CNN's Elise Labott she takes responsibility for what happened that day during an interview in Lima Monday.

Clinton told Labott President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden are not involved in security decisions.

The Obama administration has been criticized after Biden said in the Vice Presidential Debate the White House did not know of any requests to enhance security in Benghazi. The White House later said Biden did not know because those requests are handled by the State Department.

Clinton also sought to downplay the criticism that administration officials continued to say the attack was a spontaneous product of a protest over an anti-Muslim film, a theory that has since been discarded.

The secretary of state also described the desperate scene in the State Department during the hours of the attack on the night of September 10. It was an "intense, long ordeal" as staff tried to find out what had happened.

Clinton said her mission now is to make sure such an attack will never happen again -- but also that diplomacy, even in dangerous areas like Benghazi, is not stopped.

CNN

and away we go....

 

[BoneYardDog]

Why has no one been fired, why hasn't that POS obama taken any responsibility for anything EVER???The buck stops anywhere other than his desk, what a worthless "leader"...

The facts:Last Wednesday, the State Department's former point man on security in Libya told the House Oversight Committee that he asked for additional security help for the Benghazi facility months before the attack, but was denied.Various communications dating back a year asked for three to five diplomatic security agents, according to testimony at Wednesday's hearing. But Eric Nordstrom, the one-time regional security officer, said he verbally asked for 12 agents.The request for 12 agents was rebuffed by the regional director of the State Department's Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, Nordstrom testified."For me and my staff, it was abundantly clear that we were not going to get resources until the aftermath of an incident," Nordstrom said.Also, Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, a Utah National Guardsman who was a site security commander in Libya from February through August, testified that a regional security officer tried to obtain more personnel, but 'was never able to attain the numbers he felt comfortable with." It was unclear whether he was talking about Nordstrom.Five diplomatic security special agents were in Benghazi at the time of the attack, two of whom only happened to be there because they had traveled with Stevens from Tripoli, according to testimony.Under Secretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy responded, at the hearing, to suggestions the State Department was responsible for a lack of preparedness: "We regularly assess risk and resource allocation, a process involving the considered judgments of experienced professionals on the ground and in Washington, using the best available information."On Tuesday, two senior State Department officials told reporters that U.S. and Libyan security personnel in Benghazi were out-manned, and that no reasonable security presence could have fended off the assault.

 

[BoneYardDog]

Absolute refusal of this administration to take responsibility...

In an interview Monday with the Washington Post, Amb. Susan Rice said she relied on “daily updates from intelligence agencies” and “on a set of talking points prepared for senior members of the administration by intelligence officials” in the lead-up to her Sept. 16 television appearances, in which she claimed that the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi had arisen from protests over an anti-Muslim video.

 

[cstu]

The other thing that's disturbing is the immediate meme of placing the blame of free speech. That and they go and dig up an excuse to have this filmmaker arrested in the middle of the night, making a big show of it.It's absolutely revolting. Despite the lip service, these people in power despise free speech.

Not all speech is protected. Not only did was this 'movie' filmed under false pretenses to the actors but it was created with the express purpose of inciting violence. I'd liken it to paying an actor to act in a movie where he runs into a Compton movie theater and shouts '#### ######s' except it's not a movie set.

 

[Politician Spock]

Hillary takes blame

Lima, Peru -- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said she takes the blame for security ahead of a deadly assault on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

The attack killed Chris Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya, along with three other Americans at the consulate.

She told CNN's Elise Labott she takes responsibility for what happened that day during an interview in Lima Monday.

Clinton told Labott President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden are not involved in security decisions.

The Obama administration has been criticized after Biden said in the Vice Presidential Debate the White House did not know of any requests to enhance security in Benghazi. The White House later said Biden did not know because those requests are handled by the State Department.

Clinton also sought to downplay the criticism that administration officials continued to say the attack was a spontaneous product of a protest over an anti-Muslim film, a theory that has since been discarded.

The secretary of state also described the desperate scene in the State Department during the hours of the attack on the night of September 10. It was an "intense, long ordeal" as staff tried to find out what had happened.

Clinton said her mission now is to make sure such an attack will never happen again -- but also that diplomacy, even in dangerous areas like Benghazi, is not stopped.

CNN

and away we go....

This whole thing isn't just a cover up.It's the administration pulling a Dutch Oven on over 300 million Americans. It stinks and Clinton had eggs for breakfast.

 

[pantherclub]

Why has no one been fired, why hasn't that POS obama taken any responsibility for anything EVER???The buck stops anywhere other than his desk, what a worthless "leader"...

The facts:Last Wednesday, the State Department's former point man on security in Libya told the House Oversight Committee that he asked for additional security help for the Benghazi facility months before the attack, but was denied.Various communications dating back a year asked for three to five diplomatic security agents, according to testimony at Wednesday's hearing. But Eric Nordstrom, the one-time regional security officer, said he verbally asked for 12 agents.The request for 12 agents was rebuffed by the regional director of the State Department's Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, Nordstrom testified."For me and my staff, it was abundantly clear that we were not going to get resources until the aftermath of an incident," Nordstrom said.Also, Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, a Utah National Guardsman who was a site security commander in Libya from February through August, testified that a regional security officer tried to obtain more personnel, but 'was never able to attain the numbers he felt comfortable with." It was unclear whether he was talking about Nordstrom.Five diplomatic security special agents were in Benghazi at the time of the attack, two of whom only happened to be there because they had traveled with Stevens from Tripoli, according to testimony.Under Secretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy responded, at the hearing, to suggestions the State Department was responsible for a lack of preparedness: "We regularly assess risk and resource allocation, a process involving the considered judgments of experienced professionals on the ground and in Washington, using the best available information."On Tuesday, two senior State Department officials told reporters that U.S. and Libyan security personnel in Benghazi were out-manned, and that no reasonable security presence could have fended off the assault.

You are one angry dude

 

[snowmonkey501]

The other thing that's disturbing is the immediate meme of placing the blame of free speech. That and they go and dig up an excuse to have this filmmaker arrested in the middle of the night, making a big show of it.It's absolutely revolting. Despite the lip service, these people in power despise free speech.

Not all speech is protected. Not only did was this 'movie' filmed under false pretenses to the actors but it was created with the express purpose of inciting violence. I'd liken it to paying an actor to act in a movie where he runs into a Compton movie theater and shouts '#### ######s' except it's not a movie set.

if a crucifix submerged in urine is ok then this film is too.

 

[17seconds]

Absolute refusal of this administration to take responsibility...

They did. Hillary is part of Obama's cabinet.Way back in this thread I said consulate security should end with the state dept. It ended with the state dept. I know how badly you want Obama to take the fall for everything but the POTUS doesn't run consulate security.

 

[Jackstraw]

I'm fine with taking some heat for it, but it should at least be fair to keep it in perspective of pretty good performance against terrorism.

But of course 20 some days before the election and with very little else to grasp onto its the BIGGEST THING EVER. Complete unraveling of the republic and all that rot.

I get it. It's unfortunate but I get it.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Absolute refusal of this administration to take responsibility...

They did. Hillary is part of Obama's cabinet.Way back in this thread I said consulate security should end with the state dept. It ended with the state dept. I know how badly you want Obama to take the fall for everything but the POTUS doesn't run consulate security.

He'll never answer this, just like he didn't answer my NASA question where he blames POTUS for the elimination of manned space flight. If someone takes the fall for this, it's definitely Hillary but even that might be too high. Who took the fall for the 4500 dead and 32k injured in Iraq? Did GW? Did Rumsfeld? Did Cheney? Why didn't GW establish proper security procedures for the troops? Why didn't we prepare for the warfare we would face there? Why were the troops ill-equipped to prevent death and serious injury to our warfighters?What happened in Libya was wrong and we failed those who died. But let's please look at the big picture and understand the limitations we face on foreign soil.

 

[drummer]

Absolute refusal of this administration to take responsibility...

They did. Hillary is part of Obama's cabinet.Way back in this thread I said consulate security should end with the state dept. It ended with the state dept. I know how badly you want Obama to take the fall for everything but the POTUS doesn't run consulate security.

He'll never answer this, just like he didn't answer my NASA question where he blames POTUS for the elimination of manned space flight. If someone takes the fall for this, it's definitely Hillary but even that might be too high. Who took the fall for the 4500 dead and 32k injured in Iraq? Did GW? Did Rumsfeld? Did Cheney? Why didn't GW establish proper security procedures for the troops? Why didn't we prepare for the warfare we would face there? Why were the troops ill-equipped to prevent death and serious injury to our warfighters?What happened in Libya was wrong and we failed those who died. But let's please look at the big picture and understand the limitations we face on foreign soil.

Easy to place blame from the comfort of our computer chairs, and work cubicles.

 

[BeaverCleaver]

Absolute refusal of this administration to take responsibility...

They did. Hillary is part of Obama's cabinet.Way back in this thread I said consulate security should end with the state dept. It ended with the state dept. I know how badly you want Obama to take the fall for everything but the POTUS doesn't run consulate security.

Why did Obama continue to say the attack was because of the video for several days after the attack not to mention how often he stated it in his speech to the UN?

 

[Politician Spock]

Absolute refusal of this administration to take responsibility...

They did. Hillary is part of Obama's cabinet.Way back in this thread I said consulate security should end with the state dept. It ended with the state dept. I know how badly you want Obama to take the fall for everything but the POTUS doesn't run consulate security.

Why did Obama continue to say the attack was because of the video for several days after the attack not to mention how often he stated it in his speech to the UN?

'Cause it helped his argument that Jews don't respect Islam enough.

 

[Hang 10]

Absolute refusal of this administration to take responsibility...

They did. Hillary is part of Obama's cabinet.Way back in this thread I said consulate security should end with the state dept. It ended with the state dept. I know how badly you want Obama to take the fall for everything but the POTUS doesn't run consulate security.

Why did Obama continue to say the attack was because of the video for several days after the attack not to mention how often he stated it in his speech to the UN?

Because he's a liar.

 

[pettifogger]

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/10/the-amazing-story-of-what-happened-in-libya/263597/

Interesting article posted in the Atlantic today including a State Department briefing of what happened.

There's a lot about this we don't know. For one thing, why did we need an outpost in Bengazi in the first place? It seems likely to me that it served more as a forward operating post for the CIA and/or to keep diplomatic contact with shadow groups operating in post-Kaddafi Libya as we try to keep a hand in events in this oil-rich nation. Second, this article, admittedly including spin from the State Department, makes it clear that there were security measures in place. What is not so clear is whether a few more guards would have made a difference, or would have just meant more victims. (I assume that requests for additional security exist from many places, just like everyone wants more cops on the street here. The fact that Darrell Issa was able to dredge up some disgruntled security people anxious to shift the blame up the chain of command comes as no surprise.) Third, with all the shooting mentioned, weren't any of their guys hit? Or were the bodies carried away by the attackers? Fourth, what info have we collected from NSA tracking of phone traffic and satellite monitoring from the time? We probably know a lot more at this point than can be published. (It wouldn't be surprising to see a retaliatory action in the next couple of weeks.)

The most disturbing part of the article is the drive out of the embassy; it looks like the hostility to our escaping vehicles was pretty widespread.

 

[Sam Quentin]

Absolute refusal of this administration to take responsibility...

They did. Hillary is part of Obama's cabinet.Way back in this thread I said consulate security should end with the state dept. It ended with the state dept. I know how badly you want Obama to take the fall for everything but the POTUS doesn't run consulate security.

Why did Obama continue to say the attack was because of the video for several days after the attack not to mention how often he stated it in his speech to the UN?

Because he's a liar.

Which really hurts our credibility with other nations around the world.

 

[Sam Quentin]

so terrorist threats/attacks to US soil and US citizens don't rise to the level of the President?

wow

 

[17seconds]

Absolute refusal of this administration to take responsibility...

They did. Hillary is part of Obama's cabinet.Way back in this thread I said consulate security should end with the state dept. It ended with the state dept. I know how badly you want Obama to take the fall for everything but the POTUS doesn't run consulate security.

Why did Obama continue to say the attack was because of the video for several days after the attack not to mention how often he stated it in his speech to the UN?

Either the administration poorly coordinated the message and/or Obama didn't want to hastily call it a terrorist attack in an election year.Did your head explode when there were no WMDs in Iraq? If you are getting worked up over this foreign policy blunder, you must have been all over that disaster.

 

[BeaverCleaver]

Absolute refusal of this administration to take responsibility...

They did. Hillary is part of Obama's cabinet.Way back in this thread I said consulate security should end with the state dept. It ended with the state dept. I know how badly you want Obama to take the fall for everything but the POTUS doesn't run consulate security.

Why did Obama continue to say the attack was because of the video for several days after the attack not to mention how often he stated it in his speech to the UN?

Either the administration poorly coordinated the message and/or Obama didn't want to hastily call it a terrorist attack in an election year.

Did your head explode when there were no WMDs in Iraq? If you are getting worked up over this foreign policy blunder, you must have been all over that disaster.

 

[snowmonkey501]

Absolute refusal of this administration to take responsibility...

They did. Hillary is part of Obama's cabinet.Way back in this thread I said consulate security should end with the state dept. It ended with the state dept. I know how badly you want Obama to take the fall for everything but the POTUS doesn't run consulate security.

talk about completely missing the point.this is a situation where the president's FIRST reaction was to apologize for america and blame a youtube video then continued to LIE about it for two weeks. they knew there were no demonstrations and that this was a coordinated attack within 24 hours and thats giving them a huge benefit of the doubt. If the president will not stand up for basic american values like free speech then he should not be president.

 

[pantherclub]

Absolute refusal of this administration to take responsibility...

They did. Hillary is part of Obama's cabinet.Way back in this thread I said consulate security should end with the state dept. It ended with the state dept. I know how badly you want Obama to take the fall for everything but the POTUS doesn't run consulate security.

talk about completely missing the point.this is a situation where the president's FIRST reaction was to apologize for america and blame a youtube video then continued to LIE about it for two weeks. they knew there were no demonstrations and that this was a coordinated attack within 24 hours and thats giving them a huge benefit of the doubt. If the president will not stand up for basic american values like free speech then he should not be president.

link

 

[BoneYardDog]

Democrat focus group - Not Optimal a better phrase than "Bump In The Road."

Libya: Ambassador Stevens unavailable for comment.

 

[Swing 51]

Khattala would seem like a dubious "source" for a story but interesting read nonetheless.

Suspect in Libya Attack, in Plain Sight, Scoffs at U.S.

By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

BENGHAZI, Libya — Witnesses and the authorities have called Ahmed Abu Khattala one of the ringleaders of the Sept. 11 attack on the American diplomatic mission here. But just days after President Obama reasserted his vow to bring those responsible to justice, Mr. Abu Khattala spent two leisurely hours on Thursday evening at a crowded luxury hotel, sipping a strawberry frappe on a patio and scoffing at the threats coming from the American and Libyan governments.

Libya’s fledgling national army is a “national chicken,” Mr. Abu Khattala said, using an Arabic rhyme. Asked who should take responsibility for apprehending the mission’s attackers, he smirked at the idea that the weak Libyan government could possibly do it. And he accused the leaders of the United States of “playing with the emotions of the American people” and “using the consulate attack just to gather votes for their elections.”

Mr. Abu Khattala’s defiance — no authority has even questioned him about the attack, he said, and he has no plans to go into hiding — offered insight into the shadowy landscape of the self-formed militias that have come to constitute the only source of social order in Libya since the fall of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi.

A few, like the militia group Ansar al-Shariah that is linked to Mr. Abu Khattala and that officials in Washington and Tripoli agree was behind the attack, have embraced an extremist ideology hostile to the West and nursed ambitions to extend it over Libya. But also troubling to the United States is the evident tolerance shown by other militias allied with the government, which have so far declined to take any action against suspects in the Benghazi attack.

Although Mr. Abu Khattala said he was not a member of Al Qaeda, he declared he would be proud to be associated with Al Qaeda’s puritanical zeal for Islamic law. And he said that the United States had its own foreign policy to blame for the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. “Why is the United States always trying to impose its ideology on everyone else?” he asked. “Why is it always trying to use force to implement its agendas?”

Owing in part to the inability of either the Libyans or the Americans to mount a serious investigation, American dissections of the assault on the diplomatic mission in Benghazi have become muddled in a political debate over the identities and motivations of the attackers. Some Republicans have charged that the Obama administration initially sought to obscure a possible connection to Al Qaeda in order to protect its claim to have brought the group to its knees.

Mr. Abu Khattala, 41, wearing a red fez and sandals, added his own spin. Contradicting the accounts of many witnesses and the most recent account of the Obama administration, he contended that the attack had grown out of a peaceful protest against a video made in the United States that mocked the Prophet Muhammad and Islam.

He also said that guards inside the compound — Libyan or American, he was not sure — had shot first at the demonstrators, provoking them. And he asserted, without providing evidence, that the attackers had found weapons, including explosives and guns mounted with silencers, inside the American compound.

Although Mr. Abu Khattala’s exact role remains unclear, witnesses have said they saw him directing other fighters that night. Libyan officials have singled him out, and officials in Washington say they are examining his role.

But Mr. Abu Khattala insisted that he had not been part of the aggression at the American compound. He said he had arrived just as the gunfire was beginning to crackle and had sought to break up a traffic jam around the demonstration. After fleeing for a time, he said, he entered the compound at the end of the battle because he was asked to help try to rescue four Libyan guards working for the Americans who were trapped inside. Although the attackers had set fire to the main building, Mr. Abu Khattala said he had not noticed anything burning.

At the same time, he expressed a notable absence of remorse over the assault, which resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including J. Christopher Stevens, the American ambassador. “I did not know him,” he said.

He pointedly declined to condemn the idea that the demolition of a diplomatic mission was an appropriate response to such a video. “From a religious point of view, it is hard to say whether it is good or bad,” he said.

In Washington, a Republican member of the House committee investigating the attack scoffed at Mr. Abu Khattala’s account. “It just sounds fishy to say you are on the scene and not participating,” said Representative Jason Chaffetz, a Utah Republican. “It was pitch black at 9:40 at night.”

Mr. Abu Khattala contended that the United States had ulterior motives for helping Libyans during their revolution, and he asserted that it was already meddling in Libya’s planned constitution, even though the recently elected Parliament had not yet begun to discuss it.

He also said he opposed democracy as contrary to Islamic law, and he called those who supported secular constitutions “apostates,” using the terminology Islamist radicals apply to fellow Muslims who are said to disqualify themselves from the faith by collaborating with corrupt governments.

He argued that Islamists like those in the Muslim Brotherhood who embraced elections committed a “mix up” of Western and Islamic systems. And he acknowledged that his opposition to elections had been a point of dispute between his followers and the other Libyan militia leaders, most of whom had protected and celebrated the vote.

Still, he said, “we have a very good relationship” with the leaders of Benghazi’s largest militias — which constitute the only security force for the government — from their days fighting together on the front lines of the revolt against Colonel Qaddafi. He even pointedly named two senior leaders of those big brigades, whom he said he had seen outside the mission on the night of the attack.

Witnesses, Benghazi residents and Western news reports, including those in The New York Times, have described Mr. Abu Khattala as a leader of Ansar al-Shariah, whose trucks and fighters were seen attacking the mission. Mr. Abu Khattala praised the group’s members as “good people with good goals, which are trying to implement Islamic law,” and he insisted their network of popular support was vastly underestimated by other brigade leaders who said the group had fewer than 200 fighters.

“It is bigger than a brigade,” he said. “It is a movement.”

Mr. Abu Khattala said he was close to the group but was not an official part of it. Instead, he said, he was still the commander of an Islamist brigade, Abu Obaida ibn al-Jarrah. Some of its members joined Ansar al-Shariah, but Mr. Abu Khattala said that even though his brigade had disbanded he could still call it together. “If the individuals are there, the brigade is there,” he said.

During the revolt, the brigade was accused of killing a top general who had defected to the rebels, Abdul Fattah Younes. Mr. Abu Khatalla acknowledged that the general had died in the brigade headquarters, but declined to discuss it further.

Almost all Libyans are Muslims, alcohol is banned, polygamy is legal, almost every woman wears an Islamic head-covering. But all of that still fell short, he said, of true Islamic law.

Suliman Ali Zway contributed reporting from Tripoli, Libya, and Michael S. Schmidt from Washington.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: October 19, 2012

An earlier version of this article described incorrectly a beverage that Ahmed Abu Khattala was drinking at a hotel in Benghazi, Libya. It was a strawberry frappe, not mango juice, which is what he had ordered.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/19/world/africa/suspect-in-benghazi-attack-scoffs-at-us.html?hp&_r=0

 

[Captain Quinoa]

Yer doin' a heck of a job, Hill-dog.

 

[BigTex]

This thread has gone to hell and should be deleted, WTF?????

 

[CrossEyed]

Uh oh.

(Reuters) - Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.

The emails, obtained by Reuters from government sources not connected with U.S. spy agencies or the State Department and who requested anonymity, specifically mention that the Libyan group called Ansar al-Sharia had asserted responsibility for the attacks.

The brief emails also show how U.S. diplomats described the attack, even as it was still under way, to Washington.

U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the Benghazi assault, which President Barack Obama and other U.S. officials ultimately acknowledged was a "terrorist" attack carried out by militants with suspected links to al Qaeda affiliates or sympathizers.

Administration spokesmen, including White House spokesman Jay Carney, citing an unclassified assessment prepared by the CIA, maintained for days that the attacks likely were a spontaneous protest against an anti-Muslim film.

While officials did mention the possible involvement of "extremists," they did not lay blame on any specific militant groups or possible links to al Qaeda or its affiliates until intelligence officials publicly alleged that on September 28.

There were indications that extremists with possible al Qaeda connections were involved, but also evidence that the attacks could have erupted spontaneously, they said, adding that government experts wanted to be cautious about pointing fingers prematurely.

U.S. intelligence officials have emphasized since shortly after the attack that early intelligence reporting about the attack was mixed.

Spokesmen for the White House and State Department had no immediate response to requests for comments on the emails.

MISSIVES FROM LIBYA

The records obtained by Reuters consist of three emails dispatched by the State Department's Operations Center to multiple government offices, including addresses at the White House, Pentagon, intelligence community and FBI, on the afternoon of September 11.

The first email, timed at 4:05 p.m. Washington time - or 10:05 p.m. Benghazi time, 20-30 minutes after the attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission allegedly began - carried the subject line "U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack" and the notation "SBU", meaning "Sensitive But Unclassified."

The text said the State Department's regional security office had reported that the diplomatic mission in Benghazi was "under attack. Embassy in Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well."

The message continued: "Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four ... personnel are in the compound safe haven. The 17th of February militia is providing security support."

A second email, headed "Update 1: U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi" and timed 4:54 p.m. Washington time, said that the Embassy in Tripoli had reported that "the firing at the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi had stopped and the compound had been cleared." It said a "response team" was at the site attempting to locate missing personnel.

A third email, also marked SBU and sent at 6:07 p.m. Washington time, carried the subject line: "Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack."

The message reported: "Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli."

While some information identifying recipients of this message was redacted from copies of the messages obtained by Reuters, a government source said that one of the addresses to which the message was sent was the White House Situation Room, the president's secure command post.

Other addressees included intelligence and military units as well as one used by the FBI command center, the source said.

It was not known what other messages were received by agencies in Washington from Libya that day about who might have been behind the attacks.

Intelligence experts caution that initial reports from the scene of any attack or disaster are often inaccurate.

By the morning of September 12, the day after the Benghazi attack, Reuters reported that there were indications that members of both Ansar al-Sharia, a militia based in the Benghazi area, and al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, the North African affiliate of al Qaeda's faltering central command, may have been involved in organizing the attacks.

One U.S. intelligence official said that during the first classified briefing about Benghazi given to members of Congress, officials "carefully laid out the full range of sparsely available information, relying on the best analysis available at the time."

The official added, however, that the initial analysis of the attack that was presented to legislators was mixed.

"Briefers said extremists were involved in attacks that appeared spontaneous, there may have been a variety of motivating factors, and possible links to groups such as (al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and Ansar al-Sharia) were being looked at closely," the official said.

(Additional reporting by Susan Cornwell; Editing by Mary Milliken and Jim Loney)

 

[BoneYardDog]

Is this a surprise, we know obama is a liar and a coward and blames everything on others...

The "man" is a disgrace to the office, period...

Let's all hope the 53% all show up...

 

[Hang 10]

Uh oh.(Reuters) - Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.The emails, obtained by Reuters from government sources not connected with U.S. spy agencies or the State Department and who requested anonymity, specifically mention that the Libyan group called Ansar al-Sharia had asserted responsibility for the attacks.The brief emails also show how U.S. diplomats described the attack, even as it was still under way, to Washington.U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the Benghazi assault, which President Barack Obama and other U.S. officials ultimately acknowledged was a "terrorist" attack carried out by militants with suspected links to al Qaeda affiliates or sympathizers.Administration spokesmen, including White House spokesman Jay Carney, citing an unclassified assessment prepared by the CIA, maintained for days that the attacks likely were a spontaneous protest against an anti-Muslim film.While officials did mention the possible involvement of "extremists," they did not lay blame on any specific militant groups or possible links to al Qaeda or its affiliates until intelligence officials publicly alleged that on September 28.There were indications that extremists with possible al Qaeda connections were involved, but also evidence that the attacks could have erupted spontaneously, they said, adding that government experts wanted to be cautious about pointing fingers prematurely.U.S. intelligence officials have emphasized since shortly after the attack that early intelligence reporting about the attack was mixed.Spokesmen for the White House and State Department had no immediate response to requests for comments on the emails.MISSIVES FROM LIBYAThe records obtained by Reuters consist of three emails dispatched by the State Department's Operations Center to multiple government offices, including addresses at the White House, Pentagon, intelligence community and FBI, on the afternoon of September 11.The first email, timed at 4:05 p.m. Washington time - or 10:05 p.m. Benghazi time, 20-30 minutes after the attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission allegedly began - carried the subject line "U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack" and the notation "SBU", meaning "Sensitive But Unclassified."The text said the State Department's regional security office had reported that the diplomatic mission in Benghazi was "under attack. Embassy in Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well."The message continued: "Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four ... personnel are in the compound safe haven. The 17th of February militia is providing security support."A second email, headed "Update 1: U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi" and timed 4:54 p.m. Washington time, said that the Embassy in Tripoli had reported that "the firing at the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi had stopped and the compound had been cleared." It said a "response team" was at the site attempting to locate missing personnel.A third email, also marked SBU and sent at 6:07 p.m. Washington time, carried the subject line: "Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack."The message reported: "Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli."While some information identifying recipients of this message was redacted from copies of the messages obtained by Reuters, a government source said that one of the addresses to which the message was sent was the White House Situation Room, the president's secure command post.Other addressees included intelligence and military units as well as one used by the FBI command center, the source said.It was not known what other messages were received by agencies in Washington from Libya that day about who might have been behind the attacks.Intelligence experts caution that initial reports from the scene of any attack or disaster are often inaccurate.By the morning of September 12, the day after the Benghazi attack, Reuters reported that there were indications that members of both Ansar al-Sharia, a militia based in the Benghazi area, and al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, the North African affiliate of al Qaeda's faltering central command, may have been involved in organizing the attacks.One U.S. intelligence official said that during the first classified briefing about Benghazi given to members of Congress, officials "carefully laid out the full range of sparsely available information, relying on the best analysis available at the time."The official added, however, that the initial analysis of the attack that was presented to legislators was mixed."Briefers said extremists were involved in attacks that appeared spontaneous, there may have been a variety of motivating factors, and possible links to groups such as (al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and Ansar al-Sharia) were being looked at closely," the official said.(Additional reporting by Susan Cornwell; Editing by Mary Milliken and Jim Loney)

 

[RBM]

No good lying rat bastards. Just disgusting.

A buffoon and a lying snake...a president to be real proud of.

 

[17seconds]

9/12/12

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. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.

but besides that.. what ####### difference does it matter what caused the attack and whether it is labelled as "terror"?

 

[CrossEyed]

9/12/12

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. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.

but besides that.. what ####### difference does it matter what caused the attack and whether it is labelled as "terror"?

What should matter to people is that for two weeks the administration blamed the attack on a video and pretended that it was a spontaneous demonstration.I'm still not sure why, but I think it's pretty clear that they were lying about what they knew and the story they were trying to sell.

 

[Hang 10]

9/12/12

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. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.

but besides that.. what ####### difference does it matter what caused the attack and whether it is labelled as "terror"?

I think there's quite a distinction because the attack was not spontaneous, as the white house reported for a week, but an imminent threat to the embassy which the state department denied protection resulting in the deaths of 4 Americans. But besides that...

 

[17seconds]

9/12/12

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. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.

but besides that.. what ####### difference does it matter what caused the attack and whether it is labelled as "terror"?

What should matter to people is that for two weeks the administration blamed the attack on a video and pretended that it was a spontaneous demonstration.I'm still not sure why, but I think it's pretty clear that they were lying about what they knew and the story they were trying to sell.

Obama referenced it as an act of terror the next day. But he wasn't officially labeling it as such. It was less than 24hrs.John Carney kept saying it was under investigation and referenced the video for 2 weeks. I listen to his conferences every week.Obama, Carney, and Hillary were not completely in sync with the messasge. It wasn't handled perfectly from a communications standpoint. But honestly I don't see why I should be outraged.

 

[CrossEyed]

9/12/12

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. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.

but besides that.. what ####### difference does it matter what caused the attack and whether it is labelled as "terror"?

What should matter to people is that for two weeks the administration blamed the attack on a video and pretended that it was a spontaneous demonstration.I'm still not sure why, but I think it's pretty clear that they were lying about what they knew and the story they were trying to sell.

Obama referenced it as an act of terror the next day. But he wasn't officially labeling it as such. It was less than 24hrs.John Carney kept saying it was under investigation and referenced the video for 2 weeks. I listen to his conferences every week.

Obama, Carney, and Hillary were not completely in sync with the messasge. It wasn't handled perfectly from a communications standpoint. But honestly I don't see why I should be outraged.

You would think that a guy who listens every week would know his name is Jay.

 

[Hang 10]

9/12/12

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. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.

but besides that.. what ####### difference does it matter what caused the attack and whether it is labelled as "terror"?

What should matter to people is that for two weeks the administration blamed the attack on a video and pretended that it was a spontaneous demonstration.I'm still not sure why, but I think it's pretty clear that they were lying about what they knew and the story they were trying to sell.

Obama referenced it as an act of terror the next day. But he wasn't officially labeling it as such. It was less than 24hrs.John Carney kept saying it was under investigation and referenced the video for 2 weeks. I listen to his conferences every week.Obama, Carney, and Hillary were not completely in sync with the messasge. It wasn't handled perfectly from a communications standpoint. But honestly I don't see why I should be outraged.

Please. They sent Susan Rice out on all the Sunday shows claiming that it was a result of the video and NOT an organized attack 5 effin days later. THEY LIED.

 

[17seconds]

9/12/12

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. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.

but besides that.. what ####### difference does it matter what caused the attack and whether it is labelled as "terror"?

What should matter to people is that for two weeks the administration blamed the attack on a video and pretended that it was a spontaneous demonstration.I'm still not sure why, but I think it's pretty clear that they were lying about what they knew and the story they were trying to sell.

Obama referenced it as an act of terror the next day. But he wasn't officially labeling it as such. It was less than 24hrs.John Carney kept saying it was under investigation and referenced the video for 2 weeks. I listen to his conferences every week.

Obama, Carney, and Hillary were not completely in sync with the messasge. It wasn't handled perfectly from a communications standpoint. But honestly I don't see why I should be outraged.

You would think that a guy who listens every week would know his name is Jay.

I do, padreSorry. Had a few beers tonight. I'm up in Cranberry. Maybe I should drive down to Wexford and we can chat about this

 

[CrossEyed]

9/12/12

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. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.

but besides that.. what ####### difference does it matter what caused the attack and whether it is labelled as "terror"?

What should matter to people is that for two weeks the administration blamed the attack on a video and pretended that it was a spontaneous demonstration.I'm still not sure why, but I think it's pretty clear that they were lying about what they knew and the story they were trying to sell.

Obama referenced it as an act of terror the next day. But he wasn't officially labeling it as such. It was less than 24hrs.John Carney kept saying it was under investigation and referenced the video for 2 weeks. I listen to his conferences every week.

Obama, Carney, and Hillary were not completely in sync with the messasge. It wasn't handled perfectly from a communications standpoint. But honestly I don't see why I should be outraged.

You would think that a guy who listens every week would know his name is Jay.

I do, padreSorry. Had a few beers tonight. I'm up in Cranberry. Maybe I should drive down to Wexford and we can chat about this

You goin' all Lawrence O'Donnell on me?

 

[Hang 10]

:crickets:

So now that's it's been clearly 100% established that the Obama administration lied about Libyan attack, anyone want to take a crack at the reason? It really is amazing that they completely fabricated the youtube/video story and then doubled down on it for a week. Hell, Biden was still throwing the intelligence community under the bus during the debates. Seems awfully convenient that these emails surface the night after the debates end.

 

[pantherclub]

:crickets:So now that's it's been clearly 100% established that the Obama administration lied about Libyan attack, anyone want to take a crack at the reason? It really is amazing that they completely fabricated the youtube/video story and then doubled down on it for a week. Hell, Biden was still throwing the intelligence community under the bus during the debates. Seems awfully convenient that these emails surface the night after the debates end.

100% lied, do telllooks to me like just piss poor communicationalso if you really believed he lied, why did he do it