U.S. Ambassador to Libya Killed in Rocket Attack (1 Viewer)

[Buddy Ball 2K3]

: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.

Lied is a strong word, how about fibbed?

 

[pittstownkiller]

: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

Really, you can not see the reason that they lied; how about it fit the narrative that the Arab Spring was a success for the Administration. I can even believe that the Adnistration didn't lie but they chose to believe a possibility that the facts didn't support.

 

[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.

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

They followed the Bengahzi attack in real time. There's no possible way they thought the attack had ANYTHING to do with reaction to a youtube video or an angry mob protest. The email trail is more proof of this. Who knows exactly why they lied? I just asked that question. A better question might be, why did they think they could get away lying about it?

 

[Buddy Ball 2K3]

: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.

also if you really believed he lied, why did he do it

Did you really ask why a bunch of politicians lie??

 

[cubd8]

Perhaps we should wait for the findings of the administration's investigation about 2 weeks after the election before assigning blame to them or accusing them of lying. I'm sure President Obama mentioned the word extremist or militant sometime in the days following this attack, even if he didn't directly use it specifically in regards to this story. I'm sure that other emails weren't quite as clear in terms of who was responsible for this, etc.

Seriously, isn't the cover-up always worse than the crime itself?

It's clear that the administration know what happened yet they went with a narrative blaming the YouTube video for weeks, even the President doing this.It's also clear that they know this is election season, and probably why they decided to downplay the events and change the narrative. With most of the media in their back pocket, the story did go under-reported until all of the flaws in their story started coming out, namely the truth.

I know they will have some spin today on this "smoking gun", and it won't be the truth, let's see how further they dig themselves.

 

[Hang 10]

Perhaps we should wait for the findings of the administration's investigation about 2 weeks after the election before assigning blame to them or accusing them of lying. I'm sure President Obama mentioned the word extremist or militant sometime in the days following this attack, even if he didn't directly use it specifically in regards to this story. I'm sure that other emails weren't quite as clear in terms of who was responsible for this, etc.Seriously, isn't the cover-up always worse than the crime itself?It's clear that the administration know what happened yet they went with a narrative blaming the YouTube video for weeks, even the President doing this.It's also clear that they know this is election season, and probably why they decided to downplay the events and change the narrative. With most of the media in their back pocket, the story did go under-reported until all of the flaws in their story started coming out, namely the truth.I know they will have some spin today on this "smoking gun", and it won't be the truth, let's see how further they dig themselves.

 

[moleculo]

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"?

why are we ignoring paragraph 4 of that speech?

Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.

IMO this very clearly draws a link between the video and the attack. Obama seems to take a position with this speech that the attack was an act of terror resulting from an spontaneous, chaotic uprising as a direct result of the youtube video - not an orchestrated attack by an al-queda affiliated organization.That's the problem here. Calling it an act of terror or not - big deal. I don't really car about that, because "act of terror" has a broad meaning. It doesn't really matter.What matters is that they perpetuated a false perception weeks after the event instead of admitting the reality that this was a planned, coordinated, event. That's what this is all about.

 

[moleculo]

: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

It's possible that the "lie" wasn't intended for our ears, rather that was intended to pacify the rest of the Middle East and to protect the safety of other Embassies.Whether the Libya attack was spontaneous or not, the fact remains that this event could have been the catalyst for actual, bona-fide spontaneous attacks on other American interests in the Middle East.

 

[Phil Elliott]

Was there a Blackberry outage for two weeks where the President wasn't getting his emails?

 

[Sam Quentin]

so these things called aircraft carriers and the planes that land on them were unable to offer any assistance over a period of seven hours?

 

[Boston]

Colonel David Hunt has been on local radio here since this attack and has stated repeatedly that under no condition was the Administration blind to what happened here...they knew in real-time what happened as Hunt has layed out all the intel networks and capabilities and how the system works with regard to an event like this...the thing I just don't get here is the whole video nonsense...why did they feel it neccessary to lie about it and did they really think that it would not be exposed in this day and age...an attack like this is something that could happen under any Adminisatration in that part of the world...that's the reality of the Middle-East...unless you are covering up some type of complete breakdown of security why not just come clean with what happened and use this as a reminder that the world is still very dangerous and we must stay vigilant...I'm sure some would still play politics with it but they would look petty doing so...yet, the Obama Adminstration made a calculated effort to cover-up an Al-Queda attack with a fifth grade lie and they are going to be paying a big political price for this as the cover-up is always worse than the crime...this is absolutely not the news you want being reported two weeks away from the election...

 

[pittstownkiller]

: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 communication

also if you really believed he lied, why did he do it

They followed the Bengahzi attack in real time. There's no possible way they thought the attack had ANYTHING to do with reaction to a youtube video or an angry mob protest. The email trail is more proof of this. Who knows exactly why they lied? I just asked that question. A better question might be, why did they think they could get away lying about it?

Maybe they have gotten away with other lies, or maybe they thought at worse the could just stonewall like on F&F.

 

[Sand]

: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

Really? The political implications of having a terror attack be successful so close to an election (and such a tight one) are huge. So they decided to lie and try to bury this until after the election. They've now been caught - politically maybe worse than just being honest. In a leadership sense it is a bit of an outrage - desecrating the honor of a courageous ambassador by knowingly lying about the events surrounding his death.

 

[jamny]

link

US denied access to suspect held in Libya strike, as debate builds over nature of attack

American authorities have been denied access to a Tunisian national being held in connection with the consulate attack in Libya that killed an ambassador and three other Americans, a top Republican lawmaker told Fox News.

Ali ani al-Harzi, suspected of ties to extremist groups including Al Qaeda's North Africa affiliate, was arrested in Turkey and has since been transferred to Tunisian authorities, but the U.S. has not been allowed to question him, Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia said Tuesday.

The latest developments come as some question recent efforts by administration sources to downplay the possibility that the attack was pre-planned.

Al-Harzi is one of about two-dozen individuals on a list of suspects that is being worked through by the U.S. intelligence community and the FBI. That list was compiled from intercepted intelligence, as well as the remaining surveillance camera video from the compound of the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, which was attacked Sept. 11.

Al-Harzi is believed to be a participant in the attack but is not characterized as a ringleader. He is part of a North African Islamist network, with family ties to Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and other extremists.

Saxby, the ranking Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said Al-Harzi has been confirmed to be a member of Ansar al-Sharia, the Libyan group accused of carrying out the consulate attack.

Confirmation of the arrest came shortly after a leading House lawmaker, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Mich., expressed concern about the status of the investigation.

In an interview with Fox News, Rogers said he was not comfortable with the pursuit of those responsible for the murders, suggesting the administration was too pre-occupied with reconciling the conflicting statements it has put out on the Libya attack.

"I am not comfortable with where we are today in tracking the folks, identifying, tracking and bringing to justice the people who killed an American ambassador," Rogers said.

U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the Sept. 11 strike.

Rogers also provided new details that further challenge administration claims that the attack did not involve significant pre-planning.

He said that, less than a day after the strike, the intelligence committee was told it was a "military"-style event. "Within 12 hours of that incident the intelligence committee received a report that said this was a military- or malicious-style event which would contradict all of what they (the administration) were talking about," Rogers explained.

Military experts also say the use of mortars at the annex -- which sources have said was actually a CIA post -- is totally inconsistent with claims that the strike was "spontaneous" or "opportunistic."

Fox News military analyst Ralph Peters called that the "smoking gun" that proves the attack was preplanned "well in advance" for the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 terror strikes.

Peters said a mortar requires mathematical calculations -- factoring in distance and elevation -- to successfully reach a target. Fox News is told that the first two mortars narrowly missed the annex, with the mortar team recalibrating and then launching two successful rounds. Peter said the most likely scenario is that the mortar location was designated in advance, during daylight hours, when visual contact with the target would have been possible.

"The mortar was probably set up during hours of daylight, so they could make sure they had, again, the compass angle exactly right," Peters explained. "None of this is easy stuff."

Retired Army Gen. Bob Scales, also a Fox News military analyst, said there is no question the mortar team relied on a spotter on location, who used a radio or cell phone to help "recalibrate" the mortar for a direct hit. Scales, too, said the most likely scenario is that the mortar location was designated during daylight hours -- more evidence of pre-meditation -- adding that it is "graduate-level work" which some western military forces are not proficient with.

The administration has abandoned claims that the attack was effectively a protest spun out of control. However, after acknowledging the attack was terrorism by militants with extremist ties, intelligence officials have started to return to claims that it was nevertheless inspired by protests in Egypt over an anti-Islam film -- and involved little planning.

Rogers alleges that selective leaks over the weekend, including a report in the Washington Post, are part of an orchestrated effort by the administration to legitimize early statements by U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice and others about the genesis of the attack.

"What is so frustrating to me is ... over the weekend you see these anonymous U.S. sources, intelligence personnel leaking timelines, even leaking certain pieces of information which was requested by the committee, and all of it seems to put the administration in a good light," Rogers explained

Rogers said there is strong intelligence that undercuts the administration's position.

Fox News has been told that the assault by roughly 135 militants was well-coordinated, and that the attackers used so-called "blocking teams" to block off any passage between the consulate and the annex about a mile away. Both buildings came under attack that night.

They also used "kill-or-capture teams" and employed a "quick reaction force" -- a contingent of reserve militants on standby to flood the area if needed.

"That is a fairly complicated, sophisticated thing to do," Rogers said. "That you just don't grab a few weapons, jump out of the truck and coordinate on the spot."

While Rogers and others suggest the administration has cherry-picked intelligence for political purposes, Obama advisers accuse Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney of politicizing the tragedy.

"There's only one candidate here who's tried to exploit it from the beginning. Even while the flames were burning in Benghazi, Mitt Romney was sending out political press releases on this and the whole Republican Party has followed," Obama adviser David Axelrod said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

 

[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.

also if you really believed he lied, why did he do it

I'll take another shot at this...I think it's possibly two things. One, they didn't want to admit it was an Al Quaeda attack, during the heat of the campaign, when one of the key accomplishments is eliminating Bin Laden/Al Quaeda. Two, they wanted this attack to be perceived as spontaneous and not an imminent threat that they denied security resources for and ultimately resulted in the death of a US ambassador and 3 others. My guess it's a bit of both.

 

[Politician Spock]

: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 communication

also if you really believed he lied, why did he do it

The why is really the question. I don't care whether or not it is called a terrorist attack. Nor do I care whether or not his response can be called a lie.What I want to know is WHY did he blame it quickly on the YouTube video before investigating it, and then even after details in the days that followed began showing it wasn't due to the video did he take weeks to admit it wasn't. Is he a closet antisemetic? Some other reason? Why? The fact that he used the video reasoning to make a religious statement about people who don't respect Mohammed and then made a big deal of arresting the creator of the video can't be ignored in determining why he did it the way he did.

 

[moleculo]

: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 communication

also if you really believed he lied, why did he do it

The why is really the question. I don't care whether or not it is called a terrorist attack. Nor do I care whether or not his response can be called a lie.What I want to know is WHY did he blame it quickly on the YouTube video before investigating it, and then even after details in the days that followed began showing it wasn't due to the video did he take weeks to admit it wasn't. Is he a closet antisemetic? Some other reason? Why? The fact that he used the video reasoning to make a religious statement about people who don't respect Mohammed and then made a big deal of arresting the creator of the video can't be ignored in determining why he did it the way he did.

It doesn't help that Obama has done this before - make the news fit his pre-conceived notions, despite what the evidence says. Anyone remember the "beer summit" and professor Gates?

 

[Slapdash]

: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 communication

also if you really believed he lied, why did he do it

The why is really the question. I don't care whether or not it is called a terrorist attack. Nor do I care whether or not his response can be called a lie.What I want to know is WHY did he blame it quickly on the YouTube video before investigating it, and then even after details in the days that followed began showing it wasn't due to the video did he take weeks to admit it wasn't. Is he a closet antisemetic? Some other reason? Why? The fact that he used the video reasoning to make a religious statement about people who don't respect Mohammed and then made a big deal of arresting the creator of the video can't be ignored in determining why he did it the way he did.

The simple answer appears to be that his administration was passing along what the CIA was telling them.

 

[Stinger Ray]

: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 communication

also if you really believed he lied, why did he do it

The why is really the question. I don't care whether or not it is called a terrorist attack. Nor do I care whether or not his response can be called a lie.What I want to know is WHY did he blame it quickly on the YouTube video before investigating it, and then even after details in the days that followed began showing it wasn't due to the video did he take weeks to admit it wasn't. Is he a closet antisemetic? Some other reason? Why? The fact that he used the video reasoning to make a religious statement about people who don't respect Mohammed and then made a big deal of arresting the creator of the video can't be ignored in determining why he did it the way he did.

The simple answer appears to be that his administration was passing along what the CIA was telling them.

So wrong!

 

[Politician Spock]

: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 communication

also if you really believed he lied, why did he do it

The why is really the question. I don't care whether or not it is called a terrorist attack. Nor do I care whether or not his response can be called a lie.What I want to know is WHY did he blame it quickly on the YouTube video before investigating it, and then even after details in the days that followed began showing it wasn't due to the video did he take weeks to admit it wasn't. Is he a closet antisemetic? Some other reason? Why? The fact that he used the video reasoning to make a religious statement about people who don't respect Mohammed and then made a big deal of arresting the creator of the video can't be ignored in determining why he did it the way he did.

The simple answer appears to be that his administration was passing along what the CIA was telling them.

As the issue unfolds more and more, this answer seems to become less and less credible.And if that IS the true answer, then people in the CIA need to be fired given people on internet forums and talk shows figured out what happened well before the bodies arrived home and Obama and Clinton once again used the video story in the arrival ceremony.

And by the time Obama made a point out of the video producer's arrest, the belief that it was not about the video had already become pretty mainstream.

Somewhere exists incompetence or motive to decieve. I don't know which, but I would like to know what and why. I don't think it's something to just move on from.

 

[Slapdash]

: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 communication

also if you really believed he lied, why did he do it

The why is really the question. I don't care whether or not it is called a terrorist attack. Nor do I care whether or not his response can be called a lie.What I want to know is WHY did he blame it quickly on the YouTube video before investigating it, and then even after details in the days that followed began showing it wasn't due to the video did he take weeks to admit it wasn't. Is he a closet antisemetic? Some other reason? Why? The fact that he used the video reasoning to make a religious statement about people who don't respect Mohammed and then made a big deal of arresting the creator of the video can't be ignored in determining why he did it the way he did.

The simple answer appears to be that his administration was passing along what the CIA was telling them.

As the issue unfolds more and more, this answer seems to become less and less credible.And if that IS the true answer, then people in the CIA need to be fired given people on internet forums and talk shows figured out what happened well before the bodies arrived home and Obama and Clinton once again used the video story in the arrival ceremony.

And by the time Obama made a point out of the video producer's arrest, the belief that it was not about the video had already become pretty mainstream.

Somewhere exists incompetence or motive to decieve. I don't know which, but I would like to know what and why. I don't think it's something to just move on from.

Do you have anything that suggests that the CIA was telling the administration something different?

 

[saintsfan]

Waiting for the nightly stories about how Obama lied on the national news. You know, like they did for Bush. Where is the Michael Moore documentary???

Yeah, I guess I'll be waiting for a while.

You know, I am perfectly willing to believe that the CIA told Obama about a Youtube video. Just like I was perfectly willing to believe that intelligence told Bush there were WMDs. What I don't like is the difference in how the stories are covered and how Democrats will look at you with a blank stare when you point out the differences.

 

[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.

100% lied, do telllooks to me like just piss poor communication

also if you really believed he lied, why did he do it

The why is really the question. I don't care whether or not it is called a terrorist attack. Nor do I care whether or not his response can be called a lie.What I want to know is WHY did he blame it quickly on the YouTube video before investigating it, and then even after details in the days that followed began showing it wasn't due to the video did he take weeks to admit it wasn't. Is he a closet antisemetic? Some other reason? Why? The fact that he used the video reasoning to make a religious statement about people who don't respect Mohammed and then made a big deal of arresting the creator of the video can't be ignored in determining why he did it the way he did.

The simple answer appears to be that his administration was passing along what the CIA was telling them.

As the issue unfolds more and more, this answer seems to become less and less credible.And if that IS the true answer, then people in the CIA need to be fired given people on internet forums and talk shows figured out what happened well before the bodies arrived home and Obama and Clinton once again used the video story in the arrival ceremony.

And by the time Obama made a point out of the video producer's arrest, the belief that it was not about the video had already become pretty mainstream.

Somewhere exists incompetence or motive to decieve. I don't know which, but I would like to know what and why. I don't think it's something to just move on from.

Do you have anything that suggests that the CIA was telling the administration something different?

This is 2012. They had drones monitoring the situation. The state department was following the events in real time. There's no possible way that the CIA could be this wrong and even if they were, it wouldn't have taken weeks for the white house to figure it out. You can't possibly believe this BS.

 

[Slapdash]

: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 communication

also if you really believed he lied, why did he do it

The why is really the question. I don't care whether or not it is called a terrorist attack. Nor do I care whether or not his response can be called a lie.What I want to know is WHY did he blame it quickly on the YouTube video before investigating it, and then even after details in the days that followed began showing it wasn't due to the video did he take weeks to admit it wasn't. Is he a closet antisemetic? Some other reason? Why? The fact that he used the video reasoning to make a religious statement about people who don't respect Mohammed and then made a big deal of arresting the creator of the video can't be ignored in determining why he did it the way he did.

The simple answer appears to be that his administration was passing along what the CIA was telling them.

As the issue unfolds more and more, this answer seems to become less and less credible.And if that IS the true answer, then people in the CIA need to be fired given people on internet forums and talk shows figured out what happened well before the bodies arrived home and Obama and Clinton once again used the video story in the arrival ceremony.

And by the time Obama made a point out of the video producer's arrest, the belief that it was not about the video had already become pretty mainstream.

Somewhere exists incompetence or motive to decieve. I don't know which, but I would like to know what and why. I don't think it's something to just move on from.

Do you have anything that suggests that the CIA was telling the administration something different?

This is 2012. They had drones monitoring the situation. The state department was following the events in real time. There's no possible way that the CIA could be this wrong and even if they were, it wouldn't have taken weeks for the white house to figure it out. You can't possibly believe this BS.

I'll take that as a no.

 

[Phil Elliott]

Looks like Obama has quite a severe case of Romnesia.

 

[Politician Spock]

: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 communication

also if you really believed he lied, why did he do it

The why is really the question. I don't care whether or not it is called a terrorist attack. Nor do I care whether or not his response can be called a lie.What I want to know is WHY did he blame it quickly on the YouTube video before investigating it, and then even after details in the days that followed began showing it wasn't due to the video did he take weeks to admit it wasn't. Is he a closet antisemetic? Some other reason? Why? The fact that he used the video reasoning to make a religious statement about people who don't respect Mohammed and then made a big deal of arresting the creator of the video can't be ignored in determining why he did it the way he did.

The simple answer appears to be that his administration was passing along what the CIA was telling them.

As the issue unfolds more and more, this answer seems to become less and less credible.And if that IS the true answer, then people in the CIA need to be fired given people on internet forums and talk shows figured out what happened well before the bodies arrived home and Obama and Clinton once again used the video story in the arrival ceremony.

And by the time Obama made a point out of the video producer's arrest, the belief that it was not about the video had already become pretty mainstream.

Somewhere exists incompetence or motive to decieve. I don't know which, but I would like to know what and why. I don't think it's something to just move on from.

Do you have anything that suggests that the CIA was telling the administration something different?

Yes

 

[Novice2]

: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 communication

also if you really believed he lied, why did he do it

The why is really the question. I don't care whether or not it is called a terrorist attack. Nor do I care whether or not his response can be called a lie.What I want to know is WHY did he blame it quickly on the YouTube video before investigating it, and then even after details in the days that followed began showing it wasn't due to the video did he take weeks to admit it wasn't. Is he a closet antisemetic? Some other reason? Why? The fact that he used the video reasoning to make a religious statement about people who don't respect Mohammed and then made a big deal of arresting the creator of the video can't be ignored in determining why he did it the way he did.

The simple answer appears to be that his administration was passing along what the CIA was telling them.

As the issue unfolds more and more, this answer seems to become less and less credible.And if that IS the true answer, then people in the CIA need to be fired given people on internet forums and talk shows figured out what happened well before the bodies arrived home and Obama and Clinton once again used the video story in the arrival ceremony.

And by the time Obama made a point out of the video producer's arrest, the belief that it was not about the video had already become pretty mainstream.

Somewhere exists incompetence or motive to decieve. I don't know which, but I would like to know what and why. I don't think it's something to just move on from.

Do you have anything that suggests that the CIA was telling the administration something different?

Yes

I'll see your 24 hours and raise you 2 hours!

 

[Slapdash]

: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 communication

also if you really believed he lied, why did he do it

The why is really the question. I don't care whether or not it is called a terrorist attack. Nor do I care whether or not his response can be called a lie.What I want to know is WHY did he blame it quickly on the YouTube video before investigating it, and then even after details in the days that followed began showing it wasn't due to the video did he take weeks to admit it wasn't. Is he a closet antisemetic? Some other reason? Why? The fact that he used the video reasoning to make a religious statement about people who don't respect Mohammed and then made a big deal of arresting the creator of the video can't be ignored in determining why he did it the way he did.

The simple answer appears to be that his administration was passing along what the CIA was telling them.

As the issue unfolds more and more, this answer seems to become less and less credible.And if that IS the true answer, then people in the CIA need to be fired given people on internet forums and talk shows figured out what happened well before the bodies arrived home and Obama and Clinton once again used the video story in the arrival ceremony.

And by the time Obama made a point out of the video producer's arrest, the belief that it was not about the video had already become pretty mainstream.

Somewhere exists incompetence or motive to decieve. I don't know which, but I would like to know what and why. I don't think it's something to just move on from.

Do you have anything that suggests that the CIA was telling the administration something different?

Yes

I don't think your link supports that at all:

Such raw intelligence reports by the CIA on the ground would normally be sent first to analysts at the headquarters in Langley, Virginaia, for vetting and comparing against other intelligence derived from eavesdropping drones and satellite images. Only then would such intelligence generally be shared with the White House and later, Congress, a process that can take hours, or days if the intelligence is coming only from one or two sources who may or may not be trusted.

U.S. intelligence officials say in this case the delay was due in part to the time it took to analyze various conflicting accounts. One official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to discuss the incident publicly, explained that "it was clear a group of people gathered that evening" in Benghazi, but that the early question was "whether extremists took over a crowd or they were the crowd."

 

[KiddLattimer]

Dennis Miller on Facebook...

Ironically, a Marine detail with "fixed bayonets" outside our Benghazi Consulate would have probably done the trick.

 

[Sheriff Bart]

Man I hate politicians. What a bunch of #####.

 

[Slapdash]

: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 communication

also if you really believed he lied, why did he do it

The why is really the question. I don't care whether or not it is called a terrorist attack. Nor do I care whether or not his response can be called a lie.What I want to know is WHY did he blame it quickly on the YouTube video before investigating it, and then even after details in the days that followed began showing it wasn't due to the video did he take weeks to admit it wasn't. Is he a closet antisemetic? Some other reason? Why? The fact that he used the video reasoning to make a religious statement about people who don't respect Mohammed and then made a big deal of arresting the creator of the video can't be ignored in determining why he did it the way he did.

The simple answer appears to be that his administration was passing along what the CIA was telling them.

As the issue unfolds more and more, this answer seems to become less and less credible.And if that IS the true answer, then people in the CIA need to be fired given people on internet forums and talk shows figured out what happened well before the bodies arrived home and Obama and Clinton once again used the video story in the arrival ceremony.

And by the time Obama made a point out of the video producer's arrest, the belief that it was not about the video had already become pretty mainstream.

Somewhere exists incompetence or motive to decieve. I don't know which, but I would like to know what and why. I don't think it's something to just move on from.

Do you have anything that suggests that the CIA was telling the administration something different?

Yes

I'll see your 24 hours and raise you 2 hours!

A post on a terrorist Facebook page that was later disavowed isn't the smoking gun y'all think it is.

 

[Politician Spock]

: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 communication

also if you really believed he lied, why did he do it

The why is really the question. I don't care whether or not it is called a terrorist attack. Nor do I care whether or not his response can be called a lie.What I want to know is WHY did he blame it quickly on the YouTube video before investigating it, and then even after details in the days that followed began showing it wasn't due to the video did he take weeks to admit it wasn't. Is he a closet antisemetic? Some other reason? Why? The fact that he used the video reasoning to make a religious statement about people who don't respect Mohammed and then made a big deal of arresting the creator of the video can't be ignored in determining why he did it the way he did.

The simple answer appears to be that his administration was passing along what the CIA was telling them.

As the issue unfolds more and more, this answer seems to become less and less credible.And if that IS the true answer, then people in the CIA need to be fired given people on internet forums and talk shows figured out what happened well before the bodies arrived home and Obama and Clinton once again used the video story in the arrival ceremony.

And by the time Obama made a point out of the video producer's arrest, the belief that it was not about the video had already become pretty mainstream.

Somewhere exists incompetence or motive to decieve. I don't know which, but I would like to know what and why. I don't think it's something to just move on from.

Do you have anything that suggests that the CIA was telling the administration something different?

Yes

I don't think your link supports that at all:

Such raw intelligence reports by the CIA on the ground would normally be sent first to analysts at the headquarters in Langley, Virginaia, for vetting and comparing against other intelligence derived from eavesdropping drones and satellite images. Only then would such intelligence generally be shared with the White House and later, Congress, a process that can take hours, or days if the intelligence is coming only from one or two sources who may or may not be trusted.

U.S. intelligence officials say in this case the delay was due in part to the time it took to analyze various conflicting accounts. One official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to discuss the incident publicly, explained that "it was clear a group of people gathered that evening" in Benghazi, but that the early question was "whether extremists took over a crowd or they were the crowd."

From my link:

"The intelligence briefings we got a week to 10 days after were consistent with what the administration was saying," said Rep. William Thornberry, a member of the House Intelligence and Armed Services committees. Thornberry would not confirm the existence of the early CIA report but voiced skepticism over how sure intelligence officials, including CIA Director David Petraeus, seemed of their original account when they briefed lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

"How could they be so certain immediately after such events, I just don't know," he said. "That raises suspicions that there was political motivation."

As I said earlier, somewhere exists incompetence or motive to decieve. I don't know which, but I would like to know what and why. I don't think it's something to just move on from.

 

[Slapdash]

: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 communication

also if you really believed he lied, why did he do it

The why is really the question. I don't care whether or not it is called a terrorist attack. Nor do I care whether or not his response can be called a lie.What I want to know is WHY did he blame it quickly on the YouTube video before investigating it, and then even after details in the days that followed began showing it wasn't due to the video did he take weeks to admit it wasn't. Is he a closet antisemetic? Some other reason? Why? The fact that he used the video reasoning to make a religious statement about people who don't respect Mohammed and then made a big deal of arresting the creator of the video can't be ignored in determining why he did it the way he did.

The simple answer appears to be that his administration was passing along what the CIA was telling them.

As the issue unfolds more and more, this answer seems to become less and less credible.And if that IS the true answer, then people in the CIA need to be fired given people on internet forums and talk shows figured out what happened well before the bodies arrived home and Obama and Clinton once again used the video story in the arrival ceremony.

And by the time Obama made a point out of the video producer's arrest, the belief that it was not about the video had already become pretty mainstream.

Somewhere exists incompetence or motive to decieve. I don't know which, but I would like to know what and why. I don't think it's something to just move on from.

Do you have anything that suggests that the CIA was telling the administration something different?

Yes

I don't think your link supports that at all:

Such raw intelligence reports by the CIA on the ground would normally be sent first to analysts at the headquarters in Langley, Virginaia, for vetting and comparing against other intelligence derived from eavesdropping drones and satellite images. Only then would such intelligence generally be shared with the White House and later, Congress, a process that can take hours, or days if the intelligence is coming only from one or two sources who may or may not be trusted.

U.S. intelligence officials say in this case the delay was due in part to the time it took to analyze various conflicting accounts. One official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to discuss the incident publicly, explained that "it was clear a group of people gathered that evening" in Benghazi, but that the early question was "whether extremists took over a crowd or they were the crowd."

From my link:

"The intelligence briefings we got a week to 10 days after were consistent with what the administration was saying," said Rep. William Thornberry, a member of the House Intelligence and Armed Services committees. Thornberry would not confirm the existence of the early CIA report but voiced skepticism over how sure intelligence officials, including CIA Director David Petraeus, seemed of their original account when they briefed lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

"How could they be so certain immediately after such events, I just don't know," he said. "That raises suspicions that there was political motivation."

As I said earlier, somewhere exists incompetence or motive to decieve. I don't know which, but I would like to know what and why. I don't think it's something to just move on from.

So even he admits what the CIA was telling him jives with what the administration was saying. How does that suggest the CIA was telling the administraion something different again?

 

[Politician Spock]

100% lied, do tell

looks to me like just piss poor communication

also if you really believed he lied, why did he do it

The why is really the question. I don't care whether or not it is called a terrorist attack. Nor do I care whether or not his response can be called a lie.What I want to know is WHY did he blame it quickly on the YouTube video before investigating it, and then even after details in the days that followed began showing it wasn't due to the video did he take weeks to admit it wasn't. Is he a closet antisemetic? Some other reason? Why? The fact that he used the video reasoning to make a religious statement about people who don't respect Mohammed and then made a big deal of arresting the creator of the video can't be ignored in determining why he did it the way he did.

The simple answer appears to be that his administration was passing along what the CIA was telling them.

As the issue unfolds more and more, this answer seems to become less and less credible.And if that IS the true answer, then people in the CIA need to be fired given people on internet forums and talk shows figured out what happened well before the bodies arrived home and Obama and Clinton once again used the video story in the arrival ceremony.

And by the time Obama made a point out of the video producer's arrest, the belief that it was not about the video had already become pretty mainstream.

Somewhere exists incompetence or motive to decieve. I don't know which, but I would like to know what and why. I don't think it's something to just move on from.

Do you have anything that suggests that the CIA was telling the administration something different?

Yes

I don't think your link supports that at all:

Such raw intelligence reports by the CIA on the ground would normally be sent first to analysts at the headquarters in Langley, Virginaia, for vetting and comparing against other intelligence derived from eavesdropping drones and satellite images. Only then would such intelligence generally be shared with the White House and later, Congress, a process that can take hours, or days if the intelligence is coming only from one or two sources who may or may not be trusted.

U.S. intelligence officials say in this case the delay was due in part to the time it took to analyze various conflicting accounts. One official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to discuss the incident publicly, explained that "it was clear a group of people gathered that evening" in Benghazi, but that the early question was "whether extremists took over a crowd or they were the crowd."

From my link:

"The intelligence briefings we got a week to 10 days after were consistent with what the administration was saying," said Rep. William Thornberry, a member of the House Intelligence and Armed Services committees. Thornberry would not confirm the existence of the early CIA report but voiced skepticism over how sure intelligence officials, including CIA Director David Petraeus, seemed of their original account when they briefed lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

"How could they be so certain immediately after such events, I just don't know," he said. "That raises suspicions that there was political motivation."

As I said earlier, somewhere exists incompetence or motive to decieve. I don't know which, but I would like to know what and why. I don't think it's something to just move on from.

So even he admits what the CIA was telling him jives with what the administration was saying. How does that suggest the CIA was telling the administraion something different again?

It raises suspicion. I, nor you, know what happened. This isn't something that should just be overlooked and everyone move on. It may be nothing. It may be something. We don't know.

 

[Slapdash]

It raises suspicion. I, nor you, know what happened. This isn't something that should just be overlooked and everyone move on. It may be nothing. It may be something. We don't know.

Yeah, it raises suspicion to a Republican Congressman trying to score political points. Shocking.

 

[Politician Spock]

It raises suspicion. I, nor you, know what happened. This isn't something that should just be overlooked and everyone move on. It may be nothing. It may be something. We don't know.

Yeah, it raises suspicion to a Republican Congressman trying to score political points. Shocking.

If internet forums and talk shows are providing more accurate information than the CIA is, don't you think we should look into why?Obama may have nothing to do with this issue. If the CIA has incompetence, then lets get rid of that incompetence. If I recall correctly the head of the CIA was fired or resigned as a result of the bad Iraq WMDs info they provided Bush.

 

[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.

100% lied, do telllooks to me like just piss poor communication

also if you really believed he lied, why did he do it

The why is really the question. I don't care whether or not it is called a terrorist attack. Nor do I care whether or not his response can be called a lie.What I want to know is WHY did he blame it quickly on the YouTube video before investigating it, and then even after details in the days that followed began showing it wasn't due to the video did he take weeks to admit it wasn't. Is he a closet antisemetic? Some other reason? Why? The fact that he used the video reasoning to make a religious statement about people who don't respect Mohammed and then made a big deal of arresting the creator of the video can't be ignored in determining why he did it the way he did.

The simple answer appears to be that his administration was passing along what the CIA was telling them.

As the issue unfolds more and more, this answer seems to become less and less credible.And if that IS the true answer, then people in the CIA need to be fired given people on internet forums and talk shows figured out what happened well before the bodies arrived home and Obama and Clinton once again used the video story in the arrival ceremony.

And by the time Obama made a point out of the video producer's arrest, the belief that it was not about the video had already become pretty mainstream.

Somewhere exists incompetence or motive to decieve. I don't know which, but I would like to know what and why. I don't think it's something to just move on from.

Do you have anything that suggests that the CIA was telling the administration something different?

Yes

I don't think your link supports that at all:

Such raw intelligence reports by the CIA on the ground would normally be sent first to analysts at the headquarters in Langley, Virginaia, for vetting and comparing against other intelligence derived from eavesdropping drones and satellite images. Only then would such intelligence generally be shared with the White House and later, Congress, a process that can take hours, or days if the intelligence is coming only from one or two sources who may or may not be trusted.

U.S. intelligence officials say in this case the delay was due in part to the time it took to analyze various conflicting accounts. One official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to discuss the incident publicly, explained that "it was clear a group of people gathered that evening" in Benghazi, but that the early question was "whether extremists took over a crowd or they were the crowd."

With such a thorough vetting process, seems they would have debunked the fabricated protest/video story quickly, no? Or more than likely the wouldn't have passed it along without confirmation.

 

[Slapdash]

It raises suspicion. I, nor you, know what happened. This isn't something that should just be overlooked and everyone move on. It may be nothing. It may be something. We don't know.

Yeah, it raises suspicion to a Republican Congressman trying to score political points. Shocking.

If internet forums and talk shows are providing more accurate information than the CIA is, don't you think we should look into why?Obama may have nothing to do with this issue. If the CIA has incompetence, then lets get rid of that incompetence. If I recall correctly the head of the CIA was fired or resigned as a result of the bad Iraq WMDs info they provided Bush.

 

[Sheriff Bart]

Looks like Obama has quite a severe case of Romnesia.

 

[Politician Spock]

It raises suspicion. I, nor you, know what happened. This isn't something that should just be overlooked and everyone move on. It may be nothing. It may be something. We don't know.

Yeah, it raises suspicion to a Republican Congressman trying to score political points. Shocking.

If internet forums and talk shows are providing more accurate information than the CIA is, don't you think we should look into why?Obama may have nothing to do with this issue. If the CIA has incompetence, then lets get rid of that incompetence. If I recall correctly the head of the CIA was fired or resigned as a result of the bad Iraq WMDs info they provided Bush.

Well hello there Joe Biden. Thank you for honoring us with your presence.

 

[Sam Quentin]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/libya-we-gave-us-threeday-warning-of-benghazi-attack-8145242.html

three days of ignored warnings may explain a motive to pretend it was spontaneous...

 

[BoneYardDog]

White House Knew at 6:07 PM EST That Ansar Al-Sharia Was Behind the Benghazi attack and they sat back and did nothing and watched the carnage in real time...

 

[FlapJacks]

White House Knew at 6:07 PM EST That Ansar Al-Sharia Was Behind the Benghazi attack and they sat back and did nothing and watched the carnage in real time...

unrealno airplanes, no help, nothing. they just and watched them diewas it all so they could hide the fact that they ignored Libya's warnings?

 

[BoneYardDog]

White House Knew at 6:07 PM EST That Ansar Al-Sharia Was Behind the Benghazi attack and they sat back and did nothing and watched the carnage in real time...

unrealno airplanes, no help, nothing. they just and watched them diewas it all so they could hide the fact that they ignored Libya's warnings?

I am glad to see you agree that it is unreal... He has their blood all over his hands, hey but he defended Big Bird...

 

[moleculo]

There has been plenty of stuff leaked that would make one think this was a planned military operation. We now need to see what evidence there was causing the White House etc. to conclude this was a demonstration about a video. They need to make their case. A term I've learned from this administration is "optics," and right now the optics aren't very good. There has to be some pretty strong stuff pointing in that direction, given the number of times Obama's surrogates said it was about the video.

I hate to get all political here, but I do find it troubling that the D's were all about finding out what Bush knew about WMD's, but don't seem to care now.

When do we start seeing posters that read: People died, Obama lied?

 

[pittstownkiller]

: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 communication

also if you really believed he lied, why did he do it

The why is really the question. I don't care whether or not it is called a terrorist attack. Nor do I care whether or not his response can be called a lie.What I want to know is WHY did he blame it quickly on the YouTube video before investigating it, and then even after details in the days that followed began showing it wasn't due to the video did he take weeks to admit it wasn't. Is he a closet antisemetic? Some other reason? Why? The fact that he used the video reasoning to make a religious statement about people who don't respect Mohammed and then made a big deal of arresting the creator of the video can't be ignored in determining why he did it the way he did.

The simple answer appears to be that his administration was passing along what the CIA was telling them.

As the issue unfolds more and more, this answer seems to become less and less credible.And if that IS the true answer, then people in the CIA need to be fired given people on internet forums and talk shows figured out what happened well before the bodies arrived home and Obama and Clinton once again used the video story in the arrival ceremony.

And by the time Obama made a point out of the video producer's arrest, the belief that it was not about the video had already become pretty mainstream.

Somewhere exists incompetence or motive to decieve. I don't know which, but I would like to know what and why. I don't think it's something to just move on from.

Do you have anything that suggests that the CIA was telling the administration something different?

The Administration had real-time information that mortars were being used - provided to them by the embassy during the attack - that means spotters before and during the attack; I cannot believe that any analyst would come up with this being spontaneous.

 

[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"?

why are we ignoring paragraph 4 of that speech?

Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.

IMO this very clearly draws a link between the video and the attack. Obama seems to take a position with this speech that the attack was an act of terror resulting from an spontaneous, chaotic uprising as a direct result of the youtube video - not an orchestrated attack by an al-queda affiliated organization.

That's the problem here. Calling it an act of terror or not - big deal. I don't really car about that, because "act of terror" has a broad meaning. It doesn't really matter.

What matters is that they perpetuated a false perception weeks after the event instead of admitting the reality that this was a planned, coordinated, event. That's what this is all about.

I'm not understanding how all of you get to this. The administration was constantly saying it was under investigation, referencing the video as a possible cause, but also not shying away from calling it terror. They were not definitive on it for 2 weeks and they did mention the video a lot.So now emails come out which show the terror evidence. Yeah, those are pieces of information they received. An investigation has many pieces of information showing different things. They were slow to officially label it, I agree. There were a lot of things going on at the time, like anti-video demonstrations in 19 middle eastern cities most notably in Cairo which isn't that far from Benghazi.

But you take these emails and turn it into the White House concluded they were the absolute truth and then decided to cover it up. How do you reach that conclusion?

When you are following an investigation or watching a trial, do you consider everything or just latch on to one idea and go with that?

 

[squistion]

There has been plenty of stuff leaked that would make one think this was a planned military operation. We now need to see what evidence there was causing the White House etc. to conclude this was a demonstration about a video. They need to make their case. A term I've learned from this administration is "optics," and right now the optics aren't very good. There has to be some pretty strong stuff pointing in that direction, given the number of times Obama's surrogates said it was about the video.

I hate to get all political here, but I do find it troubling that the D's were all about finding out what Bush knew about WMD's, but don't seem to care now.

When do we start seeing posters that read: People died, Obama lied?

Well, gee, it might have had something to do with going to war with Iraq based on the supposed WMDs.

 

[moleculo]

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"?

why are we ignoring paragraph 4 of that speech?

Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.

IMO this very clearly draws a link between the video and the attack. Obama seems to take a position with this speech that the attack was an act of terror resulting from an spontaneous, chaotic uprising as a direct result of the youtube video - not an orchestrated attack by an al-queda affiliated organization.

That's the problem here. Calling it an act of terror or not - big deal. I don't really car about that, because "act of terror" has a broad meaning. It doesn't really matter.

What matters is that they perpetuated a false perception weeks after the event instead of admitting the reality that this was a planned, coordinated, event. That's what this is all about.

I'm not understanding how all of you get to this. The administration was constantly saying it was under investigation, referencing the video as a possible cause, but also not shying away from calling it terror. They were not definitive on it for 2 weeks and they did mention the video a lot.So now emails come out which show the terror evidence. Yeah, those are pieces of information they received. An investigation has many pieces of information showing different things. They were slow to officially label it, I agree. There were a lot of things going on at the time, like anti-video demonstrations in 19 middle eastern cities most notably in Cairo which isn't that far from Benghazi.

But you take these emails and turn it into the White House concluded they were the absolute truth and then decided to cover it up. How do you reach that conclusion?

When you are following an investigation or watching a trial, do you consider everything or just latch on to one idea and go with that?

obviously, you consider everything. Why was the video angle even considered plausible? That was ridiculous on 9/12, and it is even more ridiculous with the benefit of hindsight. The attack had nothing to do with the video, and the fact that the video was ever mentioned, much less as the most likely cause of the attack, leads one to wonder what was going on.I still want to know how an intelligent person could look at the evidence, and come to the conclusion that the attack was the result of a demonstration about a video.

 

[Sam Quentin]

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"?

why are we ignoring paragraph 4 of that speech?

Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.

IMO this very clearly draws a link between the video and the attack. Obama seems to take a position with this speech that the attack was an act of terror resulting from an spontaneous, chaotic uprising as a direct result of the youtube video - not an orchestrated attack by an al-queda affiliated organization.

That's the problem here. Calling it an act of terror or not - big deal. I don't really car about that, because "act of terror" has a broad meaning. It doesn't really matter.

What matters is that they perpetuated a false perception weeks after the event instead of admitting the reality that this was a planned, coordinated, event. That's what this is all about.

I'm not understanding how all of you get to this. The administration was constantly saying it was under investigation, referencing the video as a possible cause, but also not shying away from calling it terror. They were not definitive on it for 2 weeks and they did mention the video a lot.So now emails come out which show the terror evidence. Yeah, those are pieces of information they received. An investigation has many pieces of information showing different things. They were slow to officially label it, I agree. There were a lot of things going on at the time, like anti-video demonstrations in 19 middle eastern cities most notably in Cairo which isn't that far from Benghazi.

But you take these emails and turn it into the White House concluded they were the absolute truth and then decided to cover it up. How do you reach that conclusion?

When you are following an investigation or watching a trial, do you consider everything or just latch on to one idea and go with that?

funny you should mention Cairo. Here CNN shows footage of protests to release the Blind Sheik....