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

[Carolina Hustler]

I rest my case against Hustler your honor.

Don't read so well do you bud?

Your own president called it an embassy..

Yeah, the one Egypt.

Which one? The one I know of (Cairo) had no attacks or killing.. Just protesters stealing a flag..

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/12/world/middleeast/anger-over-film-fuels-anti-american-attacks-in-libya-and-egypt.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/12/world/meast/egpyt-us-embassy-protests

The first one was dated September 11, the second September 12.

The President was speaking to the UN two weeks later.

He certainly wasn't distinguishing what happened in Benghazi from the rest of the events.

This isn't the first time he's tried this.. He really thinks what happened in Cairo and what happened Benghazi were the same..

 

[matuski]

poor Hustler.

 

[sporthenry]

First and second statements he raises the video as the root of what happened. Here the president is directly involved. Once to the American public and once to the UN.

And we do not know yet for sure but it is getting closer and closer to statement No. 3 being false, yes. Again to the American public.

No, I do not think any of this will result in impeachment or resignation.

I don't think you know what lying means.

I do, I'm guessing you and I have similar views of it.

I do think it's possible that he is just trotted out there to parrot words on a screen (and I would not just say that is an Obama only failing for modern presidents by the way).

If you're saying he really believed that at the time, well maybe that's close to what I have above, that he was just parroting what he's told, but if you maintain the president has real integral involvement and knowledge in these things, and that he and his team really believed there ws a video at teh bottom of all this, that whole concept is getting more and more ridiculous.

No argument here with regard to most politicians being an empty suit.

But, with regard to your last statement, I don't see that as a really big stretch. Didn't Muller testify that those statements were consistent with the CIA's analysis?

The CIA's first point in their original talking points were that the Benghazi attack was spontaneously inspired by the Cairo protest which is a tacit acknowledgment that it was related to the video. The only thing the President (State Department) changed was scrubbing al-Qaeda, and al-Sharia references and mentioning previous attacks.

Then, it also took the FBI 24 days to get boots on the ground. Now if we want to talk about why it took so long, so be it. But beyond that, saying the president lied will require a ton more proof than what they have.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Slapdash, on 13 May 2013 - 15:19, said:

SaintsInDome2006, on 13 May 2013 - 15:00, said:

Slapdash, on 13 May 2013 - 14:57, said:

SaintsInDome2006, on 13 May 2013 - 14:55, said:First and second statements he raises the video as the root of what happened. Here the president is directly involved. Once to the American public and once to the UN.And we do not know yet for sure but it is getting closer and closer to statement No. 3 being false, yes. Again to the American public.No, I do not think any of this will result in impeachment or resignation.

I don't think you know what lying means.

I do, I'm guessing you and I have similar views of it.I do think it's possible that he is just trotted out there to parrot words on a screen (and I would not just say that is an Obama only failing for modern presidents by the way).If you're saying he really believed that at the time, well maybe that's close to what I have above, that he was just parroting what he's told, but if you maintain the president has real integral involvement and knowledge in these things, and that he and his team really believed there ws a video at teh bottom of all this, that whole concept is getting more and more ridiculous.

No argument here with regard to most politicians being an empty suit.But, with regard to your last statement, I don't see that as a really big stretch. Didn't Muller testify that those statements were consistent with the CIA's analysis?

First of all the Rose Garden speech was on September 11th. The UN speech was two weeks later.The Muller / CIA assessment has been around since October 2012, but a lot has changed in terms of testimony and documents gathered. I think primarily the testimony and emails from Nuland and Hicks.Think about what the political outcry from the GOP would have been if it had been left in and if that had been the line going into the lection:- "Obama ignores terrorist warning sings"- "Obama weak on terrorism"- "Obama trumpets end of AQ but AQ affiliates survive and thrive"Etc. You can see how the GOP would have jumped all over that.Now, people may forget that Obama was the first modern president to gain reelection after losing votes and electors from the first election. It wasn't super close but it wasn't a blowout either. Things were very much in doubt when all this was going on too. And the Obama team has been sensitive about terrorism and defense since pre-2008 campaigning. This feels like a knee-jerk reaction by the political teamI think they just out-thunk themselves on this one. It's two weeks later and he's still conflating what happened in Libya with all sorts of stuff, but he makes the outrage over the video the centerpiece. Then they have to defend, defend, defend, and on and on, until it was impossible.Obama's speech to the UN does it for me and so does the selection of Rice over someone in State to carry the message. To me the essence of Rice is plausible deniability. She had no knowledge, no involvement, she just went out and said what she was told.And for those who say still it was the dirty evil CIA (& Petraeus), just remember they can be as political as anyone and they play along to get along all the time, and that includes taking one for the team when necessary.

 

[Todd Andrews]

SO KooKfusing!!

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

First and second statements he raises the video as the root of what happened. Here the president is directly involved. Once to the American public and once to the UN.

And we do not know yet for sure but it is getting closer and closer to statement No. 3 being false, yes. Again to the American public.

No, I do not think any of this will result in impeachment or resignation.

I don't think you know what lying means.

I do, I'm guessing you and I have similar views of it.

I do think it's possible that he is just trotted out there to parrot words on a screen (and I would not just say that is an Obama only failing for modern presidents by the way).

If you're saying he really believed that at the time, well maybe that's close to what I have above, that he was just parroting what he's told, but if you maintain the president has real integral involvement and knowledge in these things, and that he and his team really believed there ws a video at teh bottom of all this, that whole concept is getting more and more ridiculous.

No argument here with regard to most politicians being an empty suit.

But, with regard to your last statement, I don't see that as a really big stretch. Didn't Muller testify that those statements were consistent with the CIA's analysis?

The CIA's first point in their original talking points were that the Benghazi attack was spontaneously inspired by the Cairo protest which is a tacit acknowledgment that it was related to the video. The only thing the President (State Department) changed was scrubbing al-Qaeda, and al-Sharia references and mentioning previous attacks.

Then, it also took the FBI 24 days to get boots on the ground. Now if we want to talk about why it took so long, so be it. But beyond that, saying the president lied will require a ton more proof than what they have.

The UN speech was September 25th, what's happening there?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Shift gears again Hustler, you can do it!

You post links that prove my point... LOL

That there WAS attacks in Egypt, on the embassy.

Good point. Headline and all.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Now, people may forget that Obama was the first modern president to gain reelection after losing votes and electors from the first election. It wasn't super close but it wasn't a blowout either. Things were very much in doubt when all this was going on too. And the Obama team has been sensitive about terrorism and defense since pre-2008 campaigning. This feels like a knee-jerk reaction by the political team

Not really, but I'm not surprised you think the election was close since it's obvious you get your news from the same folks who were predicting a Romney landslide on election day.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Obama appeared eager to resolve the matter once and for all. This is a little long, but it's worth your time:

"The whole issue of talking points, frankly, throughout this process has been a sideshow....[T]he emails that you allude to were provided by us to congressional committees. They reviewed them several months ago, concluded that in fact there was nothing afoul in terms of the process that we had used. And suddenly, three days ago, this gets spun up as if there's something new to the story. There's no 'there' there.

"Keep in mind, by the way, these so-called talking points that were prepared for Susan Rice five, six days after the event occurred, pretty much matched the assessments that I was receiving at that time in my presidential daily briefing. And keep in mind that two to three days after Susan Rice appeared on the Sunday shows using these talking points, which have been the source of all this controversy, I sent up the head of our National Counterterrorism Center, Matt Olsen, up to Capitol Hill, and specifically said it was an act of terrorism and that extremist elements inside of Libya had been involved in it.

"So if this was some effort on our part to try to downplay what had happened or tamp it down, that would be a pretty odd thing that three days later we end up putting out all the information that in fact has now served as the basis for everybody recognizing that this was a terrorist attack and that it may have included elements that were planned by extremists inside of Libya.

"Who executes some sort of cover-up or effort to tamp things down for three days? So the whole thing defies logic. And the fact that this keeps on getting churned out, frankly, has a lot to do with political motivations.... They've used it for fund-raising."

Must have been an extremely important 3 days, eh Saints?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Shift gears again Hustler, you can do it!

You post links that prove my point... LOL

That there WAS attacks in Egypt, on the embassy.

Good point. Headline and all.

taking a flag was an attack?

 

[sporthenry]

Shift gears again Hustler, you can do it!

You post links that prove my point... LOL

That there WAS attacks in Egypt, on the embassy.

Good point. Headline and all.

taking a flag was an attack?

Breaching an embassy wall is a bit more serious than taking a flag.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Now, people may forget that Obama was the first modern president to gain reelection after losing votes and electors from the first election. It wasn't super close but it wasn't a blowout either. Things were very much in doubt when all this was going on too. And the Obama team has been sensitive about terrorism and defense since pre-2008 campaigning. This feels like a knee-jerk reaction by the political team

Not really, but I'm not surprised you think the election was close since it's obvious you get your news from the same folks who were predicting a Romney landslide on election day.

Well to me 51-47 is pretty close, and FLA, VA, IN, and other states were still in play. FLA finished 49.9-49.03%. This was a narrower win than 2008 that's for sure, I don't know the last time a president lost votes and electoral votes and still pulled out a win for reelection, it's been a long, long time.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Obama appeared eager to resolve the matter once and for all. This is a little long, but it's worth your time:

"The whole issue of talking points, frankly, throughout this process has been a sideshow....[T]he emails that you allude to were provided by us to congressional committees. They reviewed them several months ago, concluded that in fact there was nothing afoul in terms of the process that we had used. And suddenly, three days ago, this gets spun up as if there's something new to the story. There's no 'there' there.

"Keep in mind, by the way, these so-called talking points that were prepared for Susan Rice five, six days after the event occurred, pretty much matched the assessments that I was receiving at that time in my presidential daily briefing. And keep in mind that two to three days after Susan Rice appeared on the Sunday shows using these talking points, which have been the source of all this controversy, I sent up the head of our National Counterterrorism Center, Matt Olsen, up to Capitol Hill, and specifically said it was an act of terrorism and that extremist elements inside of Libya had been involved in it.

"So if this was some effort on our part to try to downplay what had happened or tamp it down, that would be a pretty odd thing that three days later we end up putting out all the information that in fact has now served as the basis for everybody recognizing that this was a terrorist attack and that it may have included elements that were planned by extremists inside of Libya.

"Who executes some sort of cover-up or effort to tamp things down for three days? So the whole thing defies logic. And the fact that this keeps on getting churned out, frankly, has a lot to do with political motivations.... They've used it for fund-raising."

Must have been an extremely important 3 days, eh Saints?

Ok let's keep in mind this is the President, as he does, defining what is important and what's not and then also declaring it a three day window. To me this sounds like a bit of a crawfish walk here, going sideways.

Again - what about the UN speech, two weeks later? Where in that speech does Obama distinguish events in Libya from the main body of what he is discussing which involves the video and democracy?

And Obama decrying the use of events for fund raising? C'mon, get in line.

I think it's funny he does not bring up a far more valid point, and that is, wouldn't it have been much more valuable politically for the president to declare this terrorism and get the country behind him? To me that's the weakpoint in the argument that the discussion was internally rigged.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Shift gears again Hustler, you can do it!

You post links that prove my point... LOL

That there WAS attacks in Egypt, on the embassy.

Good point. Headline and all.

taking a flag was an attack?

Breaching an embassy wall is a bit more serious than taking a flag.

Jumping a wall and stealing a flag is not an attack.. We call that larceny...

We didn't say whether it was serious or not... He claimed there was an ATTACK at the embassy in Cairo, and in order to coincide with the 'Obama wasn't talking about Benghazi' meme, there would have had to be people killed as well..

 

[pantherclub]

Now, people may forget that Obama was the first modern president to gain reelection after losing votes and electors from the first election. It wasn't super close but it wasn't a blowout either. Things were very much in doubt when all this was going on too. And the Obama team has been sensitive about terrorism and defense since pre-2008 campaigning. This feels like a knee-jerk reaction by the political team

Not really, but I'm not surprised you think the election was close since it's obvious you get your news from the same folks who were predicting a Romney landslide on election day.

Well to me 51-47 is pretty close, and FLA, VA, IN, and other states were still in play. FLA finished 49.9-49.03%. This was a narrower win than 2008 that's for sure, I don't know the last time a president lost votes and electoral votes and still pulled out a win for reelection, it's been a long, long time.

God bless you lil fella

 

[tommyGunZ]

Obama appeared eager to resolve the matter once and for all. This is a little long, but it's worth your time:

"The whole issue of talking points, frankly, throughout this process has been a sideshow....[T]he emails that you allude to were provided by us to congressional committees. They reviewed them several months ago, concluded that in fact there was nothing afoul in terms of the process that we had used. And suddenly, three days ago, this gets spun up as if there's something new to the story. There's no 'there' there.

"Keep in mind, by the way, these so-called talking points that were prepared for Susan Rice five, six days after the event occurred, pretty much matched the assessments that I was receiving at that time in my presidential daily briefing. And keep in mind that two to three days after Susan Rice appeared on the Sunday shows using these talking points, which have been the source of all this controversy, I sent up the head of our National Counterterrorism Center, Matt Olsen, up to Capitol Hill, and specifically said it was an act of terrorism and that extremist elements inside of Libya had been involved in it.

"So if this was some effort on our part to try to downplay what had happened or tamp it down, that would be a pretty odd thing that three days later we end up putting out all the information that in fact has now served as the basis for everybody recognizing that this was a terrorist attack and that it may have included elements that were planned by extremists inside of Libya.

"Who executes some sort of cover-up or effort to tamp things down for three days? So the whole thing defies logic. And the fact that this keeps on getting churned out, frankly, has a lot to do with political motivations.... They've used it for fund-raising."

Must have been an extremely important 3 days, eh Saints?

Ok let's keep in mind this is the President, as he does, defining what is important and what's not and then also declaring it a three day window. To me this sounds like a bit of a crawfish walk here, going sideways.

Again - what about the UN speech, two weeks later? Where in that speech does Obama distinguish events in Libya from the main body of what he is discussing which involves the video and democracy?

And Obama decrying the use of events for fund raising? C'mon, get in line.

I think it's funny he does not bring up a far more valid point, and that is, wouldn't it have been much more valuable politically for the president to declare this terrorism and get the country behind him? To me that's the weakpoint in the argument that the discussion was internally rigged.

The country isn't behind him when talking about the deaths of 4 civil servants unless the president calls it terrorism? WTF?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Obama appeared eager to resolve the matter once and for all. This is a little long, but it's worth your time:

"The whole issue of talking points, frankly, throughout this process has been a sideshow....[T]he emails that you allude to were provided by us to congressional committees. They reviewed them several months ago, concluded that in fact there was nothing afoul in terms of the process that we had used. And suddenly, three days ago, this gets spun up as if there's something new to the story. There's no 'there' there.

"Keep in mind, by the way, these so-called talking points that were prepared for Susan Rice five, six days after the event occurred, pretty much matched the assessments that I was receiving at that time in my presidential daily briefing. And keep in mind that two to three days after Susan Rice appeared on the Sunday shows using these talking points, which have been the source of all this controversy, I sent up the head of our National Counterterrorism Center, Matt Olsen, up to Capitol Hill, and specifically said it was an act of terrorism and that extremist elements inside of Libya had been involved in it.

"So if this was some effort on our part to try to downplay what had happened or tamp it down, that would be a pretty odd thing that three days later we end up putting out all the information that in fact has now served as the basis for everybody recognizing that this was a terrorist attack and that it may have included elements that were planned by extremists inside of Libya.

"Who executes some sort of cover-up or effort to tamp things down for three days? So the whole thing defies logic. And the fact that this keeps on getting churned out, frankly, has a lot to do with political motivations.... They've used it for fund-raising."

Must have been an extremely important 3 days, eh Saints?

Ok let's keep in mind this is the President, as he does, defining what is important and what's not and then also declaring it a three day window. To me this sounds like a bit of a crawfish walk here, going sideways.

Again - what about the UN speech, two weeks later? Where in that speech does Obama distinguish events in Libya from the main body of what he is discussing which involves the video and democracy?

And Obama decrying the use of events for fund raising? C'mon, get in line.

I think it's funny he does not bring up a far more valid point, and that is, wouldn't it have been much more valuable politically for the president to declare this terrorism and get the country behind him? To me that's the weakpoint in the argument that the discussion was internally rigged.

The country isn't behind him when talking about the deaths of 4 civil servants unless the president calls it terrorism? WTF?

That's not what I said.

I am saying that when the nation is attacked by foreign forces or by terrorism the nation rallies round the flag and supports the president more than ever. Purposefully turning this thing into a youtube video protest, as opposed to a terrorist attack, would lose a lot of impact behind potential growth in political support for a president running for reelection.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

My house was under attack the other day.. Yea, one of the neighbor kids 'breached' my fence and stole a football..

 

[eurotrashman]

Obama appeared eager to resolve the matter once and for all. This is a little long, but it's worth your time:"The whole issue of talking points, frankly, throughout this process has been a sideshow....[T]he emails that you allude to were provided by us to congressional committees. They reviewed them several months ago, concluded that in fact there was nothing afoul in terms of the process that we had used. And suddenly, three days ago, this gets spun up as if there's something new to the story. There's no 'there' there."Keep in mind, by the way, these so-called talking points that were prepared for Susan Rice five, six days after the event occurred, pretty much matched the assessments that I was receiving at that time in my presidential daily briefing. And keep in mind that two to three days after Susan Rice appeared on the Sunday shows using these talking points, which have been the source of all this controversy, I sent up the head of our National Counterterrorism Center, Matt Olsen, up to Capitol Hill, and specifically said it was an act of terrorism and that extremist elements inside of Libya had been involved in it."So if this was some effort on our part to try to downplay what had happened or tamp it down, that would be a pretty odd thing that three days later we end up putting out all the information that in fact has now served as the basis for everybody recognizing that this was a terrorist attack and that it may have included elements that were planned by extremists inside of Libya."Who executes some sort of cover-up or effort to tamp things down for three days? So the whole thing defies logic. And the fact that this keeps on getting churned out, frankly, has a lot to do with political motivations.... They've used it for fund-raising."

Must have been an extremely important 3 days, eh Saints?

Ok let's keep in mind this is the President, as he does, defining what is important and what's not and then also declaring it a three day window. To me this sounds like a bit of a crawfish walk here, going sideways. Again - what about the UN speech, two weeks later? Where in that speech does Obama distinguish events in Libya from the main body of what he is discussing which involves the video and democracy? And Obama decrying the use of events for fund raising? C'mon, get in line. I think it's funny he does not bring up a far more valid point, and that is, wouldn't it have been much more valuable politically for the president to declare this terrorism and get the country behind him? To me that's the weakpoint in the argument that the discussion was internally rigged.

The country isn't behind him when talking about the deaths of 4 civil servants unless the president calls it terrorism? WTF?

That's not what I said. I am saying that when the nation is attacked by foreign forces or by terrorism the nation rallies round the flag and supports the president more than ever. Purposefully turning this thing into a youtube video protest, as opposed to a terrorist attack, would lose a lot of impact behind potential growth in political support for a president running for reelection.

Sure thing.

 

[tommyGunZ]

My house was under attack the other day.. Yea, one of the neighbor kids 'breached' my fence and stole a football..

Did it look like this?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Shift gears again Hustler, you can do it!

You post links that prove my point... LOL

That there WAS attacks in Egypt, on the embassy.

Good point. Headline and all.

taking a flag was an attack?

All that matters is how the public perception was, and all the media was reporting it as an attack.

 

[jamny]

any update of finding the people responsible?

 

[sporthenry]

My house was under attack the other day.. Yea, one of the neighbor kids 'breached' my fence and stole a football..

Did it look like this?

The guy just compared breaching an embassy to kids jumping over his fence. Apparently breaching an embassy is just fine by him. What about breaching the White House fence? Is that harmless as well? If so, I suggest you do it and see how it works out for ya.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Obama appeared eager to resolve the matter once and for all. This is a little long, but it's worth your time:

"The whole issue of talking points, frankly, throughout this process has been a sideshow....[T]he emails that you allude to were provided by us to congressional committees. They reviewed them several months ago, concluded that in fact there was nothing afoul in terms of the process that we had used. And suddenly, three days ago, this gets spun up as if there's something new to the story. There's no 'there' there.

"Keep in mind, by the way, these so-called talking points that were prepared for Susan Rice five, six days after the event occurred, pretty much matched the assessments that I was receiving at that time in my presidential daily briefing. And keep in mind that two to three days after Susan Rice appeared on the Sunday shows using these talking points, which have been the source of all this controversy, I sent up the head of our National Counterterrorism Center, Matt Olsen, up to Capitol Hill, and specifically said it was an act of terrorism and that extremist elements inside of Libya had been involved in it.

"So if this was some effort on our part to try to downplay what had happened or tamp it down, that would be a pretty odd thing that three days later we end up putting out all the information that in fact has now served as the basis for everybody recognizing that this was a terrorist attack and that it may have included elements that were planned by extremists inside of Libya.

"Who executes some sort of cover-up or effort to tamp things down for three days? So the whole thing defies logic. And the fact that this keeps on getting churned out, frankly, has a lot to do with political motivations.... They've used it for fund-raising."

Must have been an extremely important 3 days, eh Saints?

One other thing on this. He is still doing it.

The day after it happened, I acknowledged that this was an act of terrorism.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/05/13/remarks-president-obama-and-prime-minister-cameron-united-kingdom-joint-

Actually, none of this makes any sense because this is what he said in the Rose Garden on 9/11/12:

While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2012/09/12/president-obama-speaks-attack-benghazi#transcript

That makes ZERO sense if this was an act of terrorism.

He's still doing it.

Why?

 

[Mr Two Cents]

What a liar he is, go back and listen to his speech in the Rose Garden. POS

He is not going to enjoy his 2nd term, his legacy will be one of disgrace, lies and coverups.

Because of him you will not see another black president in your lifetime, it will take that long to wash the stink of Obama off.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

black

oh snap.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

any update of finding the people responsible?

Yep, 50 people arrested.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

any update of finding the people responsible?

Yep, 50 people arrested.

This article you have linked is from around September 16th?

In an interview for "Face the Nation" Sunday, President Mohamed Magariaf also said that evidence "leaves us with no doubt" that the attack was pre-planned.

"It was planned, definitely, it was planned by foreigners, by people who entered the country a few months ago, and they were planning this criminal act since their arrival," he told Bob Schieffer.

On the same program, however, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice said the U.S. has no evidence proving that the attacks in Benghazi were premeditated.

"We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned," Rice told Schiefffer. She added that the U.S. will "want to see the results of that investigation to draw any definitive conclusions.

"Based on the best information we have to date," Rice said, "spontaneous protests" began outside the Benghazi consulate after demonstrations erupted in Cairo about a anti-Islam movie trailer.

Do you kind of see the conflict here?

They're on the same damn show and Rice is like

And how in the heck does Obama still to this day claim he was saying it was terrorism on 9/11 when a few days later Rice is out on national tv maintaining it's a stupid video?

 

[FlapJacks]

My house was under attack the other day.. Yea, one of the neighbor kids 'breached' my fence and stole a football..

Was there a police investigation? Somebody broke into my neighbor's hpouse and stole a bunch of stuff and the police investigated. How can you have an invstigation for one and not the other?

 

[tommyboy]

this thread reminds me of Benghazi, a gigantic cluster####

 

[Todd Andrews]

Now, people may forget that Obama was the first modern president to gain reelection after losing votes and electors from the first election. It wasn't super close but it wasn't a blowout either. Things were very much in doubt when all this was going on too. And the Obama team has been sensitive about terrorism and defense since pre-2008 campaigning. This feels like a knee-jerk reaction by the political team

Not really, but I'm not surprised you think the election was close since it's obvious you get your news from the same folks who were predicting a Romney landslide on election day.

Well to me 51-47 is pretty close, and FLA, VA, IN, and other states were still in play. FLA finished 49.9-49.03%. This was a narrower win than 2008 that's for sure, I don't know the last time a president lost votes and electoral votes and still pulled out a win for reelection, it's been a long, long time.

Romney was SO close. If only America had understood his magical message better.....

 

[3C's]

any update of finding the people responsible?

that not why we're here.

by "we're" I mean the GOP.

 

[3C's]

Now, people may forget that Obama was the first modern president to gain reelection after losing votes and electors from the first election. It wasn't super close but it wasn't a blowout either. Things were very much in doubt when all this was going on too. And the Obama team has been sensitive about terrorism and defense since pre-2008 campaigning. This feels like a knee-jerk reaction by the political team

Not really, but I'm not surprised you think the election was close since it's obvious you get your news from the same folks who were predicting a Romney landslide on election day.

Well to me 51-47 is pretty close, and FLA, VA, IN, and other states were still in play. FLA finished 49.9-49.03%. This was a narrower win than 2008 that's for sure, I don't know the last time a president lost votes and electoral votes and still pulled out a win for reelection, it's been a long, long time.

Nate Silver, you know the guy who had this nailed the whole time, had it at an 80% chance of an Obama win on Sept 11 with a forecast of 314 electoral votes for Obama. Close indeed.

 

[pittstownkiller]

Obama appeared eager to resolve the matter once and for all. This is a little long, but it's worth your time:

"The whole issue of talking points, frankly, throughout this process has been a sideshow....[T]he emails that you allude to were provided by us to congressional committees. They reviewed them several months ago, concluded that in fact there was nothing afoul in terms of the process that we had used. And suddenly, three days ago, this gets spun up as if there's something new to the story. There's no 'there' there.

"Keep in mind, by the way, these so-called talking points that were prepared for Susan Rice five, six days after the event occurred, pretty much matched the assessments that I was receiving at that time in my presidential daily briefing. And keep in mind that two to three days after Susan Rice appeared on the Sunday shows using these talking points, which have been the source of all this controversy, I sent up the head of our National Counterterrorism Center, Matt Olsen, up to Capitol Hill, and specifically said it was an act of terrorism and that extremist elements inside of Libya had been involved in it.

"So if this was some effort on our part to try to downplay what had happened or tamp it down, that would be a pretty odd thing that three days later we end up putting out all the information that in fact has now served as the basis for everybody recognizing that this was a terrorist attack and that it may have included elements that were planned by extremists inside of Libya.

"Who executes some sort of cover-up or effort to tamp things down for three days? So the whole thing defies logic. And the fact that this keeps on getting churned out, frankly, has a lot to do with political motivations.... They've used it for fund-raising."

Must have been an extremely important 3 days, eh Saints?

One other thing on this. He is still doing it.

The day after it happened, I acknowledged that this was an act of terrorism.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/05/13/remarks-president-obama-and-prime-minister-cameron-united-kingdom-joint-

Actually, none of this makes any sense because this is what he said in the Rose Garden on 9/11/12:

While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2012/09/12/president-obama-speaks-attack-benghazi#transcript

That makes ZERO sense if this was an act of terrorism.

He's still doing it.

Why?

Because we just can't get the message to Al-Qaeda that we really do respect all religion; once they get this message there will be peace. :cuedoves:

 

[tommyboy]

our president, still lying today:

With respect to Benghazi, we’ve now seen this argument that’s been made by some folks primarily up on Capitol Hill for months now. And I’ve just got to say — here’s what we know. Americans died in Benghazi. What we also know is clearly they were not in a position where they were adequately protected. The day after it happened, I acknowledged that this was an act of terrorism.

no you didn't, you did every thing humanly possible not to call it terrorism, and obliquely referrred to "acts of terror" in the context of 9/11/01 at the very end of your speech in the Rose Garden.

The whole issue of talking points, frankly, throughout this process has been a sideshow. What we have been very clear about throughout was that immediately after this event happened we were not clear who exactly had carried it out, how it had occurred, what the motivations were. It happened at the same time as we had seen attacks on U.S. embassies in Cairo as a consequence of this film. And nobody understood exactly what was taking place during the course of those first few days.

You might not have been clear, but I was, and I'm just a dude with a computer: http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=655857&page=11#entry14759129

note, i posted that on Sep 13.

Regardless, you knew immediately that it was an attack, an armed and deadly attack, you knew who was involved because CIA and State both had that information, in real time. To claim ignorance now at this late date is just more lying. Just stop.

 

[Todd Andrews]

our president, still lying today:

With respect to Benghazi, we’ve now seen this argument that’s been made by some folks primarily up on Capitol Hill for months now. And I’ve just got to say — here’s what we know. Americans died in Benghazi. What we also know is clearly they were not in a position where they were adequately protected. The day after it happened, I acknowledged that this was an act of terrorism.

no you didn't, you did every thing humanly possible not to call it terrorism, and obliquely referrred to "acts of terror" in the context of 9/11/01 at the very end of your speech in the Rose Garden.

>The whole issue of talking points, frankly, throughout this process has been a sideshow. What we have been very clear about throughout was that immediately after this event happened we were not clear who exactly had carried it out, how it had occurred, what the motivations were. It happened at the same time as we had seen attacks on U.S. embassies in Cairo as a consequence of this film. And nobody understood exactly what was taking place during the course of those first few days.

You might not have been clear, but I was, and I'm just a dude with a computer: http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=655857&page=11#entry14759129

note, i posted that on Sep 13.

Regardless, you knew immediately that it was an attack, an armed and deadly attack, you knew who was involved because CIA and State both had that information, in real time. To claim ignorance now at this late date is just more lying. Just stop.

It must sting deep in your soft little heart to find out politicians dont always tell the entire exact truth.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Now, people may forget that Obama was the first modern president to gain reelection after losing votes and electors from the first election. It wasn't super close but it wasn't a blowout either. Things were very much in doubt when all this was going on too. And the Obama team has been sensitive about terrorism and defense since pre-2008 campaigning. This feels like a knee-jerk reaction by the political team

Not really, but I'm not surprised you think the election was close since it's obvious you get your news from the same folks who were predicting a Romney landslide on election day.

Well to me 51-47 is pretty close, and FLA, VA, IN, and other states were still in play. FLA finished 49.9-49.03%. This was a narrower win than 2008 that's for sure, I don't know the last time a president lost votes and electoral votes and still pulled out a win for reelection, it's been a long, long time.

Nate Silver, you know the guy who had this nailed the whole time, had it at an 80% chance of an Obama win on Sept 11 with a forecast of 314 electoral votes for Obama. Close indeed.

No doubting Silver had it called all the way. If Obama wasn't worried about the election at all then that's a reason to believe Obama.

Obama and his team were never worried about the election? It was a sure thing the whole way and Obama made no purely political decisions because he had it all locked up?

The immigration Executive Order could have been walked out any time, any year, Team Obama felt that was just gravy I suppose.

Ok. Watergate happened and that was one of the biggest blowouts in USA electoral history, so Nixon had far less incentive to get messed up with a bungled amateur hour burglary attempt .... but Nixon was a paranoid control freak and this is just one cool guy we have in office right now I guess.

 

[pantherclub]

Now, people may forget that Obama was the first modern president to gain reelection after losing votes and electors from the first election. It wasn't super close but it wasn't a blowout either. Things were very much in doubt when all this was going on too. And the Obama team has been sensitive about terrorism and defense since pre-2008 campaigning. This feels like a knee-jerk reaction by the political team

Not really, but I'm not surprised you think the election was close since it's obvious you get your news from the same folks who were predicting a Romney landslide on election day.

Well to me 51-47 is pretty close, and FLA, VA, IN, and other states were still in play. FLA finished 49.9-49.03%. This was a narrower win than 2008 that's for sure, I don't know the last time a president lost votes and electoral votes and still pulled out a win for reelection, it's been a long, long time.

Nate Silver, you know the guy who had this nailed the whole time, had it at an 80% chance of an Obama win on Sept 11 with a forecast of 314 electoral votes for Obama. Close indeed.

No doubting Silver had it called all the way. If Obama wasn't worried about the election at all then that's a reason to believe Obama.

Obama and his team were never worried about the election? It was a sure thing the whole way and Obama made no purely political decisions because he had it all locked up?

The immigration Executive Order could have been walked out any time, any year, Team Obama felt that was just gravy I suppose.

Ok. Watergate happened and that was one of the biggest blowouts in USA electoral history, so Nixon had far less incentive to get messed up with a bungled amateur hour burglary attempt .... but Nixon was a paranoid control freak and this is just one cool guy we have in office right now I guess.

now you are just rambling

 

[3C's]

Now, people may forget that Obama was the first modern president to gain reelection after losing votes and electors from the first election. It wasn't super close but it wasn't a blowout either. Things were very much in doubt when all this was going on too. And the Obama team has been sensitive about terrorism and defense since pre-2008 campaigning. This feels like a knee-jerk reaction by the political team

Not really, but I'm not surprised you think the election was close since it's obvious you get your news from the same folks who were predicting a Romney landslide on election day.

Well to me 51-47 is pretty close, and FLA, VA, IN, and other states were still in play. FLA finished 49.9-49.03%. This was a narrower win than 2008 that's for sure, I don't know the last time a president lost votes and electoral votes and still pulled out a win for reelection, it's been a long, long time.

Nate Silver, you know the guy who had this nailed the whole time, had it at an 80% chance of an Obama win on Sept 11 with a forecast of 314 electoral votes for Obama. Close indeed.

No doubting Silver had it called all the way. If Obama wasn't worried about the election at all then that's a reason to believe Obama.

Obama and his team were never worried about the election? It was a sure thing the whole way and Obama made no purely political decisions because he had it all locked up?

The immigration Executive Order could have been walked out any time, any year, Team Obama felt that was just gravy I suppose.

Ok. Watergate happened and that was one of the biggest blowouts in USA electoral history, so Nixon had far less incentive to get messed up with a bungled amateur hour burglary attempt .... but Nixon was a paranoid control freak and this is just one cool guy we have in office right now I guess.

now you are just rambling

yeah, pretty much. I post that, contrary to his belief, the election didn't look close on the 11th and we get this.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Now, people may forget that Obama was the first modern president to gain reelection after losing votes and electors from the first election. It wasn't super close but it wasn't a blowout either. Things were very much in doubt when all this was going on too. And the Obama team has been sensitive about terrorism and defense since pre-2008 campaigning. This feels like a knee-jerk reaction by the political team

Not really, but I'm not surprised you think the election was close since it's obvious you get your news from the same folks who were predicting a Romney landslide on election day.

Well to me 51-47 is pretty close, and FLA, VA, IN, and other states were still in play. FLA finished 49.9-49.03%. This was a narrower win than 2008 that's for sure, I don't know the last time a president lost votes and electoral votes and still pulled out a win for reelection, it's been a long, long time.

Nate Silver, you know the guy who had this nailed the whole time, had it at an 80% chance of an Obama win on Sept 11 with a forecast of 314 electoral votes for Obama. Close indeed.

No doubting Silver had it called all the way. If Obama wasn't worried about the election at all then that's a reason to believe Obama.

Obama and his team were never worried about the election? It was a sure thing the whole way and Obama made no purely political decisions because he had it all locked up?

The immigration Executive Order could have been walked out any time, any year, Team Obama felt that was just gravy I suppose.

Ok. Watergate happened and that was one of the biggest blowouts in USA electoral history, so Nixon had far less incentive to get messed up with a bungled amateur hour burglary attempt .... but Nixon was a paranoid control freak and this is just one cool guy we have in office right now I guess.

now you are just rambling

yeah, pretty much. I post that, contrary to his belief, the election didn't look close on the 11th and we get this.

Whew, tough crowd. Let me shorten it.

If you're right that the election was never close, and you know that Obama and his team never ever thought that no matter what the GOP could have had a reasonable shot at winning it, then this whole thing is moot.

How's that.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Now, people may forget that Obama was the first modern president to gain reelection after losing votes and electors from the first election. It wasn't super close but it wasn't a blowout either. Things were very much in doubt when all this was going on too. And the Obama team has been sensitive about terrorism and defense since pre-2008 campaigning. This feels like a knee-jerk reaction by the political team

Not really, but I'm not surprised you think the election was close since it's obvious you get your news from the same folks who were predicting a Romney landslide on election day.

Well to me 51-47 is pretty close, and FLA, VA, IN, and other states were still in play. FLA finished 49.9-49.03%. This was a narrower win than 2008 that's for sure, I don't know the last time a president lost votes and electoral votes and still pulled out a win for reelection, it's been a long, long time.

Nate Silver, you know the guy who had this nailed the whole time, had it at an 80% chance of an Obama win on Sept 11 with a forecast of 314 electoral votes for Obama. Close indeed.

No doubting Silver had it called all the way. If Obama wasn't worried about the election at all then that's a reason to believe Obama.

Obama and his team were never worried about the election? It was a sure thing the whole way and Obama made no purely political decisions because he had it all locked up?

The immigration Executive Order could have been walked out any time, any year, Team Obama felt that was just gravy I suppose.

Ok. Watergate happened and that was one of the biggest blowouts in USA electoral history, so Nixon had far less incentive to get messed up with a bungled amateur hour burglary attempt .... but Nixon was a paranoid control freak and this is just one cool guy we have in office right now I guess.

now you are just rambling

yeah, pretty much. I post that, contrary to his belief, the election didn't look close on the 11th and we get this.

Whew, tough crowd. Let me shorten it.

If you're right that the election was never close, and you know that Obama and his team never ever thought that no matter what the GOP could have had a reasonable shot at winning it, then this whole thing is moot.

How's that.

Um, pretty dumb?

 

[pantherclub]

Now, people may forget that Obama was the first modern president to gain reelection after losing votes and electors from the first election. It wasn't super close but it wasn't a blowout either. Things were very much in doubt when all this was going on too. And the Obama team has been sensitive about terrorism and defense since pre-2008 campaigning. This feels like a knee-jerk reaction by the political team

Not really, but I'm not surprised you think the election was close since it's obvious you get your news from the same folks who were predicting a Romney landslide on election day.

Well to me 51-47 is pretty close, and FLA, VA, IN, and other states were still in play. FLA finished 49.9-49.03%. This was a narrower win than 2008 that's for sure, I don't know the last time a president lost votes and electoral votes and still pulled out a win for reelection, it's been a long, long time.

Nate Silver, you know the guy who had this nailed the whole time, had it at an 80% chance of an Obama win on Sept 11 with a forecast of 314 electoral votes for Obama. Close indeed.

No doubting Silver had it called all the way. If Obama wasn't worried about the election at all then that's a reason to believe Obama.

Obama and his team were never worried about the election? It was a sure thing the whole way and Obama made no purely political decisions because he had it all locked up?

The immigration Executive Order could have been walked out any time, any year, Team Obama felt that was just gravy I suppose.

Ok. Watergate happened and that was one of the biggest blowouts in USA electoral history, so Nixon had far less incentive to get messed up with a bungled amateur hour burglary attempt .... but Nixon was a paranoid control freak and this is just one cool guy we have in office right now I guess.

now you are just rambling

yeah, pretty much. I post that, contrary to his belief, the election didn't look close on the 11th and we get this.

Whew, tough crowd. Let me shorten it.

If you're right that the election was never close, and you know that Obama and his team never ever thought that no matter what the GOP could have had a reasonable shot at winning it, then this whole thing is moot.

How's that.

that doesnt help you

 

[jamny]

any update of finding the people responsible?

Yep, 50 people arrested.

What has become of these 50 people since? Has the US had the ability to interrogate them?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

any update of finding the people responsible?

Yep, 50 people arrested.

What has become of these 50 people since? Has the US had the ability to interrogate them?

Hard to find much.

But here is something about one head of the group... now read the final line (this was April 2013)....

Libya: Suspect In US Consulate Attack Shot

The leader of an Islamic extremist militia in Libya, who is suspected of involvement in an attack in Benghazi that killed the US ambassador, has been shot.

According to security officials, Sufyan bin Qumu, a former Guantanamo Bay detainee and head of Ansar al Shariah, was shot on Sunday in the eastern city of Darna, a stronghold of Islamic extremists.

The official - who spoke anonymously - said he was taken to a nearby hospital and is in the intensive care unit.

The US mission in Benghazi was attacked with rocket-propelled grenades on the 11th anniversary of the September 11 attacks last year.

US Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed.

Protesters stormed the compound days later – in an apparent act of vengeance against an anti-Islamic film made the in the US.

No suspects have been named in the attack so far.

http://news.sky.com/story/1078367/libya-suspect-in-us-consulate-attack-shot

 

[RBM]

any update of finding the people responsible?

Yep, 50 people arrested.

What has become of these 50 people since? Has the US had the ability to interrogate them?

Hopefully held without rights and waterboarded.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

My house was under attack the other day.. Yea, one of the neighbor kids 'breached' my fence and stole a football..

Was there a police investigation? Somebody broke into my neighbor's hpouse and stole a bunch of stuff and the police investigated. How can you have an invstigation for one and not the other?

What?! Your neighbors were under attack too?! I wonder if a video was involved..

 

[Carolina Hustler]

My house was under attack the other day.. Yea, one of the neighbor kids 'breached' my fence and stole a football..

Did it look like this?

The guy just compared breaching an embassy kids in shorts and flip flops climbing over a wall to steal a flag to kids jumping over his fence. Apparently breaching an embassy climbing over a wall is just fine by him. What about breaching the White House fence? Is that harmless as well? If so, I suggest you do it and see how it works out for ya.

try all you want to make what happened in cairo out to be an "attack' where we "lost innocent lives"... Whether it was appropriate or not, whether it was a big deal or not, doesn't change the words being used..

I understand that if you can some how tie Cairo into Obama's speech about the video causing an attack at an embassy where innocent lives were lost, then you can further obscure the truth. But reality is, the embassy in Cairo was not under attack, and no one was killed..

"But But But.. But climbing over an embassy wall shouldn't be taken lightly" Yea, well as true as that statement may be, the embassy wasn't "under attack" and no "innocent lives lost"... In the incident Obama spoke about, that wasn't the case..

 

[Carolina Hustler]

My house was under attack the other day.. Yea, one of the neighbor kids 'breached' my fence and stole a football..

Did it look like this?

Yep, bunch of kids in shorts and flip flops... Some of them shirtless... Waiving flags and such...

And just like the incident captured in the picture, no one was attacked, and no one was killed..

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Shift gears again Hustler, you can do it!

You post links that prove my point... LOL

That there WAS attacks in Egypt, on the embassy.

Good point. Headline and all.

taking a flag was an attack?

All that matters is how the public perception was, and all the media was reporting it as an attack.

So now the president is less accountable with his information than a common news network.. Fantastic..

The media also called the attack in Benghazi an attack on an embassy... :BST's mind blown:

 

[timschochet]

All the problems in this country, and THIS is what some conservatives want to focus on. Just amazing.