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

[Stinger Ray]

Can't speak for Gunz, but Obama has certainly lied IMO on several occasions. That being said, I find him to be more truthful, as a general rule, than his predecessor.

Wait, what? Sure, you can call Bush 43 dumb, but a deliberate liar (to use your words)? I'm not seeing it on anywhere near the scale of the current administration.

The decision to invade Iraq was, by far, the most momentous decision of his Presidency, and IMO the most momentous decision of any Presidency since the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964. President Bush lied to the American people regarding his reasons for that invasion, and maintained that lie throughout the rest of his Presidency. That, in my mind, makes him the most dishonest President since Richard Nixon.

Tim, the NSA is at the root of the email instructing Rice what to say on the tv talk shows.

The Bush administration - and Senators like Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden and John Kerry - relied on CIA and NSA intelligence estimates in much the same way (though Hillary went the extra mile by offering her own insights and experience from her time as a wife in Bill Clinton's administration).

Regarding your first point, I don't know if that's true, but as I have repeated numerous times, it was quite reasonable to assume that the Benghazi attacks were tied to the video protest, and still is, IMO.

According to Jay Carney today...

"The connection between protests and video — and the video turned out not to be the case"

So it isn't reasonable to still think the attacks were tied to the video.

 

[tommyGunZ]

OK, we're just going to have to agree to disagree here. IMO, mentioning the Pastor on the email directly after Toria's statement is a clear indication that the Administration believed the video was responsible. They couldn't prove it, but that's what they thought. And if that's true, there was no deliberate intent to mislead the public.

You guys want to see it another way, fine. But that's how I see it.

And Pres. Obama personally kept repeating the line for 2 weeks after, why?

If it's so clear to you that the video played no role in the attack, why did the Senate Intelligence report on Benghazi, issued in January of this year, mention the video?

“It remains unclear if any group or person exercised overall command and control of the attacks or whether extremist group leaders directed their members to participate,” the report said. “Some intelligence suggests the attacks were likely put together in short order, following that day’s violent protests in Cairo against an inflammatory video.”

Is the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee still trying to support the 2012 Obama presidential campaign, 14 months after the election?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

OK, we're just going to have to agree to disagree here. IMO, mentioning the Pastor on the email directly after Toria's statement is a clear indication that the Administration believed the video was responsible. They couldn't prove it, but that's what they thought. And if that's true, there was no deliberate intent to mislead the public.

You guys want to see it another way, fine. But that's how I see it.

And Pres. Obama personally kept repeating the line for 2 weeks after, why?

If it's so clear to you that the video played no role in the attack, why did the Senate Intelligence report on Benghazi, issued in January of this year, mention the video?

“It remains unclear if any group or person exercised overall command and control of the attacks or whether extremist group leaders directed their members to participate,” the report said. “Some intelligence suggests the attacks were likely put together in short order, following that day’s violent protests in Cairo against an inflammatory video.”

Is the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee still trying to support the 2012 Obama presidential campaign, 14 months after the election?

I'll go back and look at that if I can find it.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

OK, we're just going to have to agree to disagree here. IMO, mentioning the Pastor on the email directly after Toria's statement is a clear indication that the Administration believed the video was responsible. They couldn't prove it, but that's what they thought. And if that's true, there was no deliberate intent to mislead the public.

You guys want to see it another way, fine. But that's how I see it.

And Pres. Obama personally kept repeating the line for 2 weeks after, why?

If it's so clear to you that the video played no role in the attack, why did the Senate Intelligence report on Benghazi, issued in January of this year, mention the video?

“It remains unclear if any group or person exercised overall command and control of the attacks or whether extremist group leaders directed their members to participate,” the report said. “Some intelligence suggests the attacks were likely put together in short order, following that day’s violent protests in Cairo against an inflammatory video.”

Is the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee still trying to support the 2012 Obama presidential campaign, 14 months after the election?

This is what it says:

Individuals affiliated with terrorist groups, including AQIM, Ansar al-Sharia,134 AQAP, and the Mohammad Jamal Network, participated in the September 11, 2012, attacks. Intelligence suggests that the attack was not a highly coordinated plot, but was opportunistic; however, well-armed attackers easily overwhelmed the Libyan security guards and the five U.S. Diplomatic Security agents present at the Temporary Mission Facility. It remains unclear if any group or person exercised overall command and control of the attacks or whether extremist group leaders directed their members to participate. Some intelligence suggests the attacks were likely put together in short order, following that day's violent protests in Cairo against an inflammatory video, suggesting that these and other terrorist groups could conduct similar attacks with little advance warning.

Page 40, bottom:

http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1005714/senate-intelligence-committee-report-on-benghazi.pdf

What that means is that they may have taken advantage of the timing of the video, and the fact that there had been protests elsewhere - and the fact that it was 9/11 anniversary by the way, though they don't mention that - but they clearly say it was terrorist elements who did it.

 

[tommyGunZ]

OK, we're just going to have to agree to disagree here. IMO, mentioning the Pastor on the email directly after Toria's statement is a clear indication that the Administration believed the video was responsible. They couldn't prove it, but that's what they thought. And if that's true, there was no deliberate intent to mislead the public.

You guys want to see it another way, fine. But that's how I see it.

And Pres. Obama personally kept repeating the line for 2 weeks after, why?

If it's so clear to you that the video played no role in the attack, why did the Senate Intelligence report on Benghazi, issued in January of this year, mention the video?

“It remains unclear if any group or person exercised overall command and control of the attacks or whether extremist group leaders directed their members to participate,” the report said. “Some intelligence suggests the attacks were likely put together in short order, following that day’s violent protests in Cairo against an inflammatory video.”

Is the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee still trying to support the 2012 Obama presidential campaign, 14 months after the election?

I'll go back and look at that if I can find it.

Link

The larger point is that the confusion after the attack is largely explained by fog of war reasons. Hell, getting the story straight from multiple sources a week after an auto accident is a miracle, much less something like this that happens on the other side of the world where we have a very small footprint and limited intelligence.

The idea that there would not be any confusion about this attack weeks afterward is beyond silly. People watch too many movies. We don't have video cameras and streaming mics on every person on the planet.

 

[Stinger Ray]

OK, we're just going to have to agree to disagree here. IMO, mentioning the Pastor on the email directly after Toria's statement is a clear indication that the Administration believed the video was responsible. They couldn't prove it, but that's what they thought. And if that's true, there was no deliberate intent to mislead the public.

You guys want to see it another way, fine. But that's how I see it.

And Pres. Obama personally kept repeating the line for 2 weeks after, why?

If it's so clear to you that the video played no role in the attack, why did the Senate Intelligence report on Benghazi, issued in January of this year, mention the video?

“It remains unclear if any group or person exercised overall command and control of the attacks or whether extremist group leaders directed their members to participate,” the report said. “Some intelligence suggests the attacks were likely put together in short order, following that day’s violent protests in Cairo against an inflammatory video.”

Is the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee still trying to support the 2012 Obama presidential campaign, 14 months after the election?

This also came from the report..

A long-delayed Senate Intelligence Committee report released Wednesday faulted both the State Department and the intelligence community for not preventing attacks on two outposts in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador, in 2012.

The report said that on Sept. 18, 2012, the “FBI and CIA reviewed the closed circuit television video from the Mission facility that showed there were no protests prior to the attacks.”

In the weeks leading up to the attacks, the CIA knew that conditions on the ground were worsening. In August, the agency alerted the intelligence community to Islamist training camps and militias in Benghazi. The agency said it was concerned about local militias providing security at U.S. facilities and about the outpost’s lack of defense.

 

[Stinger Ray]

OK, we're just going to have to agree to disagree here. IMO, mentioning the Pastor on the email directly after Toria's statement is a clear indication that the Administration believed the video was responsible. They couldn't prove it, but that's what they thought. And if that's true, there was no deliberate intent to mislead the public.

You guys want to see it another way, fine. But that's how I see it.

And Pres. Obama personally kept repeating the line for 2 weeks after, why?

If it's so clear to you that the video played no role in the attack, why did the Senate Intelligence report on Benghazi, issued in January of this year, mention the video?

“It remains unclear if any group or person exercised overall command and control of the attacks or whether extremist group leaders directed their members to participate,” the report said. “Some intelligence suggests the attacks were likely put together in short order, following that day’s violent protests in Cairo against an inflammatory video.”

Is the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee still trying to support the 2012 Obama presidential campaign, 14 months after the election?

I'll go back and look at that if I can find it.

Link

The larger point is that the confusion after the attack is largely explained by fog of war reasons. Hell, getting the story straight from multiple sources a week after an auto accident is a miracle, much less something like this that happens on the other side of the world where we have a very small footprint and limited intelligence.

The idea that there would not be any confusion about this attack weeks afterward is beyond silly. People watch too many movies. We don't have video cameras and streaming mics on every person on the planet.

The report said that on Sept. 18, 2012, the “FBI and CIA reviewed the closed circuit television video from the Mission facility that showed there were no protests prior to the attacks.”

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

OK, we're just going to have to agree to disagree here. IMO, mentioning the Pastor on the email directly after Toria's statement is a clear indication that the Administration believed the video was responsible. They couldn't prove it, but that's what they thought. And if that's true, there was no deliberate intent to mislead the public.

You guys want to see it another way, fine. But that's how I see it.

And Pres. Obama personally kept repeating the line for 2 weeks after, why?

If it's so clear to you that the video played no role in the attack, why did the Senate Intelligence report on Benghazi, issued in January of this year, mention the video?

“It remains unclear if any group or person exercised overall command and control of the attacks or whether extremist group leaders directed their members to participate,” the report said. “Some intelligence suggests the attacks were likely put together in short order, following that day’s violent protests in Cairo against an inflammatory video.”

Is the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee still trying to support the 2012 Obama presidential campaign, 14 months after the election?

I'll go back and look at that if I can find it.

Link

The larger point is that the confusion after the attack is largely explained by fog of war reasons. Hell, getting the story straight from multiple sources a week after an auto accident is a miracle, much less something like this that happens on the other side of the world where we have a very small footprint and limited intelligence.

The idea that there would not be any confusion about this attack weeks afterward is beyond silly. People watch too many movies. We don't have video cameras and streaming mics on every person on the planet.

I posted it above as well, but thanks for digging it up.

I agree about the fog of war issue, but it appears to me that no one in intelligence or on the ground was relying on any actual analysis to say that the video was to blame. The administration made that leap.

I'm thankful we left the words "campaign" and "conspiracy" out of this exchange, so thanks.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

OK, we're just going to have to agree to disagree here. IMO, mentioning the Pastor on the email directly after Toria's statement is a clear indication that the Administration believed the video was responsible. They couldn't prove it, but that's what they thought. And if that's true, there was no deliberate intent to mislead the public.

You guys want to see it another way, fine. But that's how I see it.

And Pres. Obama personally kept repeating the line for 2 weeks after, why?

If it's so clear to you that the video played no role in the attack, why did the Senate Intelligence report on Benghazi, issued in January of this year, mention the video?

“It remains unclear if any group or person exercised overall command and control of the attacks or whether extremist group leaders directed their members to participate,” the report said. “Some intelligence suggests the attacks were likely put together in short order, following that day’s violent protests in Cairo against an inflammatory video.”

Is the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee still trying to support the 2012 Obama presidential campaign, 14 months after the election?

I'll go back and look at that if I can find it.

Link

The larger point is that the confusion after the attack is largely explained by fog of war reasons. Hell, getting the story straight from multiple sources a week after an auto accident is a miracle, much less something like this that happens on the other side of the world where we have a very small footprint and limited intelligence.

The idea that there would not be any confusion about this attack weeks afterward is beyond silly. People watch too many movies. We don't have video cameras and streaming mics on every person on the planet.

The report said that on Sept. 18, 2012, the “FBI and CIA reviewed the closed circuit television video from the Mission facility that showed there were no protests prior to the attacks.”

This reinforces the point I made above.

This is what it says:

Quote

Individuals affiliated with terrorist groups, including AQIM, Ansar al-Sharia,134 AQAP, and the Mohammad Jamal Network, participated in the September 11, 2012, attacks. Intelligence suggests that the attack was not a highly coordinated plot, but was opportunistic; however, well-armed attackers easily overwhelmed the Libyan security guards and the five U.S. Diplomatic Security agents present at the Temporary Mission Facility. It remains unclear if any group or person exercised overall command and control of the attacks or whether extremist group leaders directed their members to participate. Some intelligence suggests the attacks were likely put together in short order, following that day's violent protests in Cairo against an inflammatory video, suggesting that these and other terrorist groups could conduct similar attacks with little advance warning.

Page 40, bottom:

http://s3.documentcl...on-benghazi.pdf

What that means is that they may have taken advantage of the timing of the video, and the fact that there had been protests elsewhere - and the fact that it was 9/11 anniversary by the way, though they don't mention that - but they clearly say it was terrorist elements who did it.

 

[tommyGunZ]

OK, we're just going to have to agree to disagree here. IMO, mentioning the Pastor on the email directly after Toria's statement is a clear indication that the Administration believed the video was responsible. They couldn't prove it, but that's what they thought. And if that's true, there was no deliberate intent to mislead the public.

You guys want to see it another way, fine. But that's how I see it.

And Pres. Obama personally kept repeating the line for 2 weeks after, why?

If it's so clear to you that the video played no role in the attack, why did the Senate Intelligence report on Benghazi, issued in January of this year, mention the video?

“It remains unclear if any group or person exercised overall command and control of the attacks or whether extremist group leaders directed their members to participate,” the report said. “Some intelligence suggests the attacks were likely put together in short order, following that day’s violent protests in Cairo against an inflammatory video.”

Is the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee still trying to support the 2012 Obama presidential campaign, 14 months after the election?

I'll go back and look at that if I can find it.

Link

The larger point is that the confusion after the attack is largely explained by fog of war reasons. Hell, getting the story straight from multiple sources a week after an auto accident is a miracle, much less something like this that happens on the other side of the world where we have a very small footprint and limited intelligence.

The idea that there would not be any confusion about this attack weeks afterward is beyond silly. People watch too many movies. We don't have video cameras and streaming mics on every person on the planet.

I posted it above as well, but thanks for digging it up.

I agree about the fog of war issue, but it appears to me that no one in intelligence or on the ground was relying on any actual analysis to say that the video was to blame. The administration made that leap.

I'm thankful we left the words "campaign" and "conspiracy" out of this exchange, so thanks.

So the intelligence community signed off on the talking points regarding the video, but you're saying that wasn't supported by anything and it was inserted by the White House?

That's counter to everything I've read.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

OK, we're just going to have to agree to disagree here. IMO, mentioning the Pastor on the email directly after Toria's statement is a clear indication that the Administration believed the video was responsible. They couldn't prove it, but that's what they thought. And if that's true, there was no deliberate intent to mislead the public.

You guys want to see it another way, fine. But that's how I see it.

And Pres. Obama personally kept repeating the line for 2 weeks after, why?

If it's so clear to you that the video played no role in the attack, why did the Senate Intelligence report on Benghazi, issued in January of this year, mention the video?

“It remains unclear if any group or person exercised overall command and control of the attacks or whether extremist group leaders directed their members to participate,” the report said. “Some intelligence suggests the attacks were likely put together in short order, following that day’s violent protests in Cairo against an inflammatory video.”

Is the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee still trying to support the 2012 Obama presidential campaign, 14 months after the election?

I'll go back and look at that if I can find it.

Link

The larger point is that the confusion after the attack is largely explained by fog of war reasons. Hell, getting the story straight from multiple sources a week after an auto accident is a miracle, much less something like this that happens on the other side of the world where we have a very small footprint and limited intelligence.

The idea that there would not be any confusion about this attack weeks afterward is beyond silly. People watch too many movies. We don't have video cameras and streaming mics on every person on the planet.

I posted it above as well, but thanks for digging it up.

I agree about the fog of war issue, but it appears to me that no one in intelligence or on the ground was relying on any actual analysis to say that the video was to blame. The administration made that leap.

I'm thankful we left the words "campaign" and "conspiracy" out of this exchange, so thanks.

So the intelligence community signed off on the talking points regarding the video, but you're saying that wasn't supported by anything and it was inserted by the White House?

That's counter to everything I've read.

Gunz - I looked at the email - Ben Rhodes from the NSA created the talking points; you can see the email, he starts out with a set of political goals and then proceeds to support them. No need for the administration to tweak it, it was already political.

As I've said the NSA & the CIA being politically involved is not good.

I don't put this down to conspiracy though, I put it down to incompetence because in the end none of what the administration was saying was based on actual analysis. The Senate report from 2012 bears that out.

 

[cstu]

Can't speak for Gunz, but Obama has certainly lied IMO on several occasions. That being said, I find him to be more truthful, as a general rule, than his predecessor.

Wait, what? Sure, you can call Bush 43 dumb, but a deliberate liar (to use your words)? I'm not seeing it on anywhere near the scale of the current administration.

The decision to invade Iraq was, by far, the most momentous decision of his Presidency, and IMO the most momentous decision of any Presidency since the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964. President Bush lied to the American people regarding his reasons for that invasion, and maintained that lie throughout the rest of his Presidency. That, in my mind, makes him the most dishonest President since Richard Nixon.

The facts are out there. There's no conspiracy - Bush did in fact look for every possible way to justify invading Iraq and ignored any evidence that questioned an invasion.

As far as 'lying' goes...no, he did not officially lie since he has no interest in determining if the information he was given was true or false. The truth did not matter - all he cared about was whether the information could be convincing.

 

[Dr Oadi]

what difference at this pointdoes it make!

 

[FlapJacks]

This is apparently the smoking gun:

In the email, Rhodes says Rice should “underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy."

He also says the White House hoped the appearance would “reinforce the president and administration's strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges."

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/204771-gop-lawmakers-smoking-gun-e-mails-show-benghazi-story-shaped#ixzz30Lh4E8JJ

Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

What has confused me from the beginning about this story is that I don't see anything unexpected from a political standpoint. Yes, the administration framed the story initially to appear that it wasn't a failure on their part but I wouldn't construe that as a cover up.

You don't think concocting a false narrative to cover up the truth about a failed policy for political reasons is a cover up?

If they knew for a fact at the time that it was a premeditated attack then it would be a cover up, but I don't believe they knew anything for sure. The administration made an initial statement that made them look good, but as information came out that it was in fact a planned attack they didn't try to hide that fact.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/12/world/africa/libya-attack-jihadists/

on 9/13 CNN was already reporting it as Al Qaeda

A pro-al Qaeda group responsible for a previous armed assault on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi is the chief suspect in Tuesday's attack that killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya, sources tracking militant Islamist groups in eastern Libya say.They also note that the attack immediately followed a call from al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri for revenge for the death in June of Abu Yahya al-Libi, a senior Libyan member of the terror group.

The group suspected to be behind the assault -- the Imprisoned Omar Abdul Rahman Brigades -- first surfaced in May when it claimed responsibility for an attack on the International Red Cross office in Benghazi. The following month the group claimed responsibility for detonating an explosive device outside the U.S. Consulate and later released a video of that attack.

Noman Benotman, once a leading member of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and now based at the Quilliam Foundation in London told CNN, "An attack like this would likely have required preparation. This would not seem to be merely a protest which escalated."

I'm sure they were also in touch with their people on the ground in Libya. When they were reporting mortar attacks and RPGs....I'm sure they were gathering intel for those peopleon any expected protests too...

cstu, ready to call it a coverup now?

 

[tommyGunZ]

This is apparently the smoking gun:

In the email, Rhodes says Rice should “underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy."

He also says the White House hoped the appearance would “reinforce the president and administration's strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges."

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/204771-gop-lawmakers-smoking-gun-e-mails-show-benghazi-story-shaped#ixzz30Lh4E8JJ

Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

What has confused me from the beginning about this story is that I don't see anything unexpected from a political standpoint. Yes, the administration framed the story initially to appear that it wasn't a failure on their part but I wouldn't construe that as a cover up.

You don't think concocting a false narrative to cover up the truth about a failed policy for political reasons is a cover up?

If they knew for a fact at the time that it was a premeditated attack then it would be a cover up, but I don't believe they knew anything for sure. The administration made an initial statement that made them look good, but as information came out that it was in fact a planned attack they didn't try to hide that fact.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/12/world/africa/libya-attack-jihadists/

on 9/13 CNN was already reporting it as Al Qaeda

A pro-al Qaeda group responsible for a previous armed assault on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi is the chief suspect in Tuesday's attack that killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya, sources tracking militant Islamist groups in eastern Libya say.

They also note that the attack immediately followed a call from al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri for revenge for the death in June of Abu Yahya al-Libi, a senior Libyan member of the terror group.

The group suspected to be behind the assault -- the Imprisoned Omar Abdul Rahman Brigades -- first surfaced in May when it claimed responsibility for an attack on the International Red Cross office in Benghazi. The following month the group claimed responsibility for detonating an explosive device outside the U.S. Consulate and later released a video of that attack.

Noman Benotman, once a leading member of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and now based at the Quilliam Foundation in London told CNN, "An attack like this would likely have required preparation. This would not seem to be merely a protest which escalated."

Guess the administration should have ignored the CIA, NSA, FBI, DoJ, et al and just taken CNN's word for it?

 

[FlapJacks]

This is apparently the smoking gun:

In the email, Rhodes says Rice should “underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy."

He also says the White House hoped the appearance would “reinforce the president and administration's strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges."

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/204771-gop-lawmakers-smoking-gun-e-mails-show-benghazi-story-shaped#ixzz30Lh4E8JJ

Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

What has confused me from the beginning about this story is that I don't see anything unexpected from a political standpoint. Yes, the administration framed the story initially to appear that it wasn't a failure on their part but I wouldn't construe that as a cover up.

You don't think concocting a false narrative to cover up the truth about a failed policy for political reasons is a cover up?

If they knew for a fact at the time that it was a premeditated attack then it would be a cover up, but I don't believe they knew anything for sure. The administration made an initial statement that made them look good, but as information came out that it was in fact a planned attack they didn't try to hide that fact.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/12/world/africa/libya-attack-jihadists/

on 9/13 CNN was already reporting it as Al Qaeda

A pro-al Qaeda group responsible for a previous armed assault on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi is the chief suspect in Tuesday's attack that killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya, sources tracking militant Islamist groups in eastern Libya say.

They also note that the attack immediately followed a call from al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri for revenge for the death in June of Abu Yahya al-Libi, a senior Libyan member of the terror group.

The group suspected to be behind the assault -- the Imprisoned Omar Abdul Rahman Brigades -- first surfaced in May when it claimed responsibility for an attack on the International Red Cross office in Benghazi. The following month the group claimed responsibility for detonating an explosive device outside the U.S. Consulate and later released a video of that attack.

Noman Benotman, once a leading member of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and now based at the Quilliam Foundation in London told CNN, "An attack like this would likely have required preparation. This would not seem to be merely a protest which escalated."

Guess the administration should have ignored the CIA, NSA, FBI, DoJ, et al and just taken CNN's word for it?

or maybe the word of the people who were actually there....

 

[FlapJacks]

The report said that on Sept. 18, 2012, the “FBI and CIA reviewed the closed circuit television video from the Mission facility that showed there were no protests prior to the attacks.”

oof

 

[FlapJacks]

As to your second point, there is much evidence that the Bush administration knew that there were no WMD's in Iraq, but this information was not given to the senators you mentioned. But in the very unlikely event that President Bush believed that there were WMDs, he still lied to the public, because that was not his motive for invasion.

wow, just wow

Were Clinton, Gore, Albright etc also lying?

what about Joe Wilson?

January 28, 2003: President George W. Bush delivered his State of the Union address.

February 6, 2003: Joe Wilson wrote an editorial for the Los Angeles Times, A ‘Big Cat’ With Nothing to Lose, in which he claimed we should not attack Saddam Hussein because he will use his weapons of mass destruction on our troops and give them to terrorists.

"There is now no incentive for Hussein to comply with the inspectors or to refrain from using weapons of mass destruction to defend himself if the United States comes after him.

And he will use them; we should be under no illusion about that."

February 28, 2003: Joe Wilson was interviewed by Bill Moyers. Wilson agreed with Bush’s SOTU remarks, and reiterated his belief that Saddam had WMD and that he would use them on US troops.

There is now no incentive for Hussein to comply with the inspectors or to refrain from using weapons of mass destruction to defend himself if the United States comes after him.

And he will use them; we should be under no illusion about that.

There is now no incentive for Hussein to comply with the inspectors or to refrain from using weapons of mass destruction to defend himself if the United States comes after him.

And he will use them; we should be under no illusion about that.

MOYERS: President Bush’s recent speech to the American Enterprise Institute, he said, let me quote it to you. "The danger posed by Saddam Hussein and his weapons cannot be ignored or wished away." You agree with that? WILSON: I agree with that. Sure.

MOYERS: "The danger must be confronted." You agree with that? "We would hope that the Iraqi regime will meet the demands of the United Nations and disarm fully and peacefully. If it does not, we are prepared to disarm Iraq by force. Either way, this danger will be removed. The safety of the American people depends on ending this direct and growing threat." You agree with that?

WILSON: I agree with that. Sure. The President goes on to say in that speech as he did in the State of the Union Address is we will liberate Iraq from a brutal dictator. All of which is true. But the only thing Saddam Hussein hears in this speech or the State of the Union Address is, "He’s coming to kill me. He doesn’t care if I have weapons of mass destruction or not. His objective is to come and overthrow my regime and to kill me." And that then does not provide any incentive whatsoever to disarm.

were all of these people making it up?

What about Saddam playing games with weapons inspectors for the better part of his second term? Bombing campaigns, Sanctions...did we apply sanctions, which hurt the poor and children the most, knowing that Saddam didn;t have WMD?

Was the New York Times lying with headlines like "Iraq Has Network of Outside Help on Arms, Experts Say"(November 1998), "U.S. Says Iraq Aided Production of Chemical Weapons in Sudan"(August 1998), "Iraq Suspected of Secret Germ War Effort" (February 2000), "Signs of Iraqi Arms Buildup Bedevil U.S. Administration" (February 2000), "Flight Tests Show Iraq Has Resumed a Missile Program" (July 2000).?

 

[drummer]

HELP. I AM IN A VIOLENT COUNTRY. I SHOULD BE IN TRIPOLI, BUT IT'S TOO LATE NOW. PLEASE SEND AN AIRSTRIKE. I AM A US AMBASSADOR WHO DOESN'T KNOW THE LAWS OF A DECLARATION OF WAR. I TOOK THE JOB BECAUSE IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE GLAMOROUS. LITTLE DID I KNOW THAT I ACTUALLY NEEDED TO KNOW WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON HERE. WHO TOLD ME BENGHAZI WAS DANGEROUS, AND WHERE ARE THE GUARDS?

 

[Dr Oadi]

HELP. I AM IN A VIOLENT COUNTRY. I SHOULD BE IN TRIPOLI, BUT IT'S TOO LATE NOW. PLEASE SEND AN AIRSTRIKE. I AM A US AMBASSADOR WHO DOESN'T KNOW THE LAWS OF A DECLARATION OF WAR. I TOOK THE JOB BECAUSE IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE GLAMOROUS. LITTLE DID I KNOW THAT I ACTUALLY NEEDED TO KNOW WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON HERE. WHO TOLD ME BENGHAZI WAS DANGEROUS, AND WHERE ARE THE GUARDS?

Blame the victim?

 

[drummer]

HELP. I AM IN A VIOLENT COUNTRY. I SHOULD BE IN TRIPOLI, BUT IT'S TOO LATE NOW. PLEASE SEND AN AIRSTRIKE. I AM A US AMBASSADOR WHO DOESN'T KNOW THE LAWS OF A DECLARATION OF WAR. I TOOK THE JOB BECAUSE IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE GLAMOROUS. LITTLE DID I KNOW THAT I ACTUALLY NEEDED TO KNOW WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON HERE. WHO TOLD ME BENGHAZI WAS DANGEROUS, AND WHERE ARE THE GUARDS?

Blame the victim?

Go to Benghazi right now. If you wind up being dead, then who is to blame now?

Hell, just go to Mexico in cartel country. BUT WE NEED TO SAVE DR. OADI! No we don't. He is an idiot.

 

[ArbyMelt]

Dude, this was like 2 years ago

 

[Ookie Pringle]

HELP. I AM IN A VIOLENT COUNTRY. I SHOULD BE IN TRIPOLI, BUT IT'S TOO LATE NOW. PLEASE SEND AN AIRSTRIKE. I AM A US AMBASSADOR WHO DOESN'T KNOW THE LAWS OF A DECLARATION OF WAR. I TOOK THE JOB BECAUSE IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE GLAMOROUS. LITTLE DID I KNOW THAT I ACTUALLY NEEDED TO KNOW WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON HERE. WHO TOLD ME BENGHAZI WAS DANGEROUS, AND WHERE ARE THE GUARDS?

One of the worst posts ever.

 

[timschochet]

HELP. I AM IN A VIOLENT COUNTRY. I SHOULD BE IN TRIPOLI, BUT IT'S TOO LATE NOW. PLEASE SEND AN AIRSTRIKE. I AM A US AMBASSADOR WHO DOESN'T KNOW THE LAWS OF A DECLARATION OF WAR. I TOOK THE JOB BECAUSE IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE GLAMOROUS. LITTLE DID I KNOW THAT I ACTUALLY NEEDED TO KNOW WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON HERE. WHO TOLD ME BENGHAZI WAS DANGEROUS, AND WHERE ARE THE GUARDS?

Yikes! Talk about bad taste. Oof.

 

[JuniorNB]

HELP. I AM IN A VIOLENT COUNTRY. I SHOULD BE IN TRIPOLI, BUT IT'S TOO LATE NOW. PLEASE SEND AN AIRSTRIKE. I AM A US AMBASSADOR WHO DOESN'T KNOW THE LAWS OF A DECLARATION OF WAR. I TOOK THE JOB BECAUSE IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE GLAMOROUS. LITTLE DID I KNOW THAT I ACTUALLY NEEDED TO KNOW WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON HERE. WHO TOLD ME BENGHAZI WAS DANGEROUS, AND WHERE ARE THE GUARDS?

Weren't you the guy whining to Joe about how the trolls around here are ruining the board? lol Classic.

 

[Bogeys]

HELP. I AM IN A VIOLENT COUNTRY. I SHOULD BE IN TRIPOLI, BUT IT'S TOO LATE NOW. PLEASE SEND AN AIRSTRIKE. I AM A US AMBASSADOR WHO DOESN'T KNOW THE LAWS OF A DECLARATION OF WAR. I TOOK THE JOB BECAUSE IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE GLAMOROUS. LITTLE DID I KNOW THAT I ACTUALLY NEEDED TO KNOW WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON HERE. WHO TOLD ME BENGHAZI WAS DANGEROUS, AND WHERE ARE THE GUARDS?

I really hope you are trolling because if not you are just a POS

 

[DocHolliday]

Just how much does Jay Carney get paid to lie on a daily basis?

 

[Aerial Assault]

If the news is good - ACA, jobs, housing - must be time to get back to BENNGAHZEEEE!!!! Pitiful.

 

[FlapJacks]

http://www.sharylattkisson.com/state-dept.-al-sharia-email--may-1--2014.html

A newly-released government email indicates that within hours of the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks on Americans in Benghazi, Libya; the State Department had already concluded with certainty that the Islamic militia terrorist group Ansar al Sharia was to blame.
________________________________________________________

Another State Department email sent at 5:55pm on Tues. Sept. 11, 2012, while the attacks were underway, includes a report that “the extremist group Ansar Al Sharia has taken credit for the attack in Benghazi” and that U.S. officials asked the offices of the [Libyan] President and [Prime Minister] to pursue Ansar al Sharia.” Four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, were killed in the Benghazi attacks.

ooooof

 

[JuniorNB]

If the news is good - ACA, jobs, housing - must be time to get back to BENNGAHZEEEE!!!! Pitiful.

B-I-N-G-O

 

[FlapJacks]

BRET BAIER: People on the ground testified that they knew where the ambassador was, that they were military in their precision. It was not guys coming to protest. They had mortars and heavy weapons.

TOMMY VIETOR: Bret, a couple of things. I was in the Situation Room that night, okay. We didn't know where the ambassador was definitively.

BAIER: Was the president in the Situation Room?

VIETOR: No. And the fact that your network at one time reported that he watched video feed of the attack as it was ongoing is part of what I think is a pattern of inaccurate --

BAIER: Where was the president?

VIETOR: In the White House. Let me finish my initial statement. The notion that we could, you know, divine motives from a drone feed I think is wrong. And I also think this idea that the military had the capability to rescue those individuals but chose not to is I think extremely unfair to the military. And Admiral Mullen said basically the opposite.

BAIER: In the ARB report.

VIETOR: Right.

BAIER: Where was the president?

VIETOR: In the White House.

BAIER: He wasn't in the Situation Room?

VIETOR: At what point in the evening?

BAIER: Any point in the evening.

VIETOR: It's well known that when the attack was first briefed to him it was in the Oval Office and he was updated constantly. And during that briefing he told Tom Donilon and his Joint Chiefs and Sec Def to begin moving all military assets into the region.

BAIER: So when Hillary Clinton talks to him at 10:00 p.m., he's where?

VIETOR: I don't know. I don't have a tracking device on him in the residence.

BAIER: But you were in the Situation Room and he wasn't there.

VIETOR: Yes, I was in the White House.

BAIER: And the president wasn't in the Situation Room?

VIETOR: Not in the room I was in. Let's just be clear. You don't have to be in the Situation Room to monitor an intelligence situation. The PDB is in the Oval Office.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/05/01/fmr_nsc_spokesman_tommy_vietor_obama_was_not_in_the_situation_room_during_benghazi_attack.html

 

[tommyGunZ]

Fox News wants the President to check in to four square every time he leaves one office for another?

 

[FlapJacks]

http://www.sharylattkisson.com/state-dept.-al-sharia-email--may-1--2014.html

A newly-released government email indicates that within hours of the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks on Americans in Benghazi, Libya; the State Department had already concluded with certainty that the Islamic militia terrorist group Ansar al Sharia was to blame.
________________________________________________________

Another State Department email sent at 5:55pm on Tues. Sept. 11, 2012, while the attacks were underway, includes a report that “the extremist group Ansar Al Sharia has taken credit for the attack in Benghazi” and that U.S. officials asked the offices of the [Libyan] President and [Prime Minister] to pursue Ansar al Sharia.” Four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, were killed in the Benghazi attacks.

ooooof

per accounts she tells a bereaved parent "we're going to get the guy that made that video"

:X

 

[pantagrapher]

House GOP leadership announce intention to form a special select committee on Benghazi

These guys.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

http://www.sharylattkisson.com/state-dept.-al-sharia-email--may-1--2014.html

A newly-released government email indicates that within hours of the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks on Americans in Benghazi, Libya; the State Department had already concluded with certainty that the Islamic militia terrorist group Ansar al Sharia was to blame.
________________________________________________________

Another State Department email sent at 5:55pm on Tues. Sept. 11, 2012, while the attacks were underway, includes a report that “the extremist group Ansar Al Sharia has taken credit for the attack in Benghazi” and that U.S. officials asked the offices of the [Libyan] President and [Prime Minister] to pursue Ansar al Sharia.” Four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, were killed in the Benghazi attacks.

ooooof

per accounts she tells a bereaved parent "we're going to get the guy that made that video"

:X

Interesting to see Sharyl Attkisson with her own site - she has come out and claimed that CBS - responding to pressure and an overall strategy from/by the administration - had been deflecting and tamping down her reporting on the Benghazi events at the network.

There is more than one way to publish and broadcast news and information these days.

http://www.sharylattkisson.com/benghazi.html

 

[Aerial Assault]

House GOP leadership announce intention to form a special select committee on Benghazi

These guys.

Yup. I'll take "What to do when your ACA memes have crumbled and you have nothing" for 500, Alex.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Fox News wants the President to check in to four square every time he leaves one office for another?

If you read it, apparently Fox actually gave the President the benefit of having been doing his job by being in the Situation Room, which he wasn't:

BAIER: Was the president in the Situation Room?

VIETOR: No. And the fact that your network at one time reported that he watched video feed of the attack as it was ongoing is part of what I think is a pattern of inaccurate --

 

[tommyGunZ]

Fox News wants the President to check in to four square every time he leaves one office for another?

If you read it, apparently Fox actually gave the President the benefit of having been doing his job by being in the Situation Room, which he wasn't:

BAIER: Was the president in the Situation Room?

VIETOR: No. And the fact that your network at one time reported that he watched video feed of the attack as it was ongoing is part of what I think is a pattern of inaccurate --

His job is to be physically present in a specific room?

 

[pantagrapher]

Now watch this drive.

 

[DocHolliday]

Everyone knows Obama was busy watching ESPN. Hilary was working on her campaign plans. No time for distractions like Americans being killed by terrorists.

 

[TobiasFunke]

House GOP leadership announce intention to form a special select committee on Benghazi

These guys.

Yup. I'll take "What to do when your ACA memes have crumbled and you have nothing" for 500, Alex.

Really surprised to see the GOP members admit defeat on the ACA this quickly and easily.

 

[Sand]

If the news is good - ACA, jobs, housing - must be time to get back to BENNGAHZEEEE!!!! Pitiful.

What good news? ACA still isn't affordable, the jobs report wasn't good at all, and housing has taken a disastrous dive this year.

This has come back due to the forcible release of new information.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

House GOP leadership announce intention to form a special select committee on Benghazi

These guys.

Yup. I'll take "What to do when your ACA memes have crumbled and you have nothing" for 500, Alex.

Really surprised to see the GOP members admit defeat on the ACA this quickly and easily.

Aren't they basing their whole Senate campaign on the ACA?

It's all I see in LA.

 

[TobiasFunke]

House GOP leadership announce intention to form a special select committee on Benghazi

These guys.

Yup. I'll take "What to do when your ACA memes have crumbled and you have nothing" for 500, Alex.

Really surprised to see the GOP members admit defeat on the ACA this quickly and easily.

Aren't they basing their whole Senate campaign on the ACA?

It's all I see in LA.

Sure seemed that way last week, but clearly something has made them go all BENGHAZI!!!!!! again. Since it's clearly not anything actually related to national security concerns, there must be some reason for it. Maybe it's the new jobs report that's made them all frantic?

 

[pantagrapher]

This investigation could stretch all the way into the Hillary Clinton presidency.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

House GOP leadership announce intention to form a special select committee on Benghazi

These guys.

Yup. I'll take "What to do when your ACA memes have crumbled and you have nothing" for 500, Alex.

Really surprised to see the GOP members admit defeat on the ACA this quickly and easily.

Aren't they basing their whole Senate campaign on the ACA?

It's all I see in LA.

Sure seemed that way last week, but clearly something has made them go all BENGHAZI!!!!!! again. Since it's clearly not anything actually related to national security concerns, there must be some reason for it. Maybe it's the new jobs report that's made them all frantic?

I dunno, I thought it was because Judicial Watch got the FOIA response back and it contained emails not included in the WH's response to Congress?

Anyway it is silly season, midterms are upon us, more games of gotcha await. I think the shrill tone of this thing hurts the GOP, I agree. I also agree on the timing, I didn't catch the jobs numbers (I take it they're good), and the mandate and the ACA run-up ended around tax time so something needs to fill the news cycle, so there's that too.

Will be heading to Jazz Fest myself, cheers.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Most transparent administration ever?

 

[timschochet]

Most transparent administration ever?

They probably are. You can't count any administrations prior to the Freedom of Information Act- ALL of them were more secretive. That leaves us Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama. All of these were accused by their enemies of not being transparent enough. All of them had congressional investigations, and in each case Congress complained that getting info was like pulling teeth.

We've seen this game played over and over. Nothing is ever proven, there is never a smoking gun, it's a circus that gets in the way of governance. Only the partisans that hate the President whoever he is seem to love this stuff; the rest of us are bored out of our minds and wish it would just go away. So ####### tiresome.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Most transparent administration ever?

They probably are.You can't count any administrations prior to the Freedom of Information Act- ALL of them were more secretive. That leaves us Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama. All of these were accused by their enemies of not being transparent enough. All of them had congressional investigations, and in each case Congress complained that getting info was like pulling teeth.

We've seen this game played over and over. Nothing is ever proven, there is never a smoking gun, it's a circus that gets in the way of governance. Only the partisans that hate the President whoever he is seem to love this stuff; the rest of us are bored out of our minds and wish it would just go away. So ####### tiresome.

You can't seriously believe this, Tim. Between Fast and Furious, Benghazi, the IRS Scandal they have been everything BUT transparent.

 

[GrandpaRox]

Most transparent administration ever?

They probably are.You can't count any administrations prior to the Freedom of Information Act- ALL of them were more secretive. That leaves us Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama. All of these were accused by their enemies of not being transparent enough. All of them had congressional investigations, and in each case Congress complained that getting info was like pulling teeth.

We've seen this game played over and over. Nothing is ever proven, there is never a smoking gun, it's a circus that gets in the way of governance. Only the partisans that hate the President whoever he is seem to love this stuff; the rest of us are bored out of our minds and wish it would just go away. So ####### tiresome.

You are a ####### moron.