White lightning Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 (edited) I will just say that you should check the facts. The highlighted statement is not factual if you are referring to the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. There was no protest, only an attack. The word initially is key as they were selling this story 5 days post the attack and beyond. Here is a decent timeline link. Obviously, it raises lots of questions of who actually knew what when but as information has evolved it is obvious the government had much more real time information than they let on. http://factcheck.org...ghazi-timeline/ I stand corrected about whether there was a "protest" outside of the Lybian embassy. Sorry about that. I must have mistook that for the Cairo protests. I also read the link you provided. What I took away from the timeline is that on Sept 12th "senior administration officials" briefed reporters and characterized the attackers as "extremists" and stated "with regard to whether there is any connection between the internet activity and this extremist attack in Benghazi, franky, we just don't know". Later that day Press Secretary Carney said it was "too early for us to make [a] judgment" if the attacks were premeditated. Over the next couple days there were statements that ranged from it's too early to tell, it's being investigated, and it was a planned attack but we had "no actionable intelligence" that an attack was imminent. On Sept. 16th there's no question that UN Ambassador Rice stepped in it by stating that the attack stemmed from a spontaneous protest. The administration then hedged by stating that Rice's comments "accurately reflect[ed] our governments initial assessment." In short, I don't understand the outrage? Is it because the administration mistakenly thought this stemmed from a protest? Is it because Clinton/Obama's statement condeming the video plays in to the whole "Obama is an apologist" school of thought? Edited October 30, 2012 by White lightning Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice1 Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 (edited) Actually, that was a real helpful link. Thanks for posting something with credible reference, rather than opinions of a radio program caller or spurious dialogue from family members about a situation. godtomsatan and Stevegrab, you are welcome. Edited October 30, 2012 by Ice1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice1 Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 I stand corrected about whether there was a "protest" outside of the Lybian embassy. Sorry about that. I must have mistook that for the Cairo protests. I also read the link you provided. What I took away from the timeline is that on Sept 12th "senior administration officials" briefed reporters and characterized the attackers as "extremists" and stated "with regard to whether there is any connection between the internet activity and this extremist attack in Benghazi, franky, we just don't know". Later that day Press Secretary Carney said it was "too early for us to make [a] judgment" if the attacks were premeditated. Over the next couple days there were statements that ranged from it's too early to tell, it's being investigated, and it was a planned attack but we had "no actionable intelligence" that an attack was imminent. On Sept. 16th there's no question that UN Ambassador Rice stepped in it by stating that the attack stemmed from a spontaneous protest. The administration then hedged by stating that Rice's comments "accurately reflect[ed] our governments initial assessment." In short, I don't understand the outrage? Is it because the administration mistakenly thought this stemmed from a protest? Is it because Clinton/Obama's statement condeming the video plays in to the whole "Obama is an apologist" school of thought? The outrage, in my view, is because of the position taken by so many that the Administration mistakenly thought...... Based on the timelines it looks as if they had plenty of information we know and most likely much more than we do not know, yet still chose to run with a story out of the Executive Branch that was not factual. No question all in the Executive Branch were selling the video big time including Obama who I believed mentioned this 6 times in his UN address. That video didn't deserve that coverage especially in a country founded on free speech to begin with from my perspective. No doubt that will fuel some of the Obama Apologist as you say thought process but that looks secondary to the WH positioning of this attack. What we all know or should know is a UN Ambassador doesn't go around to 5 shows or the Press Secretary doesn't do anything that is not cleared through the Executive Branch. That just doesn't happen and if it does under this Administration that is a serious problem. Many conclude this was ineptness, deflection, or a real coverup. None are good and this was avoidable by the Administration. No pass from the right and certainly if this happened to the right, no pass would be given by the left. Those are the facts. The Administration stepped in it for sure and answers have not been provided to date. Avoidance is obviously front and center so the questions are getting tougher daily and that will not stop. BTW, they would not have stopped if the election was two years from now either. That is how it always works even though many want to blame the election as the reason this is a big story. Timing is bad but it is what it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 Many conclude this was ineptness, deflection, or a real coverup. None are good and this was avoidable by the Administration. I get this, because everyone ought to have the same opinion about this. There was a haphazard and poor attempt at deflection, usually there is a reason for this and it makes some sense in the bigger picture. I would like to simply point out that I can disagree with an ideology, but that I can also understand a motivation behind a decision made for political purpose. As an example, as much as I may have had a terrible taste in my mouth after the Bush administrations response to Katrina, at least I understood that there was an ideological element involved in not committing federal resources right away. Regardless of whether I thought that was right or wrong. When you apply that sort of logic to this situation in Benghazi, I don't understand what the motivation is/was for the administration to tout the movie thing for so long, in the near immediate evidence available that this was a premeditated and planned attack. Seems to me that a quick and decisive response to the event gives an impression of a terrorist ass-kicking by Obama right before the elections. Even calling the event a surprise and admitting that they were caught off guard goes to show the need to be steadfast in their hunt for AQ in Pakistan and stablizing Afghanistan. So, why drag it out? What's the bigger picture here? Is it protecting the CIA's role in Libya? Or the broader role of the CIA in the Arab Spring? Getting out a different narrative to deflect the reality of who is calling the shots in North Africa? I'd at least buy in to the plausibility of that theory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice1 Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 (edited) So, why drag it out? What's the bigger picture here? Is it protecting the CIA's role in Libya? Personally, I think this may be a really big part of the slow walk going on. My guess is lots of weapons are involved and the public has already been through a gun scandal. Many would not understand a concept of getting weapons out of country into fighters hands in Syria. Obviously, just an opinion but a few stories have been leaking that makes on wonder. I also believe Romney may be dialed in to this to a degree given he has not been discussing the subject either from a micro perspective. I could be wrong on this opinion but this type of activity has been going on for endless decades so it wouldn't surprise me. If the are protecting the CIA they are not doing a very good job of it so far. Actually, it sounds like they are throwing them under the bus so to speak. Edited October 31, 2012 by Ice1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 I get this, because everyone ought to have the same opinion about this. There was a haphazard and poor attempt at deflection, usually there is a reason for this and it makes some sense in the bigger picture. I would like to simply point out that I can disagree with an ideology, but that I can also understand a motivation behind a decision made for political purpose. As an example, as much as I may have had a terrible taste in my mouth after the Bush administrations response to Katrina, at least I understood that there was an ideological element involved in not committing federal resources right away. Regardless of whether I thought that was right or wrong. When you apply that sort of logic to this situation in Benghazi, I don't understand what the motivation is/was for the administration to tout the movie thing for so long, in the near immediate evidence available that this was a premeditated and planned attack. Seems to me that a quick and decisive response to the event gives an impression of a terrorist ass-kicking by Obama right before the elections. Even calling the event a surprise and admitting that they were caught off guard goes to show the need to be steadfast in their hunt for AQ in Pakistan and stablizing Afghanistan. So, why drag it out? What's the bigger picture here? Is it protecting the CIA's role in Libya? Or the broader role of the CIA in the Arab Spring? Getting out a different narrative to deflect the reality of who is calling the shots in North Africa? I'd at least buy in to the plausibility of that theory. I can see that, but I can also see using the video/spontaneous demonstration as deflection to cover up the fact that this outpost was screaming for help and they were denied for political purposes. But your theory of covering up the fact that we're funneling arms to Syrian rebels is plausible too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moneymakers Posted October 31, 2012 Author Share Posted October 31, 2012 (edited) This will go down as incompetence of the administration. Just like the incompetence of letting the Muslim Brotherhood take over Egypt. Do nothing and stay out of the way. (Hope and everything will be okay) Nothing political about this administartion actions. This is just the policies. Edited October 31, 2012 by moneymakers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 I can see that, but I can also see using the video/spontaneous demonstration as deflection to cover up the fact that this outpost was screaming for help and they were denied for political purposes. But your theory of covering up the fact that we're funneling arms to Syrian rebels is plausible too. What possible political purposes would there be that explains the actions/inactions in this scenario? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 This will go down as incompetence of the administration. Just like the incompetence of letting the Muslim Brotherhood take over Egypt. Do nothing and stay out of the way. (Hope and everything will be okay) Nothing political about this administartion actions. This is just the policies. Well, then it certainly won't be long now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 (edited) The place is known to be awash and flooded with all types of weapons including stingers. Had a few choppers gone in and been brought down, which would/could have easily quadrupled the body count in a flash - for starters - you guys would be all over them now as well for reacting too quickly before they had more info. As in many things, there is more than meets the eye here but probably not as sinister as you are all believing. Our forces aren't invulnerable, they're not stinger proof but all you arm chair generals want to pretend that way because the closest you've ever come to being shot at in combat is a Risk board. Edited October 31, 2012 by Pope Flick 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 What possible political purposes would there be that explains the actions/inactions in this scenario? Because they wanted to give the impression of "normalization" - that things were settling down and their policies were working. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White lightning Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 The place is known to be awash and flooded with all types of weapons including stingers. Had a few choppers gone in and been brought down, which would/could have easily quadrupled the body count in a flash - for starters - you guys would be all over them now as well for reacting too quickly before they had more info. As in many things, there is more than meets the eye here but probably not as sinister as you are all believing. Our forces aren't invulnerable, they're not stinger proof but all you arm chair generals want to pretend that way because the closest you've ever come to being shot at in combat is a Risk board. What about Black Hawk Down? What makes Mogadishu that much different then Benjhazi (I'm sure a lot but you get what I mean)? I have no military experience but my basic understanding is that both areas had extremists, relatively serious conventional weapons (RPGs/Stingers etc), and the potential for a serious push back to any US military intervention. Maybe, must maybe, the military did not send in the troops because they were totally in the dark about the conditions on the ground? Maybe they didn't send in the military because they were 4 hours away when they were stationed on the outskirts of Mogadishu with a heavy land and air precense. Do I think the administration stepped in it by playing up the video angle? Yes. But there's a crap ton we don't know and never will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 I can see that, but I can also see using the video/spontaneous demonstration as deflection to cover up the fact that this outpost was screaming for help and they were denied for political purposes. Seriously, why and how can you see that? What at all gives you any kind of impression that political purposes could possibly have played a factor in any kind of decision making with this? They DIDN'T react (likely because they couldn't) and people like you think its a black eye against the administration. So, wouldn't logic dictate that if they DID react (if they even could) there would be a positive "political purpose" for doing so? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 Because they wanted to give the impression of "normalization" - that things were settling down and their policies were working. You aren't really serious about this, are you? That this is somehow a dark conspiracy regarding policies in libya? Bad call-check. Wrong call- check. Conspiracy reaching up to obamas personal call because of a political power play? You gotta be joking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moneymakers Posted November 1, 2012 Author Share Posted November 1, 2012 Because they wanted to give the impression of "normalization" - that things were settling down and their policies were working. I agree with this its getting more and more obvious Classified cable sent to Hillary Clinton's office less than a month before deadly attack warned Benghazi consulate could not be defended against 'coordinated attack,' and that Al Qaeda had training camps nearby. it goes on and on According to a review of the cable addressed to the Office of the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Emergency Action Committee was also briefed "on the location of approximately ten Islamist militias and AQ training camps within Benghazi Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/31/exclusive-us-memo-warned-libya-consulate-couldnt-withstand-coordinated-attack/#ixzz2AyliemnI Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 I'm sure you'll all be lining up to admit you were in error with bad info and you jumped to conclusions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 I'm sure you'll all be lining up to admit you were in error with bad info and you jumped to conclusions. Meh, you know its just liberal media bias trying to save Obama's behind a few days before the election. No chance in heal the right wingers will believe any of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
electricrelish Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 Meh, you know its just liberal media bias trying to save Obama's behind a few days before the election. No chance in heal the right wingers will believe any of it. Liberal media is a myth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 Meh, the original Fox News accusations (presented as unsubstantiated facts) are just conservative media bias trying to harpoon Obama's behind a few days before the election. No chance in heal the left wingers will believe any of it. fixed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moneymakers Posted November 5, 2012 Author Share Posted November 5, 2012 In an astonishing display of media malpractice, CBS News quietly released proof--two days before the election, far too late to reach the media and the public--that President Barack Obama lied to the public about the Benghazi attack, as well as about his later claim to have called the attack "terrorism" from the beginning CBS unveiled additional footage from its 60 Minutes interview with President Obama, conducted on Sep. 12 immediately after Obama had made his statement about the attacks in the Rose Garden, in which Obama quite clearly refuses to call the Benghazi an act of terror when asked a direct question by reporter Steve Kroft: KROFT: Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word terrorism in connection with the Libya Attack, do you believe that this was a terrorism attack? OBAMA: Well it’s too early to tell exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans. And we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice, one way or the other. CBS News held onto this footage for more than six weeks, failing to release it even when questions were raised during the Second Presidential Debate as to whether Obama had, in fact, referred to the Benghazi attack as an act of terror before blaming it falsely on demonstrations against an anti-Islamic video. The moderator, CNN's Candy Crowley, intervened on Obama's behalf, falsely declaring he had indeed called the attack an act of terror in his Rose Garden statement, and creating the impression that Romney was wrong. That exchange turned what would have been an outright win for Romney in the debate into a narrow win or possibly a loss--and it discouraged him from bringing up the issue again in the next debate or on the campaign trail. CBS News could have set the record straight, but held onto this footage, releasing it just before the election--perhaps to avoid the later charge of having suppressed it altogether. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/11/05/Proof-Obama-Refused-to-Call-Benghazi-Terror-CBS-Covered-Up Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 GMOZ!!!! Brietbart!!!! IT REALLY REALLY REALLY WONT BE LONG NOW!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White lightning Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 KROFT: Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word terrorism in connection with the Libya Attack, do you believe that this was a terrorism attack? OBAMA: Well it’s too early to tell exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans. And we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice, one way or the other. Obama acknowledged the embassy was attacked but would not explicitly use the word "terrorism" less then 24 hours after the attack because it was "too early to tell exactly how this came about." This is the "smoking gun" you're going to use to establish a vast administration cover-up aided by the leftist media???? You're f---ing elusional! I wish we could watch the results together tomorrow. That would be priceless. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 Wait, I need to go back and change my vote, this confirms that Obama lied and doesn't deserve to be POTUS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moneymakers Posted November 9, 2012 Author Share Posted November 9, 2012 First the video and now this CIA Director Petraeus Resigns, Cites Extramarital Affair Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 First the video and now this CIA Director Petraeus Resigns, Cites Extramarital Affair another smoking gun, Have to agree here! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.