PDA

View Full Version : Over 300 government folks knew our consulate was being attacked and by whom



RodB
10-23-2012, 09:56 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/23/state-dept-emails-from-day-libya-attack-show-al-qaeda-tied-group-on-radar/?intcmp=trending


The emails obtained by Fox News were sent by the State Department to a variety of national security platforms, whose addresses have been redacted, including the White House Situation Room, the Pentagon, the FBI and the Director of National Intelligence.
Fox News was told that an estimated 300 to 400 national security figures received these emails in real time almost as the raid was playing out and concluding. People who received these emails work directly under the nation’s top national security, military and diplomatic officials, Fox News was told.
The timestamps on the emails are all Eastern Time and often include the subheading SBU…which is shorthand for “Sensitive But Unclassified.”
A series of internal State Department emails obtained by Fox News shows some some of the initial assessments of last month's deadly consulate attack in Libya, including one email within hours of the attack that noted that the group Ansar al Sharia had claimed responsibility.
Ansar al Sharia has been declared by the State Department to be a an Al Qaeda-affiliated group. A member of the group suspected of participating in the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi has been arrested and is being held in Tunisia.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/23/state-dept-emails-from-day-libya-attack-show-al-qaeda-tied-group-on-radar/?intcmp=trending#ixzz2ABLaiTb7


Fox News was told that an estimated 300 to 400 national security figures received these emails in real time almost as the raid was playing out and concluding. People who received these emails work directly under the nation’s top national security, military and diplomatic officials, Fox News was told.
The timestamps on the emails are all Eastern Time and often include the subheading SBU…which is shorthand for “Sensitive But Unclassified.”
The first email indicates that U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and other personnel were “in the compound safe haven.” Officials later discovered that Stevens and three other Americans had died in the attack.
The first email was sent at 4:05 p.m. ET with the subject line “U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack (SBU).”
“The Regional Security Officer reports the diplomatic mission is under attack," the email reads. "Embassy Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well. Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four COM personnel are in the compound safe haven. The 17th of February militia is providing security support.
"The operations Center will provide updates as available.”
The second email came at 4:54 p.m. ET, with a subject line “Update 1: U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi (SBU)"
“Embassy Tripoli reports the firing at the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi has stopped and the compound has been cleared. A response team is on site attempting to locate COM personnel.”
The third email came at 6:07 p.m. ET and was sent to a different email list but still includes the White House Situation Room address and a subject line of “Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack (SBU).”
“Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli," the email reads.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/23/state-dept-emails-from-day-libya-attack-show-al-qaeda-tied-group-on-radar/?intcmp=trending#ixzz2ABLKP08I


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/23/state-dept-emails-from-day-libya-attack-show-al-qaeda-tied-group-on-radar/?intcmp=trending#ixzz2ABKtOpEt





Obama is history now...

Perhaps now, the mainstream Obama PR news organizations will begin reporting the facts to the country in stead of protecting Obama.

A REAL OCTOBER SURPRISE (

RodB

David G
10-23-2012, 10:02 PM
Yup... thank goodness Fox News is around to tell the unvarnished, unbiased, absolutely 100% reliable truth!

Steve McMahon
10-23-2012, 10:07 PM
Fox News? I thought Fox was a fictional "reality" tv series?

RodB
10-23-2012, 10:08 PM
Wait and see, they have the emails to prove it... Obama is so done now!!!!!!!

There was no reason to lie about anything... all they had to say was that they did not know yet... but they decided on a story that for political purposes would perhaps make them look better in light of their weak and naive foreign policy.

THE END

R

Glen Longino
10-23-2012, 10:13 PM
..."Obama is so done now!!!!!!!"...

:D:DLMAORod is so desperate now!!!!!!!:D

RodB
10-23-2012, 10:19 PM
GLEN, please don't start crying uncontrollably for the next few days as Obama's numbers begin to free fall.

Finally, some truth about this lying incompetent Harvard grad.

R

Glen Longino
10-23-2012, 10:31 PM
GLEN, please don't start crying uncontrollably for the next few days as Obama's numbers begin to free fall.

Finally, some truth about this lying incompetent Harvard grad.

R

..."lying incompetent Harvard grad..."

Let me get this straight...you're talking about Romney, right?:D

mikefrommontana
10-23-2012, 11:09 PM
I would find it prudent that the President not go off and declare foreign actions on the basis of only one intelligence channel. I also do not think the President has to reveal all he knows (we saw how that didn't work so well with the Bin Laden operation) right when he knows it.

Even if a group "claims" responsibility, it might be wise to make sure that such claims are not a ruse by a another group with the intent of doing harm to the first.

Whatever the case, formulating a response is not a snap judgement affair, nor should it be.

Dave Gray
10-23-2012, 11:38 PM
Ah, the hysteria of it all! Can I have some too?

Ian McColgin
10-24-2012, 06:34 AM
Very old news. Even WSJ got it that some organized group took advantage of the Cairo demonstrations to get something started in Benghazi which would provide cover for a seriously armed attack. No one ever doubted that what started as a popular demonstration against the US because we tolorate anti-Muslim hate videos got taken over by a small organized hit team and further confused by looters.

What's becoming more apparant is the extent to which Ansar al-Sharia remains devoted to preventing democracy in Lybia.

RodB
10-24-2012, 07:34 AM
I still don't understand what you think he lied about.

So he said "act of terrorism" instead of "attack by terrorists."

And you think this constitutes a lie? I just don't understand your point.

And what are you getting so excited about these emails for?

One of them reportedly said, "The operations Center will provide updates as available."

Terrific! They damn well ought to provide updates!

But in what way is that a scandal?!




Not old news... some real evidence as to what the White house knew and when they knew it.... and clearly illustrating that they lied and spun a narrative for political reasons. The President mentioned the "disgusting video" several times in his speech at the UN ...what 12 days after the ambassador was killed.


http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e239/Prestoboat/Foxpicemail.jpg

Just another obvious lie and "non transparancy" act by this dishonest administration.

The lie was that this administration made up a story about an "unsetting video" because they were worried about negative effects of the ambassador getting killed on the election.


http://www.nbcnews.com/id/49528284/


RodB

RodB
10-24-2012, 08:49 AM
Finally, other news agencies have no choice...but to report facts.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82801.html

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/49528284/

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57538689/emails-detail-unfolding-benghazi-attack-on-sept-11/

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/email-alerts-describe-911-benghazi-consulate-assault-unfolding/



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/10/24/Emails-offer-insight-on-Benghazi-attack/UPI-98091351084928/




The collection of emails posed more questions about the apparent confusion within the Obama administration to determine who orchestrated the attack Sept. 11 in which Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and three other diplomatic employees were killed, and the reason behind it.

Fox News, which said it also obtained email communications, said it was told between 300 and 400 security, military and diplomatic officials received these emails in real time as the attack played out. Fox said the emails often include "SBU," which means Sensitive But Unclassified.

The day after the attack, President Barack Obama called the incident an "act of terror." However, White House spokesman Jay Carney subsequently maintained for several days that officials had no evidence to indicate an attack on the consulate was "planned or imminent."

The administration also suggested that a U.S.-produced, anti-Muslim video likely fueled a spontaneous demonstration in Benghazi as it had in other cities and countries in the region.

The administration began saying the attack on the consulate was the work of terrorists on Sept. 19.

The first email about the Benghazi attack, sent at 4:05 p.m. EDT, said about 20 armed people fired shots and "explosions have been heard as well." Stevens and four staff members were in the compound safe haven, it said.

Less than an hour later, another email reported "firing at the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi has stopped and the compound has been cleared," and a search was under way for consulate personnel.

The final email's subject line read: "Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack."

The email's body read, "Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli."

That email was sent about 6:07 p.m. EDT.

Ansar al-Sharia denied the claim made on Facebook during a news conference several days later.

The State Department has declared Ansar al Sharia to be an al-Qaida-affiliated group. Fox News said a member of the group suspected of participating in the attack in Benghazi was arrested and detained in Tunisia.



Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/10/24/Emails-offer-insight-on-Benghazi-attack/UPI-98091351084928/#ixzz2ADwVZO31



:D

Mrleft8
10-24-2012, 08:57 AM
If the recipients names and addresses were redacted, how did FOX read them?.... Or if they were redacted after FOX read them, why would FOX release, knowingly, the names and addresses?
Gosh..... You don't suppose it's been faked, do you?

LeeG
10-24-2012, 09:07 AM
This is hysterical, ten years ago we had an administration leaking misleading intel to justify all out war in Iraq and now the administrations rhetorical response to an attack on a consulate is a game changer.

What the duck?

Cuyahoga Chuck
10-24-2012, 09:12 AM
GLEN, please don't start crying uncontrollably for the next few days as Obama's numbers begin to free fall.

Finally, some truth about this lying incompetent Harvard grad.

R

Nice try ,sport, but it don't look like a game changer.
While you had your nose glued to Faux News, Nate Silver in yesterday's New York Time (you may have heard of it) said Barack Obama had a 2 OUT OF 3 CHANCE OF BEING RE-ELECTED. (10/23/12 page A10)
Get to work! Your guy's time is running out!

Ian McColgin
10-24-2012, 09:41 AM
Because the Republicans are still trying to invert the space time continuum to make Romney's immediate post-attack pronouncement, that Obama had apologized - Obama hadn't even spoken yet and what he said later was no apology - come true, at least in the alternative romniverse.

Shang
10-24-2012, 11:23 AM
Oh noes, RodB!
That email said that a group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter!
Facebook! Twiter! and Fox! Oh no!
Facebook! Twiter! and Fox! Oh no!

That proves whatever Faux News said, and you believed.

Wait, RodB--here comes another hot news flash!

http://www.badideatshirts.com/Assets/ProductImages/PS_1083_GULLIBLE_ORANGES.jpg

Bobcat
10-24-2012, 11:27 AM
The "damning" email said that it was in reference to the embassy in Tripoli. The attack was on a consulate in Benghazi, several hundred miles away.

Glen Longino
10-24-2012, 02:07 PM
Where are you, Rod?
Don't slink away and hide!
Come back and respond to post#17.:)

David G
10-24-2012, 02:11 PM
Where are you, Rod?
Don't slink away and hide!
Come back and respond to post#17.:)

And post #20, if you'd be so kind.

RodB
10-24-2012, 07:23 PM
I'm back..... the following says it pretty well....





http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/10/14/The-Big-Lie-Obama-Did-Not-Call-Libya-Attacks-Terrorism-on-September-12


For several days, and again on this week's Sunday morning shows, President Barack Obama's spokespeople, both at the White House and at the Obama campaign, have claimed that he called the Benghazi attack "terrorism" from the outset, in his Sep. 12 address from the Rose Garden.
The media have pushed back, noting that the White House rejected terrorism as an explanation in the days that followed.
But there is an even simpler reason to reject the Obama camp's explanation: it is a demonstrable lie, as a reading of Obama's actual remarks instantly reveals.
Obama mentioned the word "terror" once in his Sep. 12 statement: "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for." But the context of that statement suggests strongly that President Obama was referring to terror in general, not specifically to the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi or the violent demonstrations at the U.S. embassy in Cairo.
Furthermore, Obama's reference to "terror" came near the end of his statement. His initial description of the attacks, at the start of his statement, portrayed them as an excessive response to the anti-Islam video upon which the Obama relied for days and weeks thereafter: "Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification for this type of senseless violence."
Obama did use the word "terrorists" in his Sep. 18 appearance on the David Letterman Show. But he used it to claim that the "terrorists" had acted only in response to the anti-Islamic video, taking advantage of public outrage against it. As we now know--and as the administration (at least the State Department) knew at the time--there had been no public demonstration of outrage at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.
That marked the beginning of a subtle distinction that the administration attempted to make for several weeks: the difference between terrorism as an action (or reaction), and terrorism as an independent motive or cause.
On Sep. 20, for example, when the administration first began to backtrack, White House spokesman Jay Carney suddenly told reporters that it was "self-evident" that the Benghazi attack had been a "terrorist attack"--by which he meant specifically that "Our embassy was attacked violently and the result was four deaths of American officials."
In other words, the attack was "terrorist" because it was violent--but not necessarily because it was carried out by terrorists.
Carney did not allow that the attack had been premeditated, leaving the administration enough wiggle room to continue to blame the video--as President Obama subsequently did again, five days later, at the United Nations on Sep. 25. In his speech, Obama failed to use the word "terror" or "terrorism" to describe the attack.
In the days that followed Obama's speech, the White House and the State Department gradually and grudgingly acknowledged the reality that the attack in Benghazi had nothing to do with the video. Last week, on Oct. 9, the State Department finally stated unequivocally that there had been no protest outside the U.S consulate prior to the attack.
So the Obama White House, and the Obama campaign, had to change their story again. Having relied for weeks on the imaginary distinction between terrorism as a reaction to the anti-Islam video (a meaning that they had embraced), and cause of the attack (a meaning that they had denied), they began pretending that President Obama had referred to terrorism in the latter, broader sense as early as Sep. 12.
Meanwhile, the State Department--which presumably reports to Obama at some level--continues to refuse to call the attacks "terrorism," treating the word as a kind of value judgment rather than a statement of fact.
It is not necessary to examine the whole timeline of events to understand that Obama and his spokespeople are lying yet again. Obama's own words on Sep. 12 are proof enough. He placed the 9/11 attacks in the context of global outrage against an obscure anti-Islam video--making sure to condemn it--and only addressed terror in an abstract sense, never as a description of, or a cause of, the attacks themselves.
Obama and his minions lied more than a month ago, and they are lying to America still.




http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100186461/benghazi-will-do-to-obama-what-al-qaeda-did-to-chris-stevens/


Benghazi and Obama: the media is trying to shore up this desperate administration
By James Delingpole US politics Last updated: October 24th, 2012

Christopher Stevens: Obama lied; he died
Here's one thing we can be sure of about the Benghazi affair: almost everything we've been told since by the mainstream media is a lie, invariably one designed to shore up the creaky and desperate Obama administration.
Consider how quickly the story was spun by Obama's amen corner in the liberal MSM. It should, according to any objective news sense, have been a shocking tale of how a woefully unprotected ambassador was murdered in cold blood by Al Qaeda affiliates. Instead, it almost immediately became – of all things – an excuse to demonstrate why Mitt Romney was unfit to be president.
Here, for example, was NBC the day after.
Yesterday we noted that Mitt Romney, down in the polls after the convention, was throwing the kitchen sink at President Obama. Little did we know the kitchen sink would include — on the anniversary of 9/11 — one of the most over-the-top and (it turns out) incorrect attacks of the general-election campaign .
And here was CBS the day after. (Sounds to me like they have the same White House press officer dictate their stories for them…)
(CBS News) The conventional wisdom emerged in Washington almost immediately on Wednesday: Mitt Romney's handling of the violence in Egypt and Libya was a disaster.
"The comments were a big mistake, and the decision to double down on them was an even bigger mistake," Steve Schmidt, senior campaign strategist to Sen. John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign, told CBS News. "There are legitimate criticisms to be made but you foreclose on your ability to make them when you try to score easy political points. And the American people, when the country is attacked, whether they're a Republican or Democrat or independent, want to see leaders who have measured responses, not leaders whose first instinct is to try to score political points."
Er, with respect Steve Schmidt – and all those other experty experts consulted by CBS – surely what the American people REALLY want when their country is attacked is the truth. They'd also like to be assured that everything possible had been done to prevent the attack happening; that when the attack was taking place, everything possible was done to try to save the lives of the ambassador and his team and that in the aftermath, serious attempts would be made to punish those responsible, reprimand those culpable for any security lapses, and learn important lessons about why the attack happened and how to avoid further such disasters occurring in future. Little, if any of this seems to have been done.
Instead, the post-Benghazi media coverage quickly became an exercise in finger pointing designed to show that it was anyone's fault but the Obama administration's. First, the attack on Romney. Then, the attempts to deflect attention on to the poor sap who made the anti-Islam hate video (which supposedly – though not at all in fact – provoked the fatal assault in the Benghazi consulate) – as if in some way to persuade us all that, hey, the lynching of the ambassador and his staff/protection kind of wasn't that bad because, hey, we sort of invited it…..
Here in Britain, where the general understanding of Obama's manifold inadequacies is so pitifully thin that about the most vigorous criticism we're prepared to make of him is that maybe the muscle tone on his beautiful arms isn't quite so perfect as that on his immaculate and delightful wife Michelle's the Benghazi scandal hasn't had much play.
But in the US conservative media – which basically means talk radio and the internet and the Wall Street Journal – the story is snowballing. And rightly so.
Here are a few examples: this one, this one and this one courtesy of the mighty Rush. Now, even the not noticeably conservative Reuters is joining the fray with more shocking revelations.
This is a big deal.
The Obama administration's duplicity and mendacity is nothing those of us who've been observing, aghast, his disastrous foreign policy approaches since at least his infamous Cairo surrender monkey speech couldn't have predicted. And while it's nice to see his chickens coming home to roost and encouraging to realise that his chances of becoming a second-term president are diminishing by the minute, it's hardly a situation you might call – hmm what's the word? Oh yeah – "optimal" for the grieving relatives of the four men who died needlessly in order to satisfy the President's wishful thinking that the Al Qaeda threat is diminishing and that there's nothing wrong with the Middle East's intractable problems that can't be solved with a few emollient words, beautiful lies and maybe the occasional NASA-endorsed outreach programme….

RodB

RodB
10-24-2012, 07:32 PM
It is obviously easier for the White House if the attack was not planned – not being prepared for something like this in a fairly unstable country looks bad. Very bad.

If an accusation of massaging the facts to make this situation look better for the Obama administration can stick, it could seriously hurt President Obama's re-election chances. And if that accusation is found to be true, there will be a justifiable fallout. Republicans will deservedly pile onto this.

If anything is going to majorly hurt the President before the election, it will be this.

http://m.news24.com/news24/World/News/Beghazi-attack-could-hurt-Obama-20120926


The sad part of this is if you see any mainstream stories about such goings on, you can bet your ass they are full of spin for Obama and very likely contain lots of half truths. The majority of the major networks will not report the facts to the public at large if they think it will hurt the President.

RodB

LeeG
10-24-2012, 07:34 PM
Fart

Ian McColgin
10-24-2012, 07:34 PM
This from the grandchildren of the folk who think that FDR planned Pearl Harbor. G'luck.

Bobcat
10-24-2012, 07:34 PM
I figured you would answer the questions, just post some cut-n-paste.

RodB
10-24-2012, 07:46 PM
The "damning" email said that it was in reference to the embassy in Tripoli. The attack was on a consulate in Benghazi, several hundred miles away.

This attack was known about by the White House situation room and the administration from the git go and the President did decide to go with a false narrative to preclude any negative press for his administration. Your comment is not relevant to anything the quote is posted to show.

What a bunch of hogwash you guys point out... how about staying on point. This administration knew what was going on all along and chose a course of action to mitigate any possible political damage before the upcoming election ... THATS THE FACTS JACK!

RodB

wardd
10-24-2012, 08:31 PM
No one ever said otherwise.

Of course they knew about the attack!

There was some conflicting information about who was responsible.... but knowledge to the attack was never in dispute!

I really can't see what point you're trying to argue.

asking him that will only confuse him

Peter Malcolm Jardine
10-24-2012, 08:34 PM
I'm back..... the following says it pretty well....

RodB



http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/tin-foil-hat.jpg

ccmanuals
10-24-2012, 08:59 PM
Rod, I thought you were a blue collar kinda guy. :)

David G
10-24-2012, 09:01 PM
OK... I've kinda had it with mush-brained whack jobs. Another for the ignore list.

LeeG
10-24-2012, 09:04 PM
I really can't see what point you're trying to argue.

Imagine a slow BM, there's a lot of feeling but it's still a turd.

RodB
10-24-2012, 09:56 PM
Not only did the Obama administration know about the attack, they also knew it was almost certain the attack was organized pre-planned premeditated ... and no spontaneous reaction to a video no one had heard of. This has been pointed out by multiple ex military/security experts who know our systems and how they work. The Obama administration still has not come out with the plain truth and some of their statements have contradicted each other. This situation looks bad because they have handled it so badly. If they had so much varying information in the first 72 hours that they could not give any straight forward answers... they why not go to the American people and say that. They did not do that and thus with conflicting stories it looks like a cover up. They have made stupid decisions simply because of their fear of looking bad politically with the election so close IMHO.

The blame as to why our Ambassador got killed is another matter, and it looks like some serious incompetence. Hopefully the truth will come out in the investigations that are taking place because there is no excuse for this serious lapse in security for our Ambassador. This could have been caused by administration officials following a naive foreign policy or by some poor decisions by security officials in the Government or a multitude of other things. It is still a very bad thing to lay at the feet of the administration in power right before an election. Its also an unforgivable event when you consider those who lost their lives.

RodB

wardd
10-24-2012, 10:55 PM
Not only did the Obama administration know about the attack, they also knew it was almost certain the attack was organized pre-planned premeditated ... and no spontaneous reaction to a video no one had heard of. This has been pointed out by multiple ex military/security experts who know our systems and how they work. The Obama administration still has not come out with the plain truth and some of their statements have contradicted each other. This situation looks bad because they have handled it so badly. If they had so much varying information in the first 72 hours that they could not give any straight forward answers... they why not go to the American people and say that. They did not do that and thus with conflicting stories it looks like a cover up. They have made stupid decisions simply because of their fear of looking bad politically with the election so close IMHO.

The blame as to why our Ambassador got killed is another matter, and it looks like some serious incompetence. Hopefully the truth will come out in the investigations that are taking place because there is no excuse for this serious lapse in security for our Ambassador. This could have been caused by administration officials following a naive foreign policy or by some poor decisions by security officials in the Government or a multitude of other things. It is still a very bad thing to lay at the feet of the administration in power right before an election. Its also an unforgivable event when you consider those who lost their lives.

RodB

perhaps you could enlighten us as to the failure of 9/11/2001 and why is obama ducking responsibility

Bram V
10-25-2012, 04:00 AM
If you know something almost certainly, in international politics it might be wise not to state it as fact, this is politics indeed, but not just electorial. The video "almost no one has heard of" was actually quite well heard of. Some of their statements may contradict themselves, but that is not exclusive to them, Fox news can play that game as well. As for the security, don't the republicans want to cut government spending? Not having adequate security saves a lot of costs.
Most of the officials in an embassy don't fly home when another government is chosen back home, they just start serving a new administration to the best of their abilities.

Chris Coose
10-25-2012, 05:10 AM
Romney had a duty to attack the commander in chief on this obvious derelection of duty. Where was Romney?

McMike
10-25-2012, 06:11 AM
Wait and see, they have the emails to prove it... Obama is so done now!!!!!!!

There was no reason to lie about anything... all they had to say was that they did not know yet... but they decided on a story that for political purposes would perhaps make them look better in light of their weak and naive foreign policy.

THE END

R


Shouldent you be in school or doing your homework. Run along.

RodB
10-25-2012, 09:57 AM
The total lack of objectivity here illustrates how difficult it will be for the country to come together... political ideology trumps all... I find it interesting that none of you lefties have any problems with how in the hell did our government allow our Ambassador to get killed. . . and to follow up, you seem to have no problem with the varying stories since the beginning and how incompetent the cover up or spin has been handled to avoid any negative political fallout for what has happened..... Avoiding negative fallout has seemed to trump all other considerations.

RodB

LeeG
10-25-2012, 10:41 AM
Rod, first of consider the reality that embassies let alone this office are not military garrisons able to fight off a concerted attack. Second your characterization that this attack is evidence of some fatal flaw in the administration ignores the multitude of attacks and protests that occur throughout the world over the decades.

This Benghazi fever you're experiencing will subside.

Bram V
10-25-2012, 10:48 AM
You may accuse me of being partial all you want, but I will not vote Obama, nor Romney, since I am not an american citizen. I do think that your views are skewed, the ruling party has far less influence than you imply, the life and the people in an embassy changes very little with an administrations change.

Glen Longino
10-25-2012, 10:55 AM
..."the total lack of objectivity here"...

HA! How about your own lack of objectivity, Rod?
Why are you damn near apoplectic over murders of Americans in Lybia, while you've said nothing of the murders of Americans in your own back yard of Dallas and Fort Worth...about 200 per year...Every year?
I think I know why...because you can't blame the murders in Dallas on Obama!
How hypocritical and non-objective can you get?

John Smith
10-25-2012, 12:11 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/23/state-dept-emails-from-day-libya-attack-show-al-qaeda-tied-group-on-radar/?intcmp=trending






Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/23/state-dept-emails-from-day-libya-attack-show-al-qaeda-tied-group-on-radar/?intcmp=trending#ixzz2ABLKP08I


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/23/state-dept-emails-from-day-libya-attack-show-al-qaeda-tied-group-on-radar/?intcmp=trending#ixzz2ABKtOpEt





Obama is history now...

Perhaps now, the mainstream Obama PR news organizations will begin reporting the facts to the country in stead of protecting Obama.

A REAL OCTOBER SURPRISE (

RodB

I don't know if you've noticed, but Fox is not accepted by a lot of us as a reliable source.

Here's the facts, as I see them: We don't know what all the facts are. That is why we investiage. Failure to get the facts first is why we invaded Iraq. Let's not do that again.

Dan McCosh
10-25-2012, 05:34 PM
I think it's worth noting that for a week or so after the Oklahoma City bombing, right-wing news sources insisted that Arabic terrorists had done it. For a week or so after the Libian attacks, right-wing news sources insisted that the ambassador was captured and tortured, when in fact he had died from smoke inhalation in a house set on fire. The administration's official position was not to jump to conclusions. This was lost on Romney, and in my mind makes him look unstable.

LeeG
10-25-2012, 06:21 PM
Funny...I don't remember seeing reports like that from "right-wing news sources." Got any cites?

Your memory is not a source, google away

S/V Laura Ellen
10-25-2012, 06:28 PM
Did I direct a question toward you?

Ahh, Donn.... this is a public forum, you asked a question on a public form....
It shouldn't bother you then that someone else answered.
If it bothers you, you could always just use PMs for your questions.

Just saying....

S/V Laura Ellen
10-25-2012, 06:34 PM
I asked a question of a specific member. You and LeeG are not him. Do you march up to people having a discussion on the street, and insert your opinion? I'll bet not.

This isn't a discussion on the street, it's a public forum. There is a mechanism for private conversations, therefore there shouldn't be any expectation of privacy on a bilge post.

S/V Laura Ellen
10-25-2012, 06:39 PM
I'm not asking for privacy...just common courtesy. If you can answer the question I asked Dan, feel free. If all you want is to fire things up, go away.

Are you running the forum now? Do you have a higher status on the forum than I do? No, then you have the choice, not me.

Glen Longino
10-25-2012, 07:24 PM
Did I direct a question toward you?

Jeeesh...what a Member!

wardd
10-25-2012, 07:30 PM
Jeeesh...what a Member!

he's confusing the internet with a telephone

Peter Malcolm Jardine
10-25-2012, 07:33 PM
I'm not asking for privacy...just common courtesy.


ROTFLMAO.... wow, this might be your best post ever!!:D

ccmanuals
10-25-2012, 08:05 PM
To get back on topic. Condi Rice weighs in on this.


Former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice broke with the majority of her party last night on Fox News, as she tried to hit the brakes on the right wing’s politicization of the recent attack in Libya. Host Greta Van Susteren asked Rice directly and repeatedly about a set of emails uncovered by Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/24/us-usa-benghazi-emails-idUSBRE89N02C20121024). In what has been dubbed “Benghazi-Gate (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/10/19/Wall-Street-Journal-Circles-Wagons-Blames-Benghazi-Gate-On-Intelligence-Community),” the conservative media has jumped on the emails (http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/10/24/1080821/right-wing-obama-sleep-libya/) as definitive proof that the Obama administration has been lying about what it knew and when in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attack on a diplomatic mission in Benghazi. Rice’s response was likely not what Van Susteren expected:

RICE: But when things are unfolding very, very quickly, it’s not always easy to know what is really going on on the ground. And to my mind, the really important questions here are about how information was collected. Did the various agencies really coordinate and share intelligence in the way that we had hoped, with the reforms that were made after 9/11?
So there’s a big picture to be examined here. But we don’t have all of the pieces, and I think it’s easy to try and jump to conclusions about what might have happened here. It’s probably better to let the relevant bodies do their work.

Glen Longino
10-25-2012, 08:27 PM
Huh?

You didn't actually address any of the information presented.

You didn't even try.

As you said "Donn thinks he's really clever.":)

johnw
10-25-2012, 08:45 PM
I'm not asking for privacy...just common courtesy. If you can answer the question I asked Dan, feel free. If all you want is to fire things up, go away.

This is hilarious, Donn is asking for courtesy! Well, I suppose it's because he doesn't have any...

johnw
10-25-2012, 08:51 PM
Not old news... some real evidence as to what the White house knew and when they knew it.... and clearly illustrating that they lied and spun a narrative for political reasons. The President mentioned the "disgusting video" several times in his speech at the UN ...what 12 days after the ambassador was killed.


http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e239/Prestoboat/Foxpicemail.jpg

Just another obvious lie and "non transparancy" act by this dishonest administration.

The lie was that this administration made up a story about an "unsetting video" because they were worried about negative effects of the ambassador getting killed on the election.


http://www.nbcnews.com/id/49528284/


RodB

It seems this email was not accurate. The group in question denied responsibility (http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/10/benghazi-libya-state-emails) rather than claiming responsibility.

So, the administration lied, in that it did not say that an inaccurate email was true. Have I got that right?

LeeG
10-25-2012, 09:36 PM
Something occurs to me after nearly ten years of dialogs on this forum and seeing acquaintances in person age over the same time. We aren't getting sharper or smarter.

Time to hang with younger folks.

Hey Paul Pless, can I put brisket in chili?

johnw
10-26-2012, 01:03 AM
Something occurs to me after nearly ten years of dialogs on this forum and seeing acquaintances in person age over the same time. We aren't getting sharper or smarter.

Time to hang with younger folks.

Hey Paul Pless, can I put brisket in chili?

Who in Hell will stop you?

BrianW
10-26-2012, 07:52 AM
So he said "act of terrorism" instead of "attack by terrorists."


If you're referring to President Obama's speech on Sept 12th, he said "acts of terror", not "act of terrorism".

He was speaking in general, as he had already mentioned 9-11, Iraq, and Afghanistan in that speech, and was not specifically talking about the Benghazi attack. Earlier in that speech he referred to the video...

"Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others."

...which did appear to be the reason for the attack, that the Obama administration was leaning towards, at that time.

Osborne Russell
10-26-2012, 11:09 AM
Let's say Obama never said acts of terrorism or terrorism or anything at all. Let's say he denied the events were terrorism or acts or terrorism. So what?

Willin'
10-26-2012, 12:54 PM
Let's say Obama never said acts of terrorism or terrorism or anything at all. Let's say he denied the events were terrorism or acts or terrorism. So what?


I was wondering the same thing. What possible political advantage could be gained by misrepresenting the nature of the attack?

I suspect it's just the right overcompensating for Romney's failed Gotcha in the second debate.

RodB
10-26-2012, 01:15 PM
So... is this all lies...

This sounds like some serious mistakes in judgement made with the Ambassador in jeapordy and our guys on the scene providing some onsite intel.......



EXCLUSIVE: CIA operators were denied request for help during Benghazi attack, sources say



Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that an urgent request from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. consulate and subsequent attack several hours later was denied by U.S. officials -- who also told the CIA operators twice to "stand down" rather than help the ambassador's team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11.

Former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods was part of a small team who was at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team came under attack. When he and others heard the shots fired, they informed their higher-ups at the annex to tell them what they were hearing and requested permission to go to the consulate and help out. They were told to "stand down," according to sources familiar with the exchange. Soon after, they were again told to "stand down."

Woods and at least two others ignored those orders and made their way to the consulate which at that point was on fire. Shots were exchanged. The rescue team from the CIA annex evacuated those who remained at the consulate and Sean Smith, who had been killed in the initial attack. They could not find the ambassador and returned to the CIA annex at about midnight.

At that point, they called again for military support and help because they were taking fire at the CIA safe house, or annex. The request was denied. There were no communications problems at the annex, according those present at the compound. The team was in constant radio contact with their headquarters. In fact, at least one member of the team was on the roof of the annex manning a heavy machine gun when mortars were fired at the CIA compound. The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Spectre gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights. The fighting at the CIA annex went on for more than four hours -- enough time for any planes based in Sigonella Air base, just 480 miles away, to arrive. Fox News has also learned that two separate Tier One Special operations forces were told to wait, among them Delta Force operators.

Watch "Special Report Investigates: Death and Deceit in Benghazi" on Fox News at 1 p.m. ET on Saturday, 3 p.m. on Sunday and 10 p.m. on Sunday.

A Special Operations team, or CIF which stands for Commanders in Extremis Force, operating in Central Europe had been moved to Sigonella, Italy, but they were never told to deploy. In fact, a Pentagon official says there were never any requests to deploy assets from outside the country. A second force that specializes in counterterrorism rescues was on hand at Sigonella, according to senior military and intelligence sources. According to those sources, they could have flown to Benghazi in less than two hours. They were the same distance to Benghazi as those that were sent from Tripoli. Spectre gunships are commonly used by the Special Operations community to provide close air support.

According to sources on the ground during the attack, the special operator on the roof of the CIA annex had visual contact and a laser pointing at the Libyan mortar team that was targeting the CIA annex. The operators were calling in coordinates of where the Libyan forces were firing from.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told reporters at the Pentagon on Thursday that there was not a clear enough picture of what was occurring on the ground in Benghazi to send help.

"There's a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking going on here," Panetta said Thursday. "But the basic principle here ... is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on."

U.S. officials argue that there was a period of several hours when the fighting stopped before the mortars were fired at the annex, leading officials to believe the attack was over.

Fox News has learned that there were two military surveillance drones redirected to Benghazi shortly after the attack on the consulate began. They were already in the vicinity. The second surveillance craft was sent to relieve the first drone, perhaps due to fuel issues. Both were capable of sending real time visuals back to U.S. officials in Washington, D.C. Any U.S. official or agency with the proper clearance, including the White House Situation Room, State Department, CIA, Pentagon and others, could call up that video in real time on their computers.

Tyrone Woods was later joined at the scene by fellow former Navy SEAL Glen Doherty, who was sent in from Tripoli as part of a Global Response Staff or GRS that provides security to CIA case officers and provides countersurveillance and surveillance protection. They were killed by a mortar shell at 4 a.m. Libyan time, nearly seven hours after the attack on the consulate began -- a window that represented more than enough time for the U.S. military to send back-up from nearby bases in Europe, according to sources familiar with Special Operations. Four mortars were fired at the annex. The first one struck outside the annex. Three more hit the annex.

A motorcade of dozens of Libyan vehicles, some mounted with 50 caliber machine guns, belonging to the February 17th Brigades, a Libyan militia which is friendly to the U.S., finally showed up at the CIA annex at approximately 3 a.m. An American Quick Reaction Force sent from Tripoli had arrived at the Benghazi airport at 2 a.m. (four hours after the initial attack on the consulate) and was delayed for 45 minutes at the airport because they could not at first get transportation, allegedly due to confusion among Libyan militias who were supposed to escort them to the annex, according to Benghazi sources.

The American special operators, Woods, Doherty and at least two others were part of the Global Response Staff, a CIA element, based at the CIA annex and were protecting CIA operators who were part of a mission to track and repurchase arms in Benghazi that had proliferated in the wake of Muammar Qaddafi's fall. Part of their mission was to find the more than 20,000 missing MANPADS, or shoulder-held missiles capable of bringing down a commercial aircraft. According to a source on the ground at the time of the attack, the team inside the CIA annex had captured three Libyan attackers and was forced to hand them over to the Libyans. U.S. officials do not know what happened to those three attackers and whether they were released by the Libyan forces.

Fox News has also learned that Stevens was in Benghazi that day to be present at the opening of an English-language school being started by the Libyan farmer who helped save an American pilot who had been shot down by pro-Qaddafi forces during the initial war to overthrow the regime. That farmer saved the life of the American pilot and the ambassador wanted to be present to launch the Libyan rescuer's new school

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/26/cia-operators-were-denied-request-for-help-during-benghazi-attack-sources-say/#ixzz2AQjRuqN1



And another story that was part of the narrative chosen by the Obama administration...

Father of ex-SEAL killed in Libya says Clinton vowed to arrest and prosecute -- the filmmaker

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/26/father-seal-killed-in-libya-says-clinton-vowed-to-arrest-and-prosecute/?intcmp=trending#ixzz2AQkhUSpe


RodB

Willin'
10-26-2012, 01:20 PM
Rod, your reliance on Fox news as a trustworthy source of info is not helping your cause at all. Surely this would be reported in some non-Fox sources if it were credible, doncha think?

There's a reason John Stewart has gotten rich poking fun at Fox.

RodB
10-26-2012, 01:25 PM
Fox would have to be crazy to report a story such as this with lies... Gimme a break.. this is some serious stuff... and I'm betting they have triple checked all that they have said..

R

S/V Laura Ellen
10-26-2012, 01:31 PM
Fox would have to be crazy to report a story such as this with lies... Gimme a break.. this is some serious stuff... and I'm betting they have triple checked all that they have said..

R

your kidding...right?

Glen Longino
10-26-2012, 01:34 PM
..."Fox news would have to be crazy"...

Bingo!:D

johnw
10-26-2012, 01:37 PM
Rod, I can see why you might want to change the subject, but you still haven't dealt with the question in post #70. Instead, when your original allegation proved untrue, you went on to another one. Or do you have an answer for us that you are concealing?

LeeG
10-26-2012, 01:55 PM
Let's say Obama never said acts of terrorism or terrorism or anything at all. Let's say he denied the events were terrorism or acts or terrorism. So what?

Off with his head!!

RodB
10-28-2012, 09:03 PM
Obama's numbers are starting to be affected by the lack of transparency etc with Benghazi murders....



http://times247.com/articles/media-colluding-to-protect-obama-from-benghazi-fallout

Here's one thing we can be sure of about the Benghazi affair: almost everything we've been told since by the mainstream media is a lie, invariably one designed to shore up the creaky and desperate Obama administration.

Consider how quickly the story was spun by Obama's amen corner in the liberal MSM. It should, according to any objective news sense, have been a shocking tale of how a woefully unprotected ambassador was murdered in cold blood by Al Qaeda affiliates. Instead, it almost immediately became – of all things – an excuse to demonstrate why Mitt Romney was unfit to be president. ...

[T]he post-Benghazi media coverage quickly became an exercise in finger pointing designed to show that it was anyone's fault but the Obama administration's. First, the attack on Romney. Then, the attempts to deflect attention on to the poor sap who made the anti-Islam hate video (which supposedly – though not at all in fact – provoked the fatal assault in the Benghazi consulate) – as if in some way to persuade us all that, hey, the lynching of the ambassador and his staff/protection kind of wasn't that bad because, hey, we sort of invited it…..

Read more: http://times247.com/articles/media-colluding-to-protect-obama-from-benghazi-fallout#ixzz2AeKISWgK




http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/benghazi-fallout-obama-job-approval-tanks/question-3279141/?page=1&postId=96631295#post_96631295

While the CorruptMedia does its worst to black out the unfolding scandal over Libya, rather than stupidly playing defense on the left's abortion-turf, New Media has done its best to report the Libya story and get it out there. This is called a counter-narrative, and with the help of a number of unforced errors on behalf of the Obama campaign, it might be having a negative effect on the most important number for an incumbent seeking reelection: job approval.

In the Rasmussen poll that tracks the president's approval rating amongst likely voters, over the last four days, Obama's job approval has dipped from 50 to 47%. Meanwhile, his disapproval number has spiked to 52%. That's a five-point negative spread.

Normally, I would ignore that as statistical noise. But what makes the Rasmussen drop noteworthy is a similar plunge in the Gallup Poll -- which is even worse for the president, because Gallup measures Obama's approval ratings with "all adults." Generally, the looser the screen, the better Democrats poll. If Obama is cratering with "all adults," his numbers are likely worse among the tighter screen of registered and likely voters.

Today, Gallup has Obama upside down, 46-49% with all adults. Three days ago, Obama was above water, 51-44%. That's a huge swing.

Again, this might just be statistical noise. But when you look at the news coming out of Libya and the small, mean-spirited pettiness we're seeing from the president and his campaign, there's reason to believe this shift might be real.

Bobcat
10-28-2012, 09:28 PM
Impressive sources: the moonie paper and a blog

johnw
10-28-2012, 11:45 PM
Impressive sources: the moonie paper and a blog

I like the fact that a major metro daily thinks it is not part of the "mainstream media."

Osborne Russell
10-29-2012, 12:50 PM
Obama's numbers are starting to be affected by the lack of transparency etc with Benghazi murders....

"Lack of transparency etc" . . . what a pathetic attempt at an argument. You can't even state one.

There is no reason to expect transparency when it comes to the management of embassies. There is no nothing to be transparent about. Therefore there is no lack of transparency. What exactly do you accuse Obama of having done? What are the implications?

Let's say Obama never said acts of terrorism or terrorism or anything at all. Let's say he denied the events were terrorism or acts or terrorism. So what?

RodB
10-29-2012, 01:37 PM
What actually happened at Benghazi will come out sooner or later... and it seems that commanders high up in the chain made decisions from a position of limited knowledge... right or wrong ... I doubt Obama played much of a roll here ... besides a bad results is not the "wrong doing" here... against Obama... its taking the tact of avoiding poliltical fallout using a false narrative "the video caused all this" ... that seems to make the point... that avoiding negative fallout with an upcoming election trumped all other concerns by the administration. What was put forth by multiple administration spokesmen and women was pure BS going on and on about the video.

It looks bad and makes no sense except ...to be interpreted as avoiding negative political fallout at all costs.

RodB

RodB
10-29-2012, 01:43 PM
Rod, I can see why you might want to change the subject, but you still haven't dealt with the question in post #70. Instead, when your original allegation proved untrue, you went on to another one. Or do you have an answer for us that you are concealing?

The three emails mainly show the administration knew about the attack and that the attack was obviously planned and organized by a terrorist group... yet they decided to go with "the video caused all this spontaneous violence" story which was pure BS hoping to avoid or diminish any negative political fallout from the attack.

RodB

RodB
10-29-2012, 02:17 PM
"Lack of transparency etc" . . . what a pathetic attempt at an argument. You can't even state one.
There is no reason to expect transparency when it comes to the management of embassies. There is no nothing to be transparent about. Therefore there is no lack of transparency. What exactly do you accuse Obama of having done? What are the implications?

Let's say Obama never said acts of terrorism or terrorism or anything at all. Let's say he denied the events were terrorism or acts or terrorism. So what?

How goofy can you be... forget whether he said the act was by terrorists... he went with the false story that an offending video caused all this spontaneous violence to burst forth on Benghazi.... while he knew damn well the attack had been well organized and planned... and was not some protestors that got out of control. Stop with the petty details and deal with the actions by this administration and what they were trying to accomplish above all else... MINIMIZING NEGATIVE POLITICAL FALLOUT with an election very close. They seemed only concerned with how this attack could affect their winning the presidency.... Likely, what had taken place at Benghazi probably would not be a major issue if they had just come clean from the start.

RodB

johnw
10-29-2012, 02:17 PM
The three emails mainly show the administration knew about the attack and that the attack was obviously planned and organized by a terrorist group... yet they decided to go with "the video caused all this spontaneous violence" story which was pure BS hoping to avoid or diminish any negative political fallout from the attack.

RodB

So, the email you posted in the first place proved to contain inaccurate information, but it shows the administration was covering it up. Got it.

Not sure which other emails you're talking about. Could one of them be this one?



http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/benghazi-attack-becomes-political-ammunition/2012/10/19/e1ad82ae-1a2d-11e2-bd10-5ff056538b7c_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/rw/WashingtonPost/Content/Staff-Bio/Images/david-ignatius-114x80.png

David Ignatius (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/articles/david+ignatius/) Opinion Writer


CIA documents supported Susan Rice’s description of Benghazi attacks

http://www.washingtonpost.com/rw/sites/twpweb/img/icons/icon-minus.png (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/benghazi-attack-becomes-political-ammunition/2012/10/19/e1ad82ae-1a2d-11e2-bd10-5ff056538b7c_story.html#) http://www.washingtonpost.com/rw/sites/twpweb/img/icons/icon-plus.png (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/benghazi-attack-becomes-political-ammunition/2012/10/19/e1ad82ae-1a2d-11e2-bd10-5ff056538b7c_story.html#) Text Size
Print (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/benghazi-attack-becomes-political-ammunition/2012/10/19/e1ad82ae-1a2d-11e2-bd10-5ff056538b7c_print.html)
E-mail (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/benghazi-attack-becomes-political-ammunition/2012/10/19/e1ad82ae-1a2d-11e2-bd10-5ff056538b7c_email.html)
Reprints (http://www.washingtonpostreprints.com/)



By David Ignatius (http://www.washingtonpost.com/david-ignatius/2011/02/17/ABXXcOJ_page.html), Published: October 19
The Romney campaign may have misfired with its suggestion that statements by President Obama and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-ambassador-susan-rice/2012/10/15/c5a9fe04-16d9-11e2-8792-cf5305eddf60_story.html) about the Benghazi attack last month weren’t supported by intelligence, according to documents provided by a senior U.S. intelligence official.
“Talking points” prepared by the CIA on Sept. 15, the same day that Rice taped three television appearances, support her description of the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate as a reaction to Arab anger about an anti-Muslim video prepared in the United States. According to the CIA account, “The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.”
The CIA document went on: “This assessment may change as additional information is collected and analyzed and as currently available information continues to be evaluated.” This may sound like self-protective boilerplate, but it reflects the analysts’ genuine problem interpreting fragments of intercepted conversation, video surveillance and source reports.



The fact is, not all the internal documents have so far proved to be accurate. Intelligence gathering was chaotic after the incident. The purported facts in the first email you quoted did not hold up, and it looks like the one Susan Rice quoted was not accurate in calling the incident spontaneous. Both show the CIA was having trouble figuring out exactly what happened. Neither shows deliberate deception.

But you'll believe what you want to, regardless of the facts.

RodB
10-29-2012, 02:51 PM
I still don't understand why you think one narrative is better than another for political reasons.

The consulate got attacked. Ain't nobody tried to spin that like it was a good thing, regardless of who they thought did it.

You seem obsessed with the idea that Obama used one word instead of another... but I just don't see how it matters.

Moreover, I don't think Obama ever said "the video caused all this." I think that's just a bit of exaggeration and distortion that you are adding to the narrative.

Everyone agrees that the initial reports were spotty, contradictory and inaccruate. We know that early reports about a terrorist group claiming responsibility on Facebook and Twitter were later proven false. The terrorist group actually denied responsibility.

You ought to know that by now.

Also, there really was a video that sparked protests across the Muslim world just a few hours before the attack on Benghzai. You seem determined not to acknowledge that fact.

Obama never said the video caused all of this.... but you seem obsessed with mischaracterizing what he did say... and denying other facts.

It's time for you to give up.

Talk about ignoring reality... do you think the press secretary or the ambassador to the UN would say one word not sanctioned by the administration? If these two folks plus Hillary Cliinton ran with that false narrative for almost two weeks... it was definitely part of the "plan" to accomplish what I have stated in several of the posts above.... get it?

Glen Longino
10-29-2012, 02:53 PM
How goofy can you be... forget whether he said the act was by terrorists... he went with the false story that an offending video caused all this spontaneous violence to burst forth on Benghazi.... while he knew damn well the attack had been well organized and planned... and was not some protestors that got out of control. Stop with the petty details and deal with the actions by this administration and what they were trying to accomplish above all else... MINIMIZING NEGATIVE POLITICAL FALLOUT with an election very close. They seemed only concerned with how this attack could affect their winning the presidency.... Likely, what had taken place at Benghazi probably would not be a major issue if they had just come clean from the start.

RodB

..."How goofy can you be..."...

Careful, Rod, you're bordering on rudeness...in addition to apoplexy, hypertension, and rabies!
And all that for a lost cause that exists only in Your mind.

Osborne Russell
10-29-2012, 03:05 PM
MINIMIZING NEGATIVE POLITICAL FALLOUT with an election very close.

So what? Was it contrary to the national interest in some way you can articulate?

RodB
10-29-2012, 03:08 PM
Careful, Rod, you're bordering on rudeness...in addition to apoplexy, hypertension, and rabies!
And all that for a lost cause that exists only in Your mind.

Glen, you goofy leftist fellow... tunnel visioned "wanna be" Texan. You need to work on your reading comprehension.... badly.

My take on how the Obama administration handled the Benghazi incident in the first two weeks is right on... FYI

johnw
10-29-2012, 03:17 PM
Talk about ignoring reality... do you think the press secretary or the ambassador to the UN would say one word not sanctioned by the administration? If these two folks plus Hillary Cliinton ran with that false narrative for almost two weeks... it was definitely part of the "plan" to accomplish what I have stated in several of the posts above.... get it?

As I mentioned in post #99, some of the emails you seem to be relying on were not themselves accurate. Your conspiracy theory imposes an order on the process of getting the facts out that is not present in the data available to the actors.

RodB
10-29-2012, 03:25 PM
So what? Was it contrary to the national interest in some way you can articulate?

Not telling the truth to the familys of those who lost their lives is certainly wrong on many levels. Hillary Clinton looking at the father of one of the disceased Navy Seals and saying we were going to prosecute the guy who made the video was so dishonest and disigenuine. Political spin when our citizens have lost loved ones illustrates a complete lack of honor... IMHO. Both Hillary and Obama are guilty of this.

In their defense, I guess many politicians would say similar things if the need was perceived but its still down right despicable behavior.

RodB

RodB
10-29-2012, 03:30 PM
As I mentioned in post #99, some of the emails you seem to be relying on were not themselves accurate. Your conspiracy theory imposes an order on the process of getting the facts out that is not present in the data available to the actors.

Why don't you wake up... they didn't know all the facts yet..but were not really interested in the facts... only a narrative that would mitigate any political damage to their re-election efforts. They certainly knew the attack was by organized terrorists on a precise date... 9/11 who were well armed... much more armed than a few spontaneous protestors would be.

They chose the most inocuous narrative to suit their purposes despite how it may affect the relatives of those who had lost their lives.

RodB

John of Phoenix
10-29-2012, 03:41 PM
much more armed than a few spontaneous protestors would be.

You don't know SQUAT about how incredibly heavily armed people are over there.

RodB
10-29-2012, 03:53 PM
You don't know SQUAT about how incredibly heavily armed people are over there.
I am open minded enough to see what the facts are... its seems sensible to conclude the story the administration went with for two weeks was likely a load of crap. I must honestly admit that from my perspective they have been shoveling a lot of crap the past couple of years.




Hmmmm?

So you're saying the narrative cost people's lives?

Go on....

Did't say that, but it certainly is grossly unfair to those who have lost their family members and downright despicable.



http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/29/early-briefing-on-libya-strike-focused-on-al-qaeda-before-story-changed/



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2224773/Key-swing-state-newspaper-dumps-Obama-endorses-Romney--Republican-supported-Nixon.html
[[QUOTE]SIZE=3]Key swing state newspaper dumps Obama and endorses Romney - the first Republican it has supported since Nixon

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2224773/Key-swing-state-newspaper-dumps-Obama-endorses-Romney--Republican-supported-Nixon.html#ixzz2AitBuKAZ
QUOTE]



Seems like a lot of commonsense here except for why the Obama administration took the "video caused it" path... Trying to be objective here...
http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/25/opinion/maller-cia-benghazi/index.html
Don't rush to join Benghazi blame game

RodB
10-29-2012, 04:23 PM
http://washingtonexaminer.com/benghazi-is-not-about-politics-its-about-the-truth/article/2511920
Examiner Editorial: Benghazi is not about politics, it's about the truth

Different perspective...

RodB

LeeG
10-29-2012, 04:29 PM
I am open minded enough to see what the facts are... its seems sensible to conclude the story the administration went with for two weeks was likely a load of crap. I must honestly admit that from my perspective they have been shoveling a lot of crap the past couple of years.


]

I wonder how discriminating your crap filter was when GW said we had to invade Iraq to get WMD.

wardd
10-29-2012, 04:36 PM
there was recently a civil war, weaponry is abundantly available

the attack could have been a spur of the moment thing taking advantage of a demonstration, if so it's easy to see how the first reports could have been confused.

just because you're there doesn't mean you know what is going on, heck you may not even fully understand what is in eyesight

once hostilities begin it's rare that any one person will fully comprehend what is happening overall.

it's called the fog of war

been there seen that

Glen Longino
10-29-2012, 04:45 PM
I am open minded enough to see what the facts are... its seems sensible to conclude the story the administration went with for two weeks was likely a load of crap. I must honestly admit that from my perspective they have been shoveling a lot of crap the past couple of years.





Did't say that, but it certainly is grossly unfair to those who have lost their family members and downright despicable.



http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/29/early-briefing-on-libya-strike-focused-on-al-qaeda-before-story-changed/



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2224773/Key-swing-state-newspaper-dumps-Obama-endorses-Romney--Republican-supported-Nixon.html
[[QUOTE]SIZE=3]Key swing state newspaper dumps Obama and endorses Romney - the first Republican it has supported since Nixon

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2224773/Key-swing-state-newspaper-dumps-Obama-endorses-Romney--Republican-supported-Nixon.html#ixzz2AitBuKAZ
QUOTE]



Seems like a lot of commonsense here except for why the Obama administration took the "video caused it" path... Trying to be objective here...
http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/25/opinion/maller-cia-benghazi/index.html
Don't rush to join Benghazi blame game

..."they have been shoveling a lot of crap the past couple of years"...

There you have it folks!
This long-winded rant from Rod is not about the consulate event at all...it's about Rod's rabid dislike for Obama for more than four years, even Before Obama was elected POTUS.
If Rod had been truly honest he would have entitled his thread, "I Hate Obama And All Other Liberals, But I Love All Troglodytes, And God Almighty Loves Them Too"!

RodB
10-29-2012, 05:27 PM
There you have it folks!
This long-winded rant from Rod is not about the consulate event at all...it's about Rod's rabid dislike for Obama for more than four years, even Before Obama was elected POTUS.
If Rod had been truly honest he would have entitled his thread, "I Hate Obama And All Other Liberals, But I Love All Troglodytes, And God Almighty Loves Them Too"!

Glen, your misguided ramblings make me laugh. I don't hate anybody, even those who's ideas are wrong for the country... IMHO. You forget how many of his speeches I have listened to filled of lies and half truths. Perhaps my attitude turned for the worse when Obama and his administration decided the way to run for re-election was to simply make the case of: "Don't vote for the other guy... he's bad" and "if you vote for me, I'll give you more stuff". . What ever happened to the contest about ideas within our politics.

I remember when the mid-term elections were over so many of the Dems made excuses as to how they had failed to explain their ideas well enough....but they never thought perhaps they lost because their ideas just plain "SUCK".

Not only does Obama have policies that have not worked, but he also has failed to keep many promises and spent over 15 months of his first term campaigning instead of even trying to govern. There certainly has been enough leaked information about Benghazi to know the video narrative was highly likely BS... and thus the President's story line.


there was recently a civil war, weaponry is abundantly available

the attack could have been a spur of the moment thing taking advantage of a demonstration, if so it's easy to see how the first reports could have been confused.

just because you're there doesn't mean you know what is going on, heck you may not even fully understand what is in eyesight

once hostilities begin it's rare that any one person will fully comprehend what is happening overall.

it's called the fog of war

been there seen that

You make some good points and it will be interesting to see the final "complete" report as to what happened. ... I'm convinced the Obama Administration's narrative was made up to minimize poitical damage. The truth will come put later, but the election will be over no matter the real truth.



RodB

wardd
10-29-2012, 05:29 PM
Glen, your misguided ramblings make me laugh. I don't hate anybody, even those who's ideas are wrong for the country... IMHO. You forget how many of his speeches I have listened to filled of lies and half truths. Perhaps my attitude turned for the worse when Obama and his administration decided the way to run for re-election was to simply make the case of: "Don't vote for the other guy... he's bad" and "if you vote for me, I'll give you more stuff". . What ever happened to the contest about ideas within our politics.

I remember when the mid-term elections were over so many of the Dems made excuses as to how they had failed to explain their ideas well enough....but they never thought perhaps they lost because their ideas just plain "SUCK".

Not only does Obama have policies that have not worked, but he also has failed to keep many promises and spent over 15 months of his first term campaigning instead of even trying to govern. There certainly has been enough leaked information about Benghazi to know the video narrative was highly likely BS... and thus the President's story line.

RodB

his policies have actively not been allowed to work

it's like i say i'll drive you somewhere tomorrow and in the mean time someone blows up my car, yup i didn't keep my promise

Glen Longino
10-29-2012, 05:37 PM
Glen, your misguided ramblings make me laugh. I don't hate anybody, even those who's ideas are wrong for the country... IMHO. You forget how many of his speeches I have listened to filled of lies and half truths. Perhaps my attitude turned for the worse when Obama and his administration decided the way to run for re-election was to simply make the case of: "Don't vote for the other guy... he's bad" and "if you vote for me, I'll give you more stuff". . What ever happened to the contest about ideas within our politics.

I remember when the mid-term elections were over so many of the Dems made excuses as to how they had failed to explain their ideas well enough....but they never thought perhaps they lost because their ideas just plain "SUCK".

Not only does Obama have policies that have not worked, but he also has failed to keep many promises and spent over 15 months of his first term campaigning instead of even trying to govern. There certainly has been enough leaked information about Benghazi to know the video narrative was highly likely BS... and thus the President's story line.



You make some good points and it will be interesting to see the final "complete" report as to what happened. ... I'm convinced the Obama Administration's narrative was made up to minimize poitical damage. The truth will come put later, but the election will be over no matter the real truth.



RodB

I rest my case!:)

johnw
10-29-2012, 05:53 PM
Why don't you wake up... they didn't know all the facts yet..but were not really interested in the facts... only a narrative that would mitigate any political damage to their re-election efforts. They certainly knew the attack was by organized terrorists on a precise date... 9/11 who were well armed... much more armed than a few spontaneous protestors would be.

They chose the most inocuous narrative to suit their purposes despite how it may affect the relatives of those who had lost their lives.

RodB

Oh, I'm awake, but you seem to be dreaming. And this statement:


I am open minded enough to see what the facts are..

Is clearly not factually accurate. You've answered none of the facts I've presented, except to make a series of unsupported claims. And if you were really worried about the relatives of those slain in this incident, I doubt you'd be so rabidly trying to make political hay out of it.

Osborne Russell
10-29-2012, 08:05 PM
Not telling the truth to the familys of those who lost their lives is certainly wrong on many levels. Hillary Clinton looking at the father of one of the disceased Navy Seals and saying we were going to prosecute the guy who made the video was so dishonest and disigenuine. Political spin when our citizens have lost loved ones illustrates a complete lack of honor... IMHO. Both Hillary and Obama are guilty of this.

In their defense, I guess many politicians would say similar things if the need was perceived but its still down right despicable behavior.

RodB


None of this amounts to anything more than business as usual, except for Hillary's comment, which was dumb. She owes us an apology fro threatening free speech, like the Chimp's Press Secretary, for telling us "Americans are going to have to watch what they say from now on."

As far as lives go, lives are consumed like so many sheets of toilet paper by our government and always have been, under various degrees of lying. Pat Tilman comes to mind, or 9/11, when "they attacked they attacked us for no reason" or Mitt Romney when he said during the "foreign policy debate" that "America has never dictated anything to another country." How about "Remember the Maine!"

Some deception is necessary to mislead real enemies. Very common. The general public has no general right to be informed of "the truth" of strategic and tactical executive decisions. If you believe otherwise, where were you when the Chimp Squad was riding high?

RodB
10-29-2012, 09:04 PM
Some deception is necessary to mislead real enemies. Very common. The general public has no general right to be informed of "the truth" of strategic and tactical executive decisions. If you believe otherwise, where were you when the Chimp Squad was riding high?

I must say I agree with most of what you said but when the claims of the politician are obviously in contradiction with other facts, its got to be hard on the family of the deceased. Enough said.


Is clearly not factually accurate. You've answered none of the facts I've presented, except to make a series of unsupported claims. And if you were really worried about the relatives of those slain in this incident, I doubt you'd be so rabidly trying to make political hay out of it.


Johnw.... I don't give a damn if everything on an email was true ... what was important about the emails and the point of bringing them up... was that the White House knew a lot more than they let on about what happened at Benghazi early on ... and put forth a stupid false narrative regardless of the facts that they did know. Thats it... thats all and they offended family members of those who lost their lives with their stupid story.

If some of the press had any integrity they would have been all over this story but alas... they are more on the Obama team than on the side of honest journalism. Only a handful of organizations are reporting on this story while the rest are laying low until the election is over.

RodB

wardd
10-29-2012, 09:09 PM
I must say I agree with most of what you said but when the claims of the politician are obviously in contradiction with other facts, its got to be hard on the family of the deceased. Enough said.



Johnw.... I don't give a damn if everything on an email was true ... what was important about the emails and the point of bringing them up... was that the White House knew a lot more than they let on about what happened at Benghazi early on ... and put forth a stupid false narrative regardless of the facts that they did know. Thats it... thats all and they offended family members of those who lost their lives with their stupid story.

If some of the press had any integrity they would have been all over this story but alas... they are more on the Obama team than on the side of honest journalism. Only a handful of organizations are reporting on this story while the rest are laying low until the election is over.

RodB

remember there is what you know and what you don't know and what you don't know you don't know

during the attack and immediately after i doubt if anyone had the facts sorted out

johnw
10-29-2012, 09:15 PM
I must say I agree with most of what you said but when the claims of the politician are obviously in contradiction with other facts, its got to be hard on the family of the deceased. Enough said.



Johnw.... I don't give a damn if everything on an email was true ... what was important about the emails and the point of bringing them up... was that the White House knew a lot more than they let on about what happened at Benghazi early on ... and put forth a stupid false narrative regardless of the facts that they did know. Thats it... thats all and they offended family members of those who lost their lives with their stupid story.

If some of the press had any integrity they would have been all over this story but alas... they are more on the Obama team than on the side of honest journalism. Only a handful of organizations are reporting on this story while the rest are laying low until the election is over.

RodB

I doubt you care if anything in the emails was true, as long as you can exploit this tragedy for your political ends, but you ought to. The fact is, the information available was untrustworthy and contradictory, but you think that a failure to come out with a narrative that did not have those defects proves there was some kind of conspiracy.

RodB
10-29-2012, 10:20 PM
I doubt you care if anything in the emails was true, as long as you can exploit this tragedy for your political ends, but you ought to. The fact is, the information available was untrustworthy and contradictory, but you think that a failure to come out with a narrative that did not have those defects proves there was some kind of conspiracy.

Your wrong. I see no conspiracy... just the Obama administration trying to minimize any negative political fallout above all other concerns including lying to family members of those who lost their lives. .. Thats it.

R

wardd
10-30-2012, 01:12 PM
a brick wall has no chance against rod

Osborne Russell
10-30-2012, 01:22 PM
FDR is said to have deceived the public about his intentions to enter into WW2 (European theatre). Between the Prez and the American people, that's a dangerous thing, though arguably not a violation of his oath or outside the powers of the executive, if done for national security purposes. It might simultaneously have furthered the interest of his party and his own political interest and maybe even personal economic interest, i.e. he stood to cash in. Meanwhile it deceives the Axis.

Did it make him a bad President? Did he subvert the Constitution? Difficult to say, more than a half-century later.

This would indicate that, in this case, without a gigantically clearer case to make, attacking Obama in this fashion is putting partisan interest ahead of the national interest, without justification. I say this knowing full well the seriousness of what I say. I urge the Republicans to re-consider.

p.s. this is the new kinder and gentler Osborne Russell. Let's enjoy and hope it lasts.

Glen Longino
10-30-2012, 01:28 PM
..."kinder and gentler Osborne Russell"...

:D Heheh!

johnw
10-30-2012, 11:29 PM
Your wrong. I see no conspiracy... just the Obama administration trying to minimize any negative political fallout above all other concerns including lying to family members of those who lost their lives. .. Thats it.

R

Well, you go on believing in whatever you want to call your fantasy. I'm sticking with the facts, which are not fully known, and the facts you started this thread with turned out not to be true. From your first post:


The third email came at 6:07 p.m. ET and was sent to a different email list but still includes the White House Situation Room address and a subject line of “Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack (SBU).”

We now know that Ansar al-Sharia did not claim responsibility, they denied it. It's not an example of an administration cover-up, it's an example of the chaotic, contradictory and often inaccurate information they had to work with.

And instead of dealing with that, you just go on to the next accusation. If you cared about the truth, that's not how you'd proceed. But you cling to your fantasy, if it makes you feel good.

johnw
10-30-2012, 11:31 PM
FDR is said to have deceived the public about his intentions to enter into WW2 (European theatre). Between the Prez and the American people, that's a dangerous thing, though arguably not a violation of his oath or outside the powers of the executive, if done for national security purposes. It might simultaneously have furthered the interest of his party and his own political interest and maybe even personal economic interest, i.e. he stood to cash in. Meanwhile it deceives the Axis.

Did it make him a bad President? Did he subvert the Constitution? Difficult to say, more than a half-century later.

This would indicate that, in this case, without a gigantically clearer case to make, attacking Obama in this fashion is putting partisan interest ahead of the national interest, without justification. I say this knowing full well the seriousness of what I say. I urge the Republicans to re-consider.

p.s. this is the new kinder and gentler Osborne Russell. Let's enjoy and hope it lasts.

The disagreements among our politicians used to stop at the water's edge. Now they cover the earth.


http://www.dadamo.com/logo-paint.jpg

Cuyahoga Chuck
10-31-2012, 12:57 PM
Your wrong. I see no conspiracy... just the Obama administration trying to minimize any negative political fallout above all other concerns including lying to family members of those who lost their lives. .. Thats it.

R

What you just said amounted to "I see no conspiracy just something that looks like a conspiracy".
You need an editor ,fella.

wardd
10-31-2012, 01:00 PM
What you just said amounted to "I see no conspiracy just something that looks like a conspiracy".
You need an editor ,fella.

and a therapist

Ian McColgin
11-02-2012, 10:12 AM
But wait, there are facts to consider:

U.S. says CIA responded within 25 minutes to Benghazi attack

Intelligence officials dispute a report by Fox News that officers in Libya were ordered to 'stand down' after the diplomatic compound came under attack.

By Ken Dilanian, Los Angeles Times
November 2, 2012

WASHINGTON — CIA security officers in a Benghazi post responded within 25 minutes to a call for help from a nearby State Department compound after it came under attack Sept. 11, officials said Thursday, seeking to refute a Fox News report asserting that CIA managers ordered them to stay put.

In releasing a detailed timeline of CIA actions that night, senior intelligence officials have put aside long-standing concerns about revealing the extent of the agency's presence in Benghazi in order to push back against what officials say are baseless allegations that aid was withheld.

"At every level in the chain of command, from the senior officers in Libya to the most senior officials in Washington, everyone was fully engaged in trying to provide whatever help they could," a senior intelligence official said in a statement. "There were no orders to anybody to stand down in providing support."

Fox News asserted in a story last week that CIA managers had ordered agency security officers to "stand down" and remain in their own facility, known as the Annex, when the attack on the diplomatic compound began about 9:40 p.m. and that there was an hour delay before officers disobeyed orders and went to help repel the attack that killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and State Department officer Sean Smith.

Among those who rushed to help was Tyrone Woods, a former Navy SEAL who was part of the CIA security team and who later died in the attacks.
The Fox story also asserted that the CIA "chain of command" refused to pass along requests from its officers for military aid and that special operations forces in nearby Sicily could have been sent to help but were not. Intelligence and Pentagon officials strenuously denied that Thursday.

They insisted there was no viable military option to disrupt what amounted to a series of sporadic attacks in a crowded city full of people sympathetic to the U.S. There were no armed drones in the region and airstrikes were not called for, officials said.

"Let's say we were able to get an aircraft there. Do you go in and start strafing a populated area without knowing where friend or foe is?" a senior Defense official asked. "If you did that, you could kill the very people you are trying to help."

A special operations team was sent to Naval Air Station Sigonella in Sicily, but the team arrived after the attack ended, said the senior Defense official, who would not be quoted by name discussing potentially classified information.

Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta learned of the attack shortly after it began, about 4:30 p.m Eastern time, Defense officials said, and discussed it in a previously scheduled meeting with the president. Obama ordered him to pursue whatever options were feasible, a Defense official said.

Panetta "ordered all appropriate forces to respond to the unfolding events in Benghazi, but the attack was over before those forces could be employed," Pentagon spokesman George Little said.

Shortly after 11 p.m. a surveillance drone had arrived from elsewhere in Libya — about an hour after it was requested, officials said. But the video feed was not seen by the president, contrary to some news reports. And the feed did not offer analysts a clear understanding of what was happening on the ground, officials said.

After the CIA team arrived at the compound, "over the next 25 minutes, team members approach the compound, attempt to secure heavy weapons [from Libyans], and make their way onto the compound itself in the face of enemy fire," the senior U.S. intelligence official said.

The senior intelligence official disclosed that the CIA also sent a second six-member team from Tripoli on a chartered plane to help repel the attack. The team included Glen Doherty, another former SEAL, who was later killed when attackers fired mortar rounds at the CIA Annex.

The team arrived around midnight but got bogged down at the airport. Ultimately, it learned that "the ambassador was almost certainly dead" and headed to the agency facility "to assist with the evacuation," the official said.

It arrived with Libyan support at the Annex at 5:15 a.m., just before mortar rounds began to strike. Woods and Doherty were killed as they fired on militants from the roof. The mortar attack lasted 11 minutes, the official said.

The drone overhead was not armed. Even if it had been, there were no viable targets, officials said.

"The officers on the ground in Benghazi responded to the situation on the night of 11 and 12 September as quickly and as effectively as possible," the intelligence official said. "The security officers in particular were genuine heroes. They quickly tried to rally additional local support and heavier weapons, and when that could not be accomplished within minutes, they still moved in and put their own lives on the line to save their comrades."

# # #

John of Phoenix
11-02-2012, 10:45 AM
They insisted there was no viable military option to disrupt what amounted to a series of sporadic attacks in a crowded city full of people sympathetic to the U.S. There were no armed drones in the region and airstrikes were not called for, officials said.

"Let's say we were able to get an aircraft there. Do you go in and start strafing a populated area without knowing where friend or foe is?" a senior Defense official asked. "If you did that, you could kill the very people you are trying to help."

But what does the CIA and Pentagon know, right clifford? They've never called gunships to within 100 meters of their own position, right clifford?

Right? :D

johnw
11-02-2012, 01:01 PM
So, Rod, will you apply the same strict standard of accuracy to Fox News as you were applying to the administration? It would appear they have been misrepresenting the facts for political purposes.

RodB
11-02-2012, 01:59 PM
Why is it that any fricking source you guys post is supposedly "honest" and "the straight dope".... I don't believe any of em including Fox..but I do know Fox had reporters talking to folks who were present during this event or had first hand knowledge... and its unlikely they have misrperesented any of the feedback from their sources. This story has so many holes in it if you listen to the official sources, not to mention the outright lies disseminated by the Obama Administration. Hopefully the truth will come out with the ongoing investigations etc...but bottom line, Obama outright lied to the American people as his agents (Ambassador to the UN, Press Secretary, Secretary of State, etc, etc..) told bold faced lies to mitigate possible political damage before the election. If you have noticed, still most of the main stream press are still protecting this administration by not reporting on this story. The majority of the journalists in this country are worthless dog s-it.


This makes a good point about the press in this country,,,
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/103012-631381-cindy-sheehan-cheered-charles-woods-ignored.htm

lots of valid perspectives...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/billflax/2012/10/18/benghazi-four-americans-died-obama-lied-and-the-press-complied/

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/09/17/obamas-security-breach-in-libya-is-ignored-by-american-media/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/02/sources-emails-point-to-communication-breakdown-in-obama-administration-during/

This Caddell is right on!
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/10/democrat-pollster-caddell-liberal-media-has-become-a-threat-to-america-by-not-reporting-truth-on-benghazi-video/

If Romney wins this election, you can bet the mainstream press will be seen for what they are ... and become irrellevant.

RodB

John of Phoenix
11-02-2012, 02:02 PM
So now it's all about the lame stream press. You sound like Sarah. :D

RodB
11-02-2012, 02:04 PM
This guy seems kinda objective... perhaps his comments may gain some legs...

http://perspectivesonthenews.blogs.deseretnews.com/2012/10/31/why-doesnt-the-benghazi-attack-story-have-legs/

And another you guys will perhaps allow some credence.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/post/fox-newss-benghazi-bombshell-why-havent-other-media-followed/2012/11/01/3d5da68e-2437-11e2-ac85-e669876c6a24_blog.html

RodB

Glen Longino
11-02-2012, 02:32 PM
"The majority of journalists in this country are worthless dog s-it."

I agree! If US journalists had any balls they would have dragged Mitch McConnell and Karl Rove and Dick Armey across every front page and TV screen in the country for the past four years and exposed them and their ilk(and their supporters like you)for the control freaks they are!

johnw
11-02-2012, 02:34 PM
Why is it that any fricking source you guys post is supposedly "honest" and "the straight dope".... I don't believe any of em including Fox..but I do know Fox had reporters talking to folks who were present during this event or had first hand knowledge... and its unlikely they have misrperesented any of the feedback from their sources. This story has so many holes in it if you listen to the official sources, not to mention the outright lies disseminated by the Obama Administration. Hopefully the truth will come out with the ongoing investigations etc...but bottom line, Obama outright lied to the American people as his agents (Ambassador to the UN, Press Secretary, Secretary of State, etc, etc..) told bold faced lies to mitigate possible political damage before the election. If you have noticed, still most of the main stream press are still protecting this administration by not reporting on this story. The majority of the journalists in this country are worthless dog s-it.


This makes a good point about the press in this country,,,
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/103012-631381-cindy-sheehan-cheered-charles-woods-ignored.htm

lots of valid perspectives...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/billflax/2012/10/18/benghazi-four-americans-died-obama-lied-and-the-press-complied/

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/09/17/obamas-security-breach-in-libya-is-ignored-by-american-media/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/02/sources-emails-point-to-communication-breakdown-in-obama-administration-during/

This Caddell is right on!
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/10/democrat-pollster-caddell-liberal-media-has-become-a-threat-to-america-by-not-reporting-truth-on-benghazi-video/

If Romney wins this election, you can bet the mainstream press will be seen for what they are ... and become irrellevant.

RodB

Why is it when the facts are against them, people on the right always blame the messenger? And yet, they're always willing to listen to people who tell them what they want to hear, like Fox. I personally think it will take time for the facts to come out, because the situation was chaotic. Fox wasn't willing to wait for that, because they want a scandal on a schedule that they can use for political ends. This results in mistakes like reporting that a group claimed credit for the attack when that group specifically denied they were behind it.

And if Romney loses the election, what effect will that have? I'm hoping it will show that running an extremely dishonest campaign doesn't work.

TDSoren
11-02-2012, 03:27 PM
Fox would have to be crazy to report a story such as this with lies... Gimme a break.. this is some serious stuff... and I'm betting they have triple checked all that they have said..

R
In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.


Back in December of 1996, Jane Akre and her husband, Steve Wilson, were hired by FOX as a part of the Fox “Investigators” team at WTVT in Tampa Bay, Florida. In 1997 the team began work on a story about bovine growth hormone (BGH), a controversial substance manufactured by Monsanto Corporation. The couple produced a four-part series revealing that there were many health risks related to BGH and that Florida supermarket chains did little to avoid selling milk from cows treated with the hormone, despite assuring customers otherwise.


According to Akre and Wilson, the station was initially very excited about the series. But within a week, Fox executives and their attorneys wanted the reporters to use statements from Monsanto representatives that the reporters knew were false and to make other revisions to the story that were in direct conflict with the facts. Fox editors then tried to force Akre and Wilson to continue to produce the distorted story. When they refused and threatened to report Fox's actions to the FCC, they were both fired.(Project Censored #12 1997)


Akre and Wilson sued the Fox station and on August 18, 2000, a Florida jury unanimously decided that Akre was wrongfully fired by Fox Television when she refused to broadcast (in the jury's words) “a false, distorted or slanted story” about the widespread use of BGH in dairy cows. They further maintained that she deserved protection under Florida's whistle blower law. Akre was awarded a $425,000 settlement. Inexplicably, however, the court decided that Steve Wilson, her partner in the case, was ruled not wronged by the same actions taken by FOX.


FOX appealed the case, and on February 14, 2003 the Florida Second District Court of Appeals unanimously overturned the settlement awarded to Akre. The Court held that Akre’s threat to report the station’s actions to the FCC did not deserve protection under Florida’s whistle blower statute, because Florida’s whistle blower law states that an employer must violate an adopted “law, rule, or regulation." In a stunningly narrow interpretation of FCC rules, the Florida Appeals court claimed that the FCC policy against falsification of the news does not rise to the level of a "law, rule, or regulation," it was simply a "policy." Therefore, it is up to the station whether or not it wants to report honestly. (Anybody surprised this happened in Florida?)


During their appeal, FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves. Fox attorneys did not dispute Akre’s claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their right to do so.

Yeah, i'd say they dare to make sh*t up.

John of Phoenix
11-02-2012, 03:41 PM
When the CIA says a Fox story is full of lies what does a thinking person believe? I know it's a tough call but, even with the CIA's crappy reputation, the CIA is going win this one.


Here is the statement issued by the CIA following publication of the Fox story:
We can say with confidence that the Agency reacted quickly to aid our colleagues during that terrible evening in Benghazi. Moreover, no one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. In fact, it is important to remember how many lives were saved by courageous Americans who put their own safety at risk that night—and that some of those selfless Americans gave their lives in the effort to rescue their comrades.

BTW, what do you think SHOULD have been done?

wardd
11-02-2012, 03:59 PM
When the CIA says a Fox story is full of lies what does a thinking person believe? I know it's a tough call but, even with the CIA's crappy reputation, the CIA is going win this one.



BTW, what do you think SHOULD have been done?

we should have used one of those weapons of mass destruction that was found in iraq

John of Phoenix
11-02-2012, 04:01 PM
Take two.
When the Pentagon says a Fox story is full of lies what does a thinking person believe? I know it's a tough call but, even with the Pentagon's crappy reputation, the Pentagon is going win this one.


Following a pair of denials by the CIA and the National Security Council to a Fox News story published Friday, the Pentagon has come under scrutiny for its response to the assault on the U.S. compound in Benghazi. However, in a statement to The Atlantic Wire, a senior defense official says the Pentagon never rejected requests for military intervention in Benghazi. Not only that, the official said no such requests were ever made.

"The Pentagon took action by moving personnel and assets in the region shortly after it learned of the attack on the Benghazi consulate," said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity. "There was no request made for military intervention in Benghazi. To be successful, such an operation, if requested, would have required solid information about what was happening on the ground. Such clarity just wasn't available as the attack was unfolding."

RodB
11-02-2012, 04:07 PM
I don't know if any of the reports about what happened are true... so we have not choice to wait till some semblence of an investigation takes place...but I do know the Obama Administration lied for almost two weeks when they knew the "video story" was not true in the case of Benghazi.

You guys are so ready to defend the undefendable... and perhaps we will never know...but the simplest of truths is that the emails and other details that have leaked since have shown that the Obama administration knew much of the particlars of the attack and went with their FLASE NARRATIVE TO MINIMIZE POSSIBLE POLITICAL FALLOUT!!!! The president and his team lied without compunction and got caught... period... not a good thing right before an election unless you have 80% of the media so invested in your cause that they fail to report any negative stories like this.



And if Romney loses the election, what effect will that have? I'm hoping it will show that running an extremely dishonest campaign doesn't work.

Or... that running the most corrupt and dishonest campaign in history can work....!


When the CIA says a Fox story is full of lies what does a thinking person believe? I know it's a tough call but, even with the CIA's crappy reputation, the CIA is going win this one.... BTW, what do you think SHOULD have been done?

Fox did not dream up these details... so perhaps the truth is somewhere in the middle. I guess we will find out later but for now lets just say the Obama Administration is guilty of lots of lies and they got busted on this one with the "video caused it" story.

To the gentleman who posted the story about Fox lying... in Florida... I aint a defender of Fox, but I doubt they based the reporting over the past few weeks on made up bull sh_t. There probably are some elements of truth in what they have reported. I'm mostly interested in how Obama lied about the causes of what happened for several weeks... as the election trumped all else including our guys dying.



RodB

John of Phoenix
11-02-2012, 04:23 PM
defend the undefendable"Undefendable"? What are you talking about? Dude, how many times are you going to have to hear it from people WHO ARE ACTUALLY IN A POSITION TO KNOW WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED before it sinks in - the Fox story is a pack of lies.


Fox did not dream up these details...I know you can't imagine WHY Fox would lie about this, given their commitment to the Republican party, but the reality is that they lie all the time.

Osborne Russell
11-02-2012, 04:38 PM
we should have used one of those weapons of mass destruction that was found in iraq

Two birds, one stone !!

Osborne Russell
11-02-2012, 04:42 PM
Was this woman undecided or did she just not watch enough Fox News?


Patricia Smith, the mother of slain State Department employee Sean Patrick Smith, is now blaming President Barack Obama for her son’s death.

“I believe that Obama murdered my son,” she said Thursday from the living room of her Clairemont home. “I firmly believe this.”

Patricia Smith, who voted for Obama in 2008 at the insistence of her son, said reporting by Fox News is the basis for much of her belief that Obama is ultimately responsible for her son’s death.

http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/military/families-differ-on-benghazi-reports/article_ea28b62f-1f73-56e3-aa10-831ef5f98e96.html

Rod, you got to bump it up a serious notch or two if it's going to work. The election's only a few days away and after that there will be little demand for even modest outrage so you should pump it up hard now. Call it murder.

RodB
11-02-2012, 04:46 PM
Dont' even start with the lies from one administration versus another... The Obama administration has told more lies in the past "almost 4 years" that you couldn't begin trying to enumerate and count them. It would be a nice change if you listened to Mr Obama and he did say something that was pure unadulterated truth.


Seems like a lot of reading disabilities in this crowd... I mentioned the emials because they prove the administration knew what had gone on in Benghazi to enough of a degree that they knew their false narrative, which they went with ... was FALSE... all to avoid political fallout before an election.


Heres some just plain folk's comments...

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20121021191850AAFTPTf

and anothers....

Why did the Obama admin lie about Benghazi-gate ?
This is a blatant transgression

OMG. can you imagine what would have happened if Bush did this ???

Obama, clearly not wanting a terrorist attack on his watch, ESPECIALLY on 9/11, called it a response to a video which HAD ONLY 10,000 views at the time

So a video that was seen 10,000 times caused an entire region to explode on 9/11 ?

Impeach Obama. I dont care, get him out



http://neoneocon.com/2012/10/11/why-did-obama-lie-so-blatantly-about-benghazi/
October 11th, 2012
Why did Obama lie so blatantly about Benghazi?
I noticed today that Ann Althouse asks a series of questions about why Obama decided to put out such a blatant, easily debunked, lie about Benghazi. Her queries are similar to those I was planning to ask in a post today. So I needn’t bother to ask them myself; I’ll just link to her, and offer my answers.

First, her questions in a nutshell:

Quite aside from the wrongness of lying, generally and specifically, in this case, and quite aside from the motivation to lie — I’m going to presume, without more, it was campaign politics — why did Obama think he could get away with this lie long enough, and why was he not daunted by the risk entailed in going on and on, doubling down on the lie, and even lying in a U.N. speech? How did he have the nerve to co-opt our U.N. ambassador, Susan Rice, and subvert her credibility and honor? How did he get this millstone around the neck of Hillary Clinton, who has such a strong interest in her independent career and who knows a thing or two about the devastation of getting caught lying?…

It wasn’t respectful at all to promote this caricature of Muslims as people who look at a stupid video and lose their minds, take to the streets, and work themselves up into a murderous rage. The video story could only work as a cover for the truth if it could be leveraged on an offensive stereotype of Muslims. It is the story about the response to the video — far more the video itself — that has “a deeply cynical purpose, to denigrate a great religion”! Why didn’t Obama care that he was insulting Muslims in this weird charade about caring for Muslims?

Answers?

Obama thought he could get away with the lie because he always has. There was no reason for him to think the media would hold his feet to the fire on this particular issue; why would he? Unless I’m forgetting something, for the most part (if you exclude Jake Tapper and the media on the right, which hardly counts in the scheme of things), when have they ever done so?

So it was in a sense a no-brainer for him, because to have admitted the truth would have been to admit that his approach to the Middle East Islamists/terrorists is wrong.

As for the co-option of Rice and Clinton, Hillary lost all credibility with me as Secretary of State long ago—probably from the moment she took on the job, which is clearly above her pay grade. Among Obama’s very first foreign policy acts was his stance on Honduras, which remains one of his worst (although the press basically ignored it or covered for him). If that didn’t cause her resignation or protest, she has no integrity left. She has become a wholly-owned subsidiary of Obama, as has her husband. Whatever they may be plotting behind the scenes, that is the case at the moment.

Rice is more of an unknown. Perhaps she was misled; perhaps not. Perhaps she was being a good diplomat and saying what the administration told her to.

As for Obama’s view on Muslims, he has been very consistent in parroting the PC party line, which is that no insult to Islam is allowed, and it is to be expected that they will riot as a result. The entire approach of the left to the behavior of what used to be called “the Muslim street” is that their acts of rage are justified, and if that position infantilizes them then so be it. It’s a very small price to pay, one the left probably doesn’t even recognize as an issue. Remember the PC Commandments, from 2005? If you don’t, here’s a refresher:

1. America is uniquely evil.
2. America is never justified in defending itself.
3. Illiterate people from poor societies are superior to Americans.
4. The Earth would be better off without human beings.
5. Making a profit is always immoral.
6. Differences between individuals or groups are unfair.
7. For Designated Victim Groups, strong feelings excuse all behavior.
8. Policies informed by Judæo-Christian principles are inherently suspect.
9. Conservatives are hypocrites; liberals are sincere.
10. There are no acts of God; there are only acts of Government.
11) We defend the right to free speech for ourselves, but anyone else whose speech hurts our feelings must be censored.
12) In any conflict between a third-world nation and a first-world nation, the third-world nation is always right.
13) Tyranny in third-world countries is not our concern unless the US (or Israel) can be blamed in some way.
14) All criticism or disagreement with any policy of a third-world nation, culture, or person is, by definition, racism.

I have some questions of my own to add: has Obama finally gotten into significant trouble for this? How deeply has it penetrated the public consciousness, and will it matter? I keep thinking his polls should be in the 20s right about now. But although they’ve moved downward, it’s been a small shift considering the magnitude of his offenses. How many people are even following the story? Will that number increase as time goes on, or will the media minimize and excuse?

In other words, will Obama’s gamble pay off?

RodB

John of Phoenix
11-02-2012, 04:55 PM
Dont' even start with the lies from one administration versus another... Trying to preempt the bush/cheny/rummy era? NOT gonna happen, dude. Obviously you can create that delicious forgetful reality for yourself, but many of us live with their aftermath and we know the results of their lies.

RodB
11-02-2012, 05:05 PM
Everything that has happened the past four years is Bush's fault???? gimme a break....

RodB

Glen Longino
11-02-2012, 05:09 PM
Everything that has happened the past four years is Bush's fault???? gimme a break....

RodB

Ha! You don't get a "break" for being in denial!:)

wardd
11-02-2012, 05:11 PM
Ha! You don't get a "break" for being in denial!:)

isn't denial a break from reality?

John of Phoenix
11-02-2012, 05:14 PM
Oh heavens no. dubya had nutin' to do wit nutin'- been keeping a low profile, cuttin' some brush, ridin' his bike, doin' a little fishin' - nutin' to do wit nutin' ol' dubya.

Those two wars and a crushing worldwide recession just popped up outa nowhere.

"We create our own reality."

George Jung
11-02-2012, 05:38 PM
I'm surprised you folks are keeping at this - RodB is incorrigible!

OTOH, I imagine you need the exercise.

Carry on.

John of Phoenix
11-02-2012, 05:52 PM
I'm going to dinner with my "RodB" neighbor tonight. I'm just sharpening my sabre. :D

johnw
11-02-2012, 07:18 PM
... and put forth a stupid false narrative regardless of the facts that they did know. Thats it... thats all and they offended family members of those who lost their lives with their stupid story.


RodB

It's starting to looks like this should be about Fox.

Gerarddm
11-03-2012, 11:00 AM
Geraldo Rivera railed against conservative "hysteria" about Libya. Meanwhile, Fox barely covered Sandy. :arg

RodB
11-03-2012, 10:56 PM
Geraldo Rivera railed against conservative "hysteria" about Libya. Meanwhile, Fox barely covered Sandy

Take your foot out of your mouth... Fox covered Sandy pretty much non stop for several days until the candidates began to campaign again... FACT.

RodB

David G
11-04-2012, 12:28 AM
Why do RW whack-jobs lie so much?

RodB
11-04-2012, 01:20 AM
Why do RW whack-jobs lie so much?

David G... I have to be honest and admit I probably flipped the channel on fox the 3-4 days after the hurricane hit... I know the coverage was 100% for all practical purposes about the hurricane and its victims....

Saw it and heard it with my own eyes and ears.

RodB