Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
April 20, 2014, 09:25:15 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!  (Read 5456 times)
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5194


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #150 on: October 17, 2012, 05:23:42 AM »

Candy Crowley’s Benghazi Lifeline to Obama
FrontPage Magazine ^ | October 17, 2012 | Matthew Vadum

Posted on Wednesday, October 17, 2012 8:13:04 AM by SJackson

- FrontPage Magazine - http://frontpagemag.com -




Candy Crowley’s Benghazi Lifeline to Obama

Posted By Matthew Vadum On October 17, 2012 @ 12:55 am In Daily Mailer,FrontPage | 9 Comments


In an outrage destined for the history books, the moderator of last night’s hotly contested presidential debate uttered an untruth about President Obama’s deadly bungling in Libya after Obama overtly asked her on live television to support his dishonest version of it.

It was truly unprecedented and could only have happened in the Age of Obama.

During the town hall-format debate with an audience of undecided voters, Crowley provided an assist to Obama to help him perpetuate his administration’s ongoing cover-up about the murder of four Americans –including the U.S. ambassador— at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, this past Sept. 11. Reports indicate that Ambassador Chris Stevens and other officials were provided inadequate security in a particularly hostile part of Libya.

Hours before the debate, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, sent to Lima, Peru, by Obama’s campaign to make her inaccessible, said it was her responsibility to provide security for America’s diplomatic personnel. But that was as close to a mea culpa as Clinton was willing to come.

“In the wake of an attack like this, in the fog of war, there’s always going to be confusion,” she said. That fog can be especially difficult to navigate when both the White House and Foggy Bottom are run by mendacity-loving Saul Alinsky-worshipers, but I digress.

During the debate, GOP candidate Mitt Romney stated –correctly— that “it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.” Romney’s supporters have been saying for weeks that Obama didn’t want to label the assault on the U.S. mission a terrorist attack because to do so would be an admission that the administration’s foreign policy was in flames.

After Romney’s statement, Obama interjected, “Get the transcript,” like an eager contestant asking for a lifeline on “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?”

At that cue, Crowley cut off Romney, claiming that Obama had in fact called the attack an “act of terror” around the time it took place. Buoyed by Crowley’s compliance, Obama boasted, “Can you say that a little louder, Candy?”

“He did call it an act of terror,” she said of the president. “It did as well take — it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You [Romney] are correct about that.”

Crowley, it should be noted, is a more polite, more personable version of Martha Raddatz, the pretended moderator who tag-teamed Paul Ryan with smilin’ Joe Biden last week. This makes Crowley more dangerous than Raddatz, who was arguably more obnoxious than outright opinionated in her conduct during the vice presidential debate.

Crowley also happens to be wrong.

In the White House’s Rose Garden on Sept. 12, Obama suggested that an anti-Islam video had provoked the attack. He then offered a throw-away line, making a general statement that “no acts of terror would shake the resolve of this great nation.” Obama said what happened in Benghazi was “a terrible act” and promised that “justice will be done.” At no time did he say the events in Benghazi were instigated by terrorists.

Over the following two weeks, the Obama administration continued to resist calling the events in Benghazi a terrorist attack. On five different Sunday morning TV talk shows, Susan Rice, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, said the attack in that Libyan city stemmed from violent protests related to a “heinous and offensive” video.

On Sept. 25, Obama again refused to label the attack an act of terrorism during a softball appearance on TV’s “The View,” saying that an investigation was still ongoing. He said the same thing later the same day during an address at the United Nations, blaming the violence in Libya on the video and making the much-ridiculed assertion that “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

After the debate, an unapologetic Crowley jovially admitted on CNN that Romney was correct but blamed her victim, the former Massachusetts governor, for the sin of linguistic imprecision.


Well, you know, again, I’d heard the president’s speech at the time. I sort of re-read a lot of stuff about Libya because I knew we’d probably get a Libya question, so I kind of wanted to be up on it. So we knew that the president had, had said, you know, these acts of terrors [sic] won’t stand or whatever the whole quote was and I think actually, you know, because, right after that I did turn around and say but you are totally correct, that they spent two weeks telling us that this was about a tape and that there was a, you know, this riot right outside the Benghazi consulate, which there wasn’t. So he was right in the main but I just think he picked the wrong word.

No, Candy, Romney didn’t pick the wrong word. The Commission on Presidential Debates picked the wrong moderator.

But the damage, which may or may not be long-lasting, is now done and the debate is finished. Just another day in the mainstream media.

Former New Hampshire governor and Romney surrogate John Sununu excoriated Crowley on the Fox News Channel. “Candy Crowley had no business doing a real-time, if you will, fact check, because she was wrong,” he said. Crowley aided President Obama who “was absolutely deliberate in his dishonesty on this issue of whether it was terrorism.”

The Obama administration’s failure to provide security in Benghazi, an act that led to the death of four Americans, is “unconscionable,” Sununu said.

Commentator Charles Krauthammer skewered Obama for being “completely at sea,” and not even trying to answer the question about consulate security. Obama acted offended at suggestions he would mislead the American people, Krauthammer said, even though he put his U.N. ambassador on television to lie to the public about what transpired in Benghazi.

Romney missed “a huge opening” to pound Obama over consulate security, Krauthammer opined. Of course if there was a genuine opportunity Romney missed, it’s because he was too busy defending himself after Crowley effectively called him a liar.

Despite the standoff on Benghazi, Romney acquitted himself well.

He repeated his winning phrase, “trickle down government,” to refer to Obama’s unshakable belief that all will be well if government continues to grow in size and scope.

He explained that it was important to bringing tax rates down because it makes it easier for small businesses to hire new employees and he hit Obama over the weak economy and skyrocketing growth in dependency on government.

“We don’t have to live like this,” Romney said.

Yesterday’s debate, which took place at Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y., came after the Oct. 3 presidential debate in which Romney gave Obama the thrashing of his political career. It also came after Vice President Joe Biden’s unprecedented 85 interruptions of GOP challenger Paul Ryan in the Oct. 11 vice presidential debate.

On Fox News Channel pollster Frank Luntz’s focus group of maybe 20 now-undecided voters who voted for Obama in 2008 was harshly critical of Obama.

In a moment of candor that slipped past network censors, one man said Obama’s been “bullshitting” the public. The focus group members agreed and even seemed angry at the president, blaming him for mismanaging the economy and praising Romney’s experience creating jobs in the private sector.

In a development that ought to make left-wingers heads’ explode, even the focus group on ultra-liberal MSNBC swung for Romney.

Meanwhile, Obama has been getting a steady stream of bad news lately on the polling front.

A devastating Gallup poll released yesterday showed that Romney had the support of an impressive 50 percent of likely voters compared to Obama’s 46 percent. The poll consisted of responses from a large sample, in this case of 2,723 likely voters, all interviewed after Obama was annihilated by Romney in the Oct. 3 debate in Denver.

Even the staid statisticians at Gallup acknowledge that even though “debates are rarely transformative events in presidential elections,” Obama “has lost ground with voters since the start of the month, most likely reflecting his poorly reviewed performance in the first presidential debate.”

In recent months maybe, just maybe, the polls weren’t necessarily wrong. Perhaps they reflected voter ambivalence. Americans were open to the possibility of firing Obama but they weren’t yet sold on Romney.

When the endless parade of progressive pundits argued in the last few months that Obama was such an inspirational figure that mundane issues like national security and the economy no longer mattered to voters, it turns out they were projecting, not commenting.
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5194


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #151 on: October 17, 2012, 07:50:09 AM »

Yes, They Played Politics on Libya
Jonathan S. Tobin | @tobincommentary 10.17.2012 - 1:07 AM



President Obama went ballistic during the presidential debate at Hofstra University when Mitt Romney questioned the conduct of the administration in its reaction to the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya:
 

And the suggestion that anybody in my team, whether the secretary of state, our U.N. ambassador, anybody on my team would play politics or mislead when we’ve lost four of our own, Governor, is offensive. That’s not what we do. That’s not what I do as president. That’s not what I do as commander in chief.
 
It was potentially a strong moment for the president as he was able, at least for the moment, to deflect concern about the administration’s failure in Libya and turn into a question of whether Romney overstepped the mark in his criticism. But a dispassionate look at the question on which the president made his grandstand play shows that his administration stands guilty of doing exactly what he denied.
 


The whole point about the administration spending more than two weeks trying to claim that the assassination of the U.S. ambassador to Libya was merely the result of an overheated reaction to an offensive film is that it dovetails with the political needs of the Obama re-election campaign.
 
We have yet to discover exactly what President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice knew about Libya and when they knew it as well as why the consulate’s requests for security were denied and who made that decision. The president was asked a direct question about that at Hofstra and chose not to answer it.
 
Though this issue was diverted into one largely about whether the president called the incident a terror attack the next day, what is being ignored is the fact that even though Obama uttered the word “terror” the following day, his administration spent the following days and weeks shouting down those who spoke of it as terrorism.
 
Their motivation wasn’t just the product of confusion about the available intelligence. It was the product of a desire to silence any speculation about the revival of al-Qaeda affiliates in Libya.
 
In the aftermath of the 9/11 anniversary, U.S. diplomatic facilities were attacked throughout the Middle East with American flags being torn down and replaced by al-Qaeda banners. Throughout the region, Islamist terrorism continues to fester and even gain strength in certain countries.
 
That’s a grim fact that not only needs to be acknowledged but understood as a major cause of the Libya disaster. But it is not something that the administration is comfortable saying because the keynote to the president’s foreign policy and security re-election platform is the notion that al-Qaeda is as dead as Osama bin Laden.
 
Having staked so much on the “bin Laden is dead” theme, the administration dragged its feet when it came to telling the truth about Islamist terrorism in Libya. They repeatedly claimed that the ambassador died as the result of film criticism run amuck. While they claim this was the result of faulty intelligence, there’s no mystery about why they embraced this false narrative so enthusiastically. Talking about an offensive anti-Muslim video (albeit one that virtually no one has actually seen) allowed the president’s foreign policy team to avoid saying the words “terror” and “al-Qaeda.” Instead, they talked about a movie for which they endlessly apologized. The president’s faux outrage notwithstanding, if that isn’t playing politics with security issues and misleading the American public, I don’t know what is.
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5194


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #152 on: October 17, 2012, 08:04:36 AM »

Posted at 08:30 AM ET, 10/17/2012
Obama still wrong on Libya; Crowley blows it

By Jennifer Rubin



In what surely was one of the weirdest incidents in a presidential debate, CNN’s Candy Crowley egregiously sided with President Obama on his false remarks on Libya, was repeatedly and decisively fact-checked post-debate as wrong (somewhere between “mostly wrong” and “pants on fire” in my book) and then backed away from her own incorrect assertion. As was the case in the vice presidential debate, the biggest story may be the after-the-debate tumult over White House misrepresentations on Libya.
 
Here was the exchange:
 

ROMNEY: Yeah, I -- I certainly do. I certainly do. I -- I think it’s interesting the president just said something which is that on the day after the attack, he went in the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror. You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack it was an act of terror. It was not a spontaneous demonstration.
 
OBAMA:Please proceed.
 
ROMNEY: Is that what you’re saying?
 
OBAMA: Please proceed, Governor.
 
ROMNEY: I -- I -- I want to make sure we get that for the record, because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.
 
OBAMA:Get the transcript.
 
CROWLEY: It -- he did in fact, sir.
 
So let me -- let me call it an act of terrorism -- (inaudible) --
 
OBAMA:Can you say that a little louder, Candy? (Laughter, applause.)
 
CROWLEY: He did call it an act of terror. It did as well take -- it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea of there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You are correct about that.
 
ROMNEY: This -- the administration -- the administration -- (applause) -- indicated that this was a -- a reaction to a -- to a video and was a spontaneous reaction.
 
CROWLEY: They did.
 
ROMNEY: It took them a long time to say this was a terrorist act by a terrorist group and -- and to suggest -- am I incorrect in that regard? On Sunday the -- your -- your secretary or --
 
OBAMA:Candy --
 
ROMNEY: Excuse me. The ambassador to the United Nations went on the Sunday television shows and -- and spoke about how this was a spontaneous reaction.
 
But Crowley and Obama had it wrong. the Post’s Glenn Kessler explained:
 

What did Obama say in the Rose Garden a day after the attack in Libya? ”No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this nation,” he said.
 
But he did not say “terrorism”—and it took the administration days to concede that that it an “act of terrorism” that appears unrelated to initial reports of anger at a video that defamed the prophet Muhammad.
 
In fact, that reference to “acts of terror” didn’t appear in any sentence or paragraph with “Libya” or “Benghazi.” In that Rose Garden speech Obama seemed to obliquely refer to the purported provocation (the anti-Muslim video) when he said: “Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.” The reference to “acts of terror” (plural, not the singular attack on Benghazi) was in reference to 9/11/01 and other jihadist attacks:
 

Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. We mourned with the families who were lost on that day. I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed. And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.

As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.
 
No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.
 
Other media fact checkers echoed this analysis. Then came Crowley’s walk-back:
 
She owes Romney and the country a more forthright correction and apology.
 
As Mickey Kaus wrote, “He only used the phrase after talking about the original 2001 9/11 attacks, after all. Maybe those were the ‘acts of terror’ that wouldn’t shake our resolve, etc. that Obama was talking about. The antecedent is ambiguous, presumably intentionally so.” For that reason, he argued, “She didn’t let the candidates make their arguments about what Obama’s statement did or did not mean – obviously the right course to take. She flatly intervened to declare that Obama’s interpretation was right.”
 
Notwithstanding all of that and even facing two opponents, both wrong, Romney should certainly have moved in for the kill. If Obama had said it was terrorism on Sept. 12, than why did Susan Rice tell the country a different story on Sept. 16? Certainly then Obama should not have continued to link the anti-Muslim video to the attack in his Univision appearance on Sept. 20 (“ What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests”) and in his United Nations speech on Sept.25. And why did Obama not make clear it was a terrorist attack on “The View” that same day?(“We are still doing an investigation. There is no doubt that the kind of weapons that were used, the ongoing assault, that it wasn’t just a mob action. Now, we don’t have all the information yet, so we are still gathering.”)
 
But what Romney forfeited on debating points remains a gnawing, deepening problem for the president. What did he know and when did he know it? Why was he seemingly oblivious to the deteriorating security situation in Libya months earlier when, among others, the International Red Cross, pulled out of what was fast-becoming a jihadist haven?
 
This controversy is not going away and will continue to dominate the headlines, soak up the political oxygen and make it increasingly difficult for Obama to recapture the momentum.

Romney could use some sharpening on foreign policy to put Obama away next Monday, although each debate is of less significance. Romney would do well to simply recite the timeline to viewers, making clear the president was either dissembling or out of the intelligence loop (which quickly discarded the spontaneous video protest theory because, of course, there never was a protest).

Romney was entirely on the mark on one count: Libya is indicative of a failed Middle East policy in which Obama has repeatedly misjudged our enemies, kicked our friend Israel and left the United States less influential than ever. (“Look what’s happening in Syria, in Egypt, now in Libya. Consider the distance between ourselves and Israel, where the president said that — that he was going to put daylight between us and Israel. We have Iran four years closer to a nuclear bomb. Syria — Syria’s not just the tragedy of 30,000 civilians being killed by a military, but also a strategic — strategically significant player for America. The president’s policies throughout the Middle East began with an apology tour and pursue a strategy of leading from behind, and this strategy is unraveling before our very eyes.”) Not even Candy Crowley can fudge that.
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5194


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #153 on: October 17, 2012, 01:49:21 PM »

Insight: Brazen Islamic militants showed strength before Benghazi attack


http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/16/us-usa-libya-alqaeda-idUSBRE89F1SL20121016

By Mark Hosenball and Matt Spetalnick

WASHINGTON | Tue Oct 16, 2012 7:19pm EDT

 


(Reuters) - In the months before the deadly attack in Benghazi, Libya, U.S. and allied intelligence agencies warned the White House and State Department repeatedly that the region was becoming an increasingly dangerous vortex for jihadist groups loosely linked or sympathetic to al Qaeda, according to U.S. officials.
 
Despite those warnings, and bold public displays by Islamist militants around Benghazi, embassies in the region were advised to project a sense of calm and normalcy in the run-up to the anniversary of the September 11 attacks in the United States.

So brazen was the Islamist presence in the Benghazi area that militants convened what they billed as the "First Annual Conference of Supporters of Shariah (Islamic law)" in the city in early June, promoting the event on Islamist websites.

Pictures from the conference posted on various Internet forums featured convoys flying al Qaeda banners, said Josh Lefkowitz of Flashpoint-Intel.com, a firm that monitors militant websites. Video clips showed vehicles with mounted artillery pieces, he added.

A research report prepared for a Pentagon counter-terrorism unit in August said the Benghazi conference brought together representatives of at least 15 Islamist militias. Among the paper's conclusions: these groups "probably make up the bulk of al Qaeda's network in Libya."

Drawing on multiple public sources, the Library of Congress researchers who drafted the paper also concluded that al Qaeda had used the "lack of security" in Libya to establish training camps there. It also reported that "hundreds of Islamic militants are in and around Derna," where special camps provided recruits with "weapons and physical training."

President Barack Obama's administration has repeatedly said it had no specific advance warning of an attack like the one that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans in Benghazi on the night of September 11.

But the reports of militants' growing clout in eastern Libya, and attempts by violent jihadists to take advantage of fragile new governments across northern Africa following the Arab Spring, appear to raise new questions about whether U.S. embassies took proper security precautions, and if not, why not.

ARAB SPRING INSTABILITY

Washington has not definitively placed responsibility for the Benghazi attack on specific individuals or groups among the jihadist factions believed to be operating in or near Libya.

But U.S. officials have said that within hours of the Benghazi attacks, information from communications intercepts and U.S. informants indicated members of at least two groups may have been involved.

One is an al Qaeda offshoot, al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb or AQIM, which was founded in Algeria and has region-wide ambitions. The other is a local militant faction called Ansar al-Sharia, which apparently has arms both in Benghazi and in Derna, long a hotbed of radicalism.

Like other militants seeking to take advantage of democratic openings and fragile governments created in last year's Arab Spring, the two groups are apparently seeking to exploit instability in Libya after the fall of dictator Muammar Gaddafi.

The links between these groups, other jihadist organizations and the original core al Qaeda militant group founded by the late Osama bin Laden are murky at best, U.S. officials and private analysts say.

"There is a complex mosaic of extremist groups in North Africa," a U.S. counterterrorism official said. "Given AQIM's interest in expanding its reach, it's not surprising that the group is trying to gain a foothold in Libya."

While hardly sweeping the continent, violent extremist groups appear to have found ungoverned safe havens across north Africa, from Mali in the west to Egypt's Sinai in the east.

In the last month, U.S. embassies in Egypt, Tunisia and Yemen have also witnessed violent attacks.

Questions have been raised about security precautions at diplomatic facilities in those countries as well.

VETERAN HARD-LINE EXTREMISTS

Tunisia, the cradle of the Arab Spring, was the scene of some of the worst recent anti-American violence. Hardline Islamists there have been accused of inciting the storming of the U.S. Embassy in Tunis a few days after the Benghazi attacks. Four protesters were killed, cars were burned and the U.S. flag was torn down and replaced with a black Jihadist banner.

"The recent violence at the U.S. Embassy in Tunis highlights the unfortunate fact that extremists are increasingly active in Tunisia," the U.S. counterterrorism official said. "It's not prime AQIM territory, but there are veteran hard-line extremists in the country with nefarious intentions."

The U.S. Embassy in Yemen - home of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula or AQAP, one of the group's most dangerous offshoots - was also hard hit, and Washington sent Marines to bolster security there.

Nevertheless, last week in Sanaa, attackers shot and killed a senior Yemeni member of the embassy's security force on his way to work. Yemeni officials said the attack bore the hallmarks of AQAP.

Obama moved after the eruption of violence last month to beef up protection of U.S. diplomatic installations in the Arab world, sending in Marine contingents to several embassies and temporarily reducing the number of U.S. personnel at some posts.

The president also vowed to bring to justice those responsible for the Benghazi attack.

But the administration may have a hard time deciding whom to target. The increasingly diffuse nature of al Qaeda, its allies and sympathizers complicates the job of identifying precisely which individuals and groups were behind the attacks.

'IMPROVING' SECURITY?

Despite signs of growing militancy in Libya, and a string of attacks on international facilities in Benghazi over the spring and summer, two compounds housing U.S. personnel remained open in the city.

State Department messages and testimony at a recent congressional hearing showed the State Department responded slowly, if at all, to requests for beefed-up security in Libya, and sometimes turned such requests down.

Just hours before he died, a State Department cable showed, Stevens met with members of the Benghazi local council, who insisted security in the city was "improving" and the U.S. government should "pressure" American companies to invest.

Later that day, it said, Stevens was scheduled to launch a project called "American Space Benghazi," a public outreach center containing a "small library, computer lab and open space for programming."

(Editing by Warren Strobel and Todd Eastham)










Wow!!!
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5194


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #154 on: October 17, 2012, 03:08:23 PM »

osted at 12:35 PM ET, 10/17/2012
More evidence of deception

By Jennifer Rubin


President Obama’s attempts to wriggle free from his own words and actions on Libya are making things worse.

American Crossroads, taking exception to Obama’s announcement last night that he really had declared Benghazi to be an act of terrorism, has sent out a memo, which reads:
 
The President clearly misled the American people with this claim, because if Obama’s Rose Garden speech was indeed the White House position, it did not inform any subsequent statement by the White House press office — and was even directly contradicted by his own spokesman several days later.
 
On September 20 — eight days after Obama claims to have called the Benghazi attack an “act of terror” — Jay Carney affirmed to reporters that the White House had never called it “a terrorist attack.”
 
From the gaggle on Air Force One, en route to Miami, 9/20/2012:
 
Q: Can you — have you called it a terrorist attack before? Have you said that?
 
MR. CARNEY: I haven’t, but — I mean, people attacked our embassy. It’s an act of terror by definition.
 
Q: Yes, I just hadn’t heard you —

MR. CARNEY: It doesn’t have to do with what date it occurred.
 
Q: No, I just hadn’t heard the White House say that this was an act of terrorism or a terrorist attack. And I just —

MR. CARNEY: I don’t think the fact that we hadn’t is not — as our NCTC Director testified yesterday, a number of different elements appear to have been involved in the attack, including individuals connected to militant groups that are prevalent in eastern Libya, particularly in the Benghazi area. We are looking at indications that individuals involved in the attack may have had connections to al Qaeda or al Qaeda’s affiliates, in particular al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.
 
Here, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney actually affirmed Gov. Romney’s position that the White House did not call the Benghazi attack an act of terrorism. Carney also said the now infamous video “precipitated some of the unrest in Benghazi” the day before.

The memo goes on to argue that Obama’s position on Libya is “untenable.” That’s about the shape of things. Did he call it an act of terror and go around misleading the country for two weeks that it was a spontaneous reaction to the anti-Muslim movie? Or did he not call it terror on Sept. 12 and lie to the voters last night?
 
There is another problem with Obama’s response. Recall this part of his answer: “So as soon as we found out that the Benghazi Consulate was being overrun, I was on the phone with my national security team, and I gave them three instructions. Number one, beef up our security and — and — and procedures not just in Libya but every embassy and consulate in the region. Number two, investigate exactly what happened, regardless of where the facts lead us, to make sure that folks are held accountable and it doesn’t happen again. And number three, we are going to find out who did this, and we are going to hunt them down, because one of the things that I’ve said throughout my presidency is when folks mess with Americans, we go after them”
 
So there was no actual meeting of the National Security Council at which everyone could share information and get on the same page? (David Axelrod has refused to say.) It doesn’t sound like it. But you know Obama was busy that day — flying to Las Vegas for a campaign event. So really, why have a meeting? Well, the weeks of confusion and dissembling that followed should answer that.
 
Moreover, if he actually did instruct his team to heighten protection for the Libya Consulate, why was the consulate left unsecured so that CNN could waltz in to grab Ambassador Chris Stevens’s diary? Did Obama not make himself clear, or were his instructions not followed?
 
The more we learn the more we see how both dishonest and incompetent has been the handling of this entire incident. The Obama White House may be out spinning the press to buy into the Obama-Crowley line, but no one is buying it. As the rest of the information comes to light, the president retains less and less credibility. Like a fish on a line he flops this way and that, trying to break free of his self-created trap.
 
And finally, this Reuters report suggests the administration was entirely unprepared for the 9-11 attacks.:
 

In the months before the deadly attack in Benghazi, Libya, U.S. and allied intelligence agencies warned the White House and State Department repeatedly that the region was becoming an increasingly dangerous vortex for jihadist groups loosely linked or sympathetic to al Qaeda, according to U.S. officials.
 
Despite those warnings, and bold public displays by Islamist militants around Benghazi, embassies in the region were advised to project a sense of calm and normalcy in the run-up to the anniversary of the September 11 attacks in the United States.
 
In short, it appears that the Obama administration didn’t take 9-11 all that seriously, and when tragedy hit, it went into spin mode. Now the president is caught in a tangle of contradictions. Not even Candy Crowley can get him out.
 

More on Libya from The Washington Post:
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5194


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #155 on: October 17, 2012, 06:49:34 PM »

(Chaffetz) Romney surrogate rebukes Crowley for 'fact-check' on Libya during debate
 The Hill ^ | 10/17/12 | Alicia M. Cohn

Posted on Wednesday, October 17, 2012 9:19:13 PM by markomalley

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), a prominent surrogate for Mitt Romney, on Wednesday rebuked Candy Crowley for backing up President Obama during a discussion of Libya at Tuesday's debate.

Crowley on Wednesday defended her decision as moderator to settle a disagreement between Romney and Obama, saying she only intended to "move them along."

But Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), a prominent Romney surrogate, said she overstepped.

"When you have two candidates disagreeing, it's not the role of the moderator to say, 'Mr. President, you're right' or 'Gov. Romney, you're right,' " he said to Crowley during a roundtable on CNN's "Starting Point." He added that he thought she did a great job as moderator other than during the exchange on Libya.

"It wasn't necessarily your place to try to be fact-checker right there," Chaffetz said. "I happen to think that your assessment of that was wrong, and so I was a bit frustrated on that particular point."

In an exchange the campaigns are still arguing about Wednesday morning, Romney criticized Obama for not calling last month's attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi an act of "terrorism" until two weeks after the incident that resulted in the death of the U.S. ambassador to Libya.

Obama said he called the violence "an act of terror" the day after it happened, and when Romney continued to challenge him, Crowley spoke up.

"He did call it an act of terror," Crowley said. "It did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea of there being a riot out there, about this tape, to come out. You are correct about that.”

“Can you say that a little louder, Candy?” Obama asked during the debate, to applause from the crowd. Conservatives immediately protested that Crowley was siding with Obama and challenged that the president's use of the phrase "act of terror" in his Rose Garden speech on Sept. 12 was arguably not a direct reference to the attack on the consulate.

Crowley explained to CNN after the debate that she thought Romney "was right in the main, I just think he picked the wrong word."

She explained further in Wednesday morning's interview: "There is no question that the administration is quite vulnerable on this topic, that they did take weeks to go, 'Well, actually there really wasn't a protest and actually it didn't have anything to do with the tape.' That took a long time."

She added that she thought it took nearly a month for the administration to admit that the violence was not spontaneous and that there had been security concerns at the consulate preceding the incident. The administration's initial explanation was that an anti-Islam video posted on YouTube prompted a spontaneous protest.

"Then we got hung up on this 'Yes, he said'; 'No, I didn't'; 'I said terror'; 'You didn't say terror.' There was this point where they both kind of looked at me," Crowley explained of the exchange. "What I wanted to do was kind of move this along."

Crowley's role as moderator was already under fire before the debate due to an agreement between the campaigns that would have banned her from rephrasing questions, opening a new topic, asking follow-up questions or commenting on either questions or answers given by the candidates.

Crowley said before the debate that she saw her role as that of facilitator.

Paul Ryan, in another interview with ABC News on Wednesday morning, said Crowley backtracked on siding with Obama over "act of terror," something Crowley denied. She maintained that she always granted each candidate had a point and added that she hoped the campaigns would go back to focusing on each other, rather than her, soon.

She added that she did not get the impression that either candidate was specifically targeting her or her performance during the debate.

"The first person that made a beeline for me was Gov. Romney; he came over and said, 'Thanks, Candy, very much. Great debate,' " she said. "I never felt like they were anything other than two men who were watching the calendar squeeze in on them toward Election Day, and they were there to fight it out."
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5194


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #156 on: October 17, 2012, 07:01:50 PM »

Benghazi Attack Was Botched Kidnapping To Trade Blind Sheik.
 Western Journalism.com ^ | October 17, 2012 | Kris Zane

Posted on Wednesday, October 17, 2012 9:38:18 PM by Simcha7

Benghazi Attack Was Botched Kidnapping To Trade Blind Sheik.



America watched in disbelief as Barack Obama tried to tell the American people that the attack on the Libyan consulate on September 11 was the result of an amateurish, anti-Muslim video that had been on YouTube for three months with barely three hundred views.



Then suddenly the administration announced that it was, yes, a terrorist attack, but that it was the intelligence community that had fed him bad information, even though we knew our intelligence community had known it was an al-Qaeda-linked attack within twenty four hours.



Why the equivocation? Why the lies?



None of it made sense.



Until now.



Now Obama’s throwing long-time ally Egypt’s president Hosni Mubarak under the bus for the Muslim Brotherhood makes sense. All the White House contacts with Muslim Brotherhood front groups like CAIR and ISNA. All the changes that CAIR and ISNA made to the training manuals that our intelligence community uses.



Kevin Dujan, a political analyst and radio and TV host wrote an article and appeared on radio on October 8 putting forth a theory that the attack of the Libyan consulate was tied neither to a video or terrorism, but a botched kidnapping of Ambassador Stevens.



That Barack Obama had arranged with the Muslim Brotherhood to kidnap the Ambassador, and through Obama’s supposed affinity with the Muslim world, Obama would save the day and get the ambassador released.



But the Muslim Brotherhood wanted something in return.



Their beloved Blind Sheik.



Unbelievable?



Western Journalism broke the news on Monday that a source connected to the White House has stated that the murder of Stevens and the other Americans was a botched kidnapping linked to one Barack Hussein Obama.



WATCH THE YOUTUBE VIDEO:

 http://www.westernjournalism.com/benghazi-attack-was-botched-kidnapping-to-trade-blind-sheik/



Simcha7.
Report to moderator   Logged
AbrahamG
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 1963

The vagina is my third favorite hole.


View Profile
« Reply #157 on: October 17, 2012, 08:23:56 PM »

copy, paste.copy, paste.copy, paste.copy, paste.copy, paste.copy, paste.copy, paste.copy, paste.copy, paste.copy, paste.copy, paste.
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5194


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #158 on: October 17, 2012, 08:25:52 PM »

copy, paste.copy, paste.copy, paste.copy, paste.copy, paste.copy, paste.copy, paste.copy, paste.copy, paste.copy, paste.copy, paste.


And have refuted anything?    NO.     F Off knee padder
Report to moderator   Logged
AbrahamG
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 1963

The vagina is my third favorite hole.


View Profile
« Reply #159 on: October 17, 2012, 08:34:11 PM »


And have refuted anything?    NO.     F Off knee padder

How will I ever recover?
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5194


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #160 on: October 18, 2012, 07:58:26 AM »

A Bright and Shining Libyan Lie
By Victor Davis Hanson - October 18, 2012





 
Almost everything we have been told about Libya over the last two years is untrue.
 
A free Libya was supposed to be proof of President Obama's enlightened reset Middle East policy. When insurgency broke out there, the United States joined France and Great Britain in bombing Muammar Gadhafi out of power -- and supposedly empowering a democratic Arab Spring. Not a single American life was lost.
 
Libyans, like most in the Arab World, were supposed to appreciate the new enlightened American foreign policy. Obama's June 2009 Cairo speech had praised Islam and apologized for the West. A new "lead from behind" multilateralism was said to have superseded George W. Bush's neo-imperialist interventions of the past.
 
Obama's mixed-racial identity and his father's Muslim heritage would also win over the hearts and minds of Libyans after the Gadhafi nightmare. During this summer's Democratic convention, Obama supporters trumpeted the successes of his Middle East policy: Osama bin Laden dead, al-Qaeda defanged and Arab Spring reformers in place of dictators.
 
To keep that shining message viable until the November election, the Obama administration and the media had been willing to overlook or mischaracterize all sorts of disturbing events. We had asked for a United Nations resolution for humanitarian aid and a no-fly zone to intervene in Libya, but then deliberately exceeded it by bombing Gadhafi's forces -- after bypassing the U.S. Congress in favor of a go-ahead from the Arab League.
 
Libya was not so much liberated as descending into the chaos of tribal payback. Former Gadhafi supporters and African mercenaries were executed by those we helped. Islamists began consolidating power, desecrating a British military cemetery and driving out Westerners.
 
On the 11th anniversary of 9/11, a radical Islamist hit team with heavy weapons stormed the American consulate in Benghazi, killing Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.
 
In response, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, National Intelligence Director James Clapper and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice desperately insisted that the murders were a one-time, ad hoc demonstration gone awry, without much larger significance. Supposedly, a few Muslim outliers -- inflamed over one American's anti-Islamic Internet video -- had overreacted and stormed the consulate. Such anger was "natural," assured the president.
 
But why would furor over an obscure, months-old Internet video just happen to coincide with the 9/11 anniversary attack? Do demonstrators customarily bring along rocket-propelled grenades, mortars and heavy machine guns? Why did the Libyan government attribute the killings to an al-Qaeda affiliate when the Obama administration would not?
 
Forget those questions: For most of September, desperate administration officials still clung to the myth that the Libyan catastrophe was a result of a single obnoxious video. At the United Nations, the president castigated the uncouth film. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton lamented the senseless spontaneous violence that grew out of one American's excesses, as she spoke beside the returning coffins of the slain Americans.
 
Nonetheless, more disturbing facts kept emerging: Ambassador Stevens repeatedly had warned his State Department superiors in vain of impending Islamist violence. Security personnel -- to no avail -- had also urged beefing up the protection of the consulate, prompting former regional security officer Eric Nordstrom to say in exasperation that "the Taliban is on the inside of the building." Video of the attack revealed that there had been no demonstration at all, but rather a full-fledged terrorist assault.
 
Even as the fantasy of a spur-of-the-moment demonstration dissipated, administration officials tried to salvage it -- and with it their idealistic policy in the Middle East. Vice President Joe Biden told a flat-out whopper in last week's debate, saying the administration hadn't been informed that Americans in Libya had ever requested more security. He scapegoated the intelligence agencies for supposedly failing to warn the administration of the threat.
 
The new administration narrative faulted not one video, but the intelligence community for misleading them about the threat of an al-Qaeda hit on an American consulate -- and the Romney campaign for demanding answers about a slain ambassador and his associates. Meanwhile, the State Department, the Obama re-election team and the intelligence community were all pointing fingers at each other.
 
What the Obama administration could not concede was the truth: The lead-from-behind intervention in Libya had proved a blueprint for nothing. Libya has descended into chaos. Radical Islam had either subverted or hijacked the Arab Spring. Al-Qaeda was not dismantled by the death of bin Laden or by the stepped-up drone assassination missions in Pakistan. Egypt was becoming Islamist; Syria was a bloody mess. Iran was on the way to becoming nuclear. Obama had won America no more good will in the Middle East than had prior presidents.
 
In other words, the administration's entire experience in Libya -- and in most of the Middle East in general -- has been a bright and shining lie.

Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and author, most recently, of "A War Like No Other: How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War." You can reach him by e-mailing author@victorhanson.com.


Copyright 2012 Tribune Media Services, Inc.





Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5194


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #161 on: October 18, 2012, 08:03:46 AM »

Busted

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znVqyfxfbRQ" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znVqyfxfbRQ</a>
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5194


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #162 on: October 18, 2012, 08:13:46 AM »

CBS's Crawford Exposes Obama's Deception on Benghazi Attack
 





By Brad Wilmouth | October 18, 2012 | 01:43
 
 11 54Reddit0 2

A  A

 

On Wednesday's CBS Evening News, correspondent Jan Crawford devoted a full story to President Obama's deceptive claim that he called the Benghazi attack an "act of terror" early on, as she recounted the administration's initial reluctance to call it a terrorist attack. The CBS correspondent also implicated debate moderator and CNN anchor Candy Crowley in bolstering Obama's distortion.

 After showing a clip of Obama and Romney clashing over whether Obama had used the words "act of terror" early on, Crawford showed a clip of what the President said the day after the Benghazi attack, but then exposed Obama's revisionism:
 
But with that statement, Mr. Obama didn't directly say the Libya attack qualified as one of those acts of terror. Earlier in his remarks, he seemed to suggest the attacks instead were triggered by an anti-Muslim video.
 
After another clip of Obama, she continued:
 
Top administration officials, including U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, delivered that message over the next five days. On Face the Nation, Rice suggested the Benghazi incident might have been triggered by demonstrations in Cairo over the film.
 
Then came a clip of U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice:
 
It began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo.
 
Crawford then noted Crowley's willingness to accept Obama's explanation:
 
JAN CRAWFORD: And for two weeks the President declined to call it terrorism, but debate moderator Candy Crowley accepted the President's interpretation last night, telling Romney-

 CANDY CROWLEY, DEBATE MODERATOR AND CNN ANCHOR: He did, in fact, sir, so let me, let me call it an act of terror- (INAUDIBLE)

 PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Can you say that a little louder, Candy?

 CROWLEY: He did call it an act of terror.
 
Crawford relayed disappointment by Republicans that Romney did not challenge Crowley as the CBS correspondent concluded the report:
 
Now, many Republicans say they think that Romney missed a real opportunity last night to forcefully challenge Crowley and the President over what they say, Scott, is a new timeline that just doesn't square with the facts.
 
Below is a complete transcript of the report from the Wednesday, October 17, CBS Evening News:
 
SCOTT PELLEY: Governor Romney went after the President last night on the subject of the terror attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya that killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans. Jan Crawford is with the Romney campaign tonight. Jan?

 JAN CRAWFORD: Well, Scott, for weeks Republicans have said the President's reluctance to call the attacks terrorism is a sign his administration doesn't have a competent national security policy. Last night, the President said he did call it an act of terror within 24 hours of the attacks. That is a new explanation, and it triggered a clash between the President, Romney, and the debate moderator.

 FORMER GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY (R-MA): I think it's interesting the President just said something which is that on the day after the attack, you went in the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror. You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack it was an act of terror? It was not a spontaneous demonstration? Is that what you're saying?

 PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Please proceed, Governor.

 ROMNEY: All right, I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the President 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.

 OBAMA: Get the transcript.

 CRAWFORD: The transcript of the President's comments in the Rose Garden the day after the attacks shows he does use those words.

 OBAMA: 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.

 CRAWFORD: But with that statement, Mr. Obama didn't directly say the Libya attack qualified as one of those acts of terror. Earlier in his remarks, he seemed to suggest the attacks instead were triggered by an anti-Muslim video.

 OBAMA: We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, but there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence.

 CRAWFORD: Top administration officials, including U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, delivered that message over the next five days. On Face the Nation, Rice suggested the Benghazi incident might have been triggered by demonstrations in Cairo over the film.

 SUSAN RICE, AMBASSADOR THE THE UNITED NATIONS: It began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo.

 CRAWFORD: And for two weeks the President declined to call it terrorism, but debate moderator Candy Crowley accepted the President's interpretation last night, telling Romney-

 CANDY CROWLEY, DEBATE MODERATOR AND CNN ANCHOR: He did, in fact, sir, so let me, let me call it an act of terror- (INAUDIBLE)

 OBAMA: Can you say that a little louder, Candy?

 CROWLEY: He did call it an act of terror.

 CRAWFORD: Now, many Republicans say they think that Romney missed a real opportunity last night to forcefully challenge Crowley and the President over what they say, Scott, is a new timeline that just doesn't square with the facts.


Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2012/10/18/cbss-crawford-exposes-obamas-deception-benghazi-attack#ixzz29fDo0Bum
Report to moderator   Logged
whork
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5211


Getbig!


View Profile
« Reply #163 on: October 19, 2012, 04:17:05 AM »

Act of terror

Terrorist attack


WTF is the difference Huh
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5194


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #164 on: October 19, 2012, 04:17:42 AM »

Act of terror

Terrorist attack


WTF is the difference Huh

He was talking about 911 fool.
Report to moderator   Logged
headhuntersix
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 15230



View Profile
« Reply #165 on: October 19, 2012, 04:20:02 AM »

This is the same admin that labled the Hasan/FT Hood shooting "work place violence"......
Report to moderator   Logged

L
whork
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5211


Getbig!


View Profile
« Reply #166 on: October 19, 2012, 05:29:12 AM »

He was talking about 911 fool.

And?

Who gives a fuck?
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5194


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #167 on: October 19, 2012, 05:33:22 AM »

And?

Who gives a fuck?


LOL!!!!     Typical.   Obama goes on a world kneepad islam tour over a fake video and you could care less. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5194


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #168 on: October 19, 2012, 05:37:34 AM »

CIA saw possible terror ties day after Libya hit: AP


WASHINGTON The CIA station chief in Libya reported to Washington within 24 hours of last month's deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate that there was evidence it was carried out by militants, not a spontaneous mob upset about an American-made video ridiculing Islam's Prophet Muhammad, U.S. officials have told The Associated Press.
 

It is unclear who, if anyone, saw the cable outside the CIA at that point and how high up in the agency the information went.
 

The Obama administration maintained publicly for a week that the attack on the diplomatic mission in Benghazi that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans was a result of the mobs that staged less-deadly protests across the Muslim world around the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks on the U.S.
 

Those statements have become highly charged political fodder as the presidential election approaches. A Republican-led House committee questioned State Department officials for hours about what GOP lawmakers said was lax security at the consulate, given the growth of extremist Islamic militants in North Africa.
 

And in their debate on Tuesday, President Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney argued over when Obama first said it was a terror attack. In his Rose Garden address the morning after the killings, Obama said, "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 Republicans say he was speaking generally and didn't specifically call the Benghazi attack a terror attack until weeks later, with the president and other key members of his administration referring at first to the anti-Muslim movie circulating on the Internet as a precipitating event.
 

Now, congressional intelligence committees are demanding documents to show what the spy agencies knew and when, before, during and after the attacks.
 

The White House now says the attack probably was carried out by an al Qaeda-linked group, with no public demonstration beforehand. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton blamed the "fog of war" for the early conflicting accounts.
 

The officials who told the AP about the CIA cable spoke anonymously because they were not authorized to release such information publicly.
 

Congressional aides say they expect to get the documents by the end of this week to build a timeline of what the intelligence community knew and compare that to what the White House was telling the public about the attack. That could give Romney ammunition to use in his foreign policy debate with Obama on Monday night.
 

The two U.S. officials said the CIA station chief in Libya compiled intelligence reports from eyewitnesses within 24 hours of the assault on the consulate that indicated militants launched the violence, using the pretext of demonstrations against U.S. facilities in Egypt against the film to cover their intent. The report from the station chief was written late Wednesday, Sept. 12, and reached intelligence agencies in Washington the next day, intelligence officials said.
 

Yet, on Saturday of that week, briefing points sent by the CIA to Congress said "demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault."
 

The briefing points, obtained by the AP, added: "There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations" but did not mention eyewitness accounts that blamed militants alone.

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

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

But that explanation has been met with concern in Congress.

"The early sense from the intelligence community differs from what we are hearing now," Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said. "It ended up being pretty far afield, so we want to figure out why ... though we don't want to deter the intelligence community from sharing their best first impressions" after such events in the future.

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

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

National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor declined comment. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence did not respond to requests for comment.
 
Two officials who witnessed Petraeus' closed-door testimony to lawmakers in the week after the attack said that during questioning he acknowledged that there were some intelligence analysts who disagreed with the conclusion that an unruly mob angry over the video had initiated the violence. But those officials said Petraeus did not mention the CIA's early eyewitness reports. He did warn legislators that the account could change as more intelligence was uncovered, they said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the hearing was closed.

Beyond the question of what was known immediately after the attack, it's also proving difficult to pinpoint those who set the fire that apparently killed Stevens and his communications aide or launched the mortars that killed two ex-Navy SEALs who were working as contract security guards at a fallback location. That delay is prompting lawmakers to question whether the intelligence community has the resources it needs to investigate this attack in particular or to wage the larger fight against al Qaeda in Libya or across Africa.
 
Intelligence officials say the leading suspected culprit is a local Benghazi militia, Ansar al-Shariah. The group denies responsibility for the attack but is known to have ties to a leading African terror group, al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. Some of its leaders and fighters were spotted by Libyan locals at the consulate during the violence, and intelligence intercepts show the militants were in contact with AQIM militants before and after the attack, one U.S. intelligence official said.

But U.S. intelligence has not been able to match those reported sightings with the faces of attackers caught on security camera recordings during the attack since many U.S. intelligence agents were pulled out of Benghazi in the aftermath of the violence, the two U.S. intelligence officials said.

Nor have they found proof to back up their suspicion that the attack was preplanned, as indicated by the military-style tactics the attackers used, setting up a perimeter of roadblocks around the consulate and the backup compounds, then attacking the main entrance to distract, while sending a larger force to assault the rear.

Clear-cut answers may prove elusive because such an attack is not hard to bring about relatively swiftly with little preplanning or coordination in a post-revolutionary country awash with weapons, where the government is so new it still relies on armed militants to keep the peace. Plus, the location of U.S. diplomat enclaves is an open secret for the locals.

© 2012 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5194


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #169 on: October 19, 2012, 06:20:44 AM »

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/19/libya-attack-cia-discovery-us-consulate-killings_n_1984429.html


LOL!!!!

Blaming Bush! 
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5194


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #170 on: October 19, 2012, 06:52:29 AM »

Suspected ringleader in Libya attack scoffs at US in plain sight
 nbc ^ | 10/19/2012 | DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK / NY Times

Posted on Friday, October 19, 2012 9:47:40 AM by


Witnesses and the authorities have called Ahmed Abu Khattala one of the ringleaders of the Sept. 11 attack on the American diplomatic mission here. But just days after President Obama reasserted his vow to bring those responsible to justice, Mr. Abu Khattala spent two leisurely hours on Thursday evening at a crowded luxury hotel, sipping a strawberry frappe on a patio and scoffing at the threats coming from the American and Libyan governments.

Libya’s fledgling national army is a “national chicken,” Mr. Abu Khattala said, using an Arabic rhyme. Asked who should take responsibility for apprehending the mission’s attackers, he smirked at the idea that the weak Libyan government could possibly do it. And he accused the leaders of the United States of “playing with the emotions of the American people” and “using the consulate attack just to gather votes for their elections.”

Mr. Abu Khattala’s defiance — no authority has even questioned him about the attack, he said, and he has no plans to go into hiding — offered insight into the shadowy landscape of the self-formed militias that have come to constitute the only source of social order in Libya since the fall of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi.

,,,

Although Mr. Abu Khattala said he was not a member of Al Qaeda, he declared he would be proud to be associated with Al Qaeda’s puritanical zeal for Islamic law. And he said that the United States had its own foreign policy to blame for the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. “Why is the United States always trying to impose its ideology on everyone else?” he asked. “Why is it always trying to use force to implement its agendas?”


(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5194


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #171 on: October 19, 2012, 09:27:54 AM »

U.S. description of Benghazi attacks, at first cautious, changed after 3 days

Glass, debris and overturned furniture are strewn inside a room in the gutted U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, in September 2012 | Ibrahim Alaguri/AP
 
By Hannah Allam and Jonathan S. Landay | McClatchy Newspapers





WASHINGTON — In the first 48 hours after the deadly Sept. 11 attacks on U.S. diplomatic outposts in Libya, senior Obama administration officials strongly alluded to a terrorist assault and repeatedly declined to link it to an anti-Muslim video that drew protests elsewhere in the region, transcripts of briefings show.

The administration’s initial accounts, however, changed dramatically in the following days, according to a review of briefing transcripts and administration statements, with a new narrative emerging Sept. 16 when U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice asserted in a series of TV appearances that the best information available indicated that the attack had spun off from a protest over the video.

What prompted that pivot remains a mystery amid a closely contested presidential election and Republican allegations that President Barack Obama intentionally used outrage over the video to mask administration policy missteps that led to the deaths of four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens. The issue is sure to arise when Obama and his Republican rival Mitt Romney meet Monday to debate foreign policy.

Paul Pillar, a former top U.S. intelligence analyst on the Middle East, said that it’s natural with such incidents for accounts to change as new information is gathered. “You have not only a fog of war situation, but fragmentary, incomplete information, and as the responsible agencies develop and acquire better information, the explanations are naturally going to evolve,” he said.

But the administration’s statements offer an ironic twist on the “fog-of-war” phenomenon: They apparently were more accurate on the day after the attacks than they were when Rice made her TV appearances four days later. Administration officials so far have provided no detailed explanation for the change.

Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for the National Security Council, declined to comment for this report beyond saying that, "These issues have been covered in countless comments by the president and briefings."

State Department deputy spokesman Mark Toner declined to address specifics. "An independent board is conducting a thorough review of the assault on our post in Benghazi. Once we have the board’s comprehensive account of what happened, findings and recommendations, we can fully address these matters," he said in an email.

On the day after the attack, transcripts show, senior administration officials, briefing reporters, declined in response to three direct questions to link the Benghazi assaults to protests over the video. One senior official told reporters during the briefing that “unidentified Libyan extremists” launched what was “clearly a complex attack.” The official isn’t named because such briefings typically come on the condition of anonymity.

At campaign stops in Colorado and Nevada the next day, Sept. 13, Obama referred to the Benghazi assault as “an act of terror.” At the State Department press briefing that day, spokeswoman Victoria Nuland was asked directly and repeatedly whether there was a link between the video protests and the attack on the U.S. consulate.

While she mentioned that commentary on social media was making the link “to this reprehensible video,” Nuland emphasized several times that there wasn’t enough information for officials to make that leap, even though some news reports, including those of The New York Times and Agence France Presse, were citing unnamed witnesses in Libya who said that anger over the video was the reason the consulate was targeted.

“We are very cautious about drawing any conclusions with regard to who the perpetrators were, what their motivations were, whether it was premeditated, whether they had any external contacts, whether there was any link, until we have a chance to investigate along with the Libyans,” Nuland said.

That evening, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton presided over a State Department reception marking an Islamic holiday; her remarks made no mention of a protest and made only passing reference to reports that listed “inflammatory material posted on the Internet” as a possible motive.



One of the speakers, Ali Suleiman Aujali, the Libyan ambassador to the United States, told Clinton and the other attendees in no uncertain terms that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.

“I hope that this sad incident which happened, this terrorist attack which took place against the American consulate in Libya, it will tell us how much we have to work closely,” Aujali said, according to the official transcript.



The story, however, began to change the next day, Sept. 14.

With images of besieged U.S. missions in the Middle East still leading the evening news, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney became the first official to back away from the earlier declaration that the Benghazi assault was a “complex attack” by extremists. Instead, Carney told reporters, authorities “have no information to suggest that it was a preplanned attack.” He added that there was no reason to think that the Benghazi attack wasn’t related to the video, given that the clip had sparked protests in many Muslim cities.

“The unrest that we’ve seen around the region has been in reaction to a video that Muslims, many Muslims, find offensive,” Carney said.

When pressed by reporters who pointed out evidence that the violence in Benghazi was preplanned, Carney said that “news reports” had speculated about the motive. He noted again that “the unrest around the region has been in response to this video.”



Carney then launched into remarks that read like talking points in defense of the U.S. decision to intervene in last year’s uprising against Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi: that post-Gadhafi Libya, he said, is “one of the more pro-American countries in the region,” that it’s led by a new government “that has just come out of a revolution,” and that the lack of security capabilities there “is not necessarily reflective of anything except for the remarkable transformation that’s been going on in the region.”



By that Sunday, Sept. 16, the evolution of the narrative was complete when Rice, the U.N. ambassador, showed up on all five major morning talk shows to make the most direct public connection yet between the Benghazi assault and the incendiary video.

While she couched her remarks in caveats – “based on the information we have at present,” for example – Rice clearly intended to make the link before a large American audience.

According to the then-current assessment, Rice told ABC’s “This Week,” the attack was “a spontaneous – not a premeditated – response to what had transpired in Cairo” – a reference to a demonstration triggered by the anti-Muslim video in which hundreds breached the U.S. Embassy compound there and tore down the American flag. Rice repeated the claim throughout her talk-show appearances and later blamed intelligence services for giving her incorrect information before she went on air.



The next day, Nuland faced pointed questions about Rice’s remarks from the State Department press corps, which noted that even the Libyan president was describing the events as a coordinated terrorist operation. Fielding a barrage of questions from reporters trying to pin down the administration’s position in light of the divergent statements, Nuland defended Rice’s remarks with a repeated line about the ambassador’s statements accurately reflecting “our government’s initial assessment.”



On Sept. 19, as the video story began to collapse amid news reports from Libya and intelligence leaks from Washington that pointed to a premeditated attack, the administration’s story underwent yet another alteration in what seems to be an effort to reconcile the dueling narratives.

At a congressional hearing, Matthew Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, offered testimony that wove together both versions. He called it a “terrorist attack,” but also deemed it an “opportunistic attack.” He made no specific mention of a preceding demonstration over the video – witnesses interviewed by McClatchy for stories on Sept. 12 and 13 had said there was no protest – but did say that the violence “evolved and escalated over several hours.”

“What we don’t have at this point is specific intelligence that there was a significant advanced planning or coordination for this attack,” Olsen testified.

Under intense pressure from Republican critics over the handling of the Benghazi aftermath, the Obama administration finally came full circle on Sept. 20, returning to what Libyan and U.S. officials had said at the very beginning: the attack on the Benghazi consulate was separate from the region’s video protests and bore the hallmarks of a terrorist attack.



Carney, the White House spokesman who’d only days earlier tied the incident to the video, told reporters it was “self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.” He cited Olsen’s testimony that pointed to the involvement of militant groups operating in eastern Libya, “including possible participation by elements of al Qaida,” especially its North African branch.

In the next week, as the Republican-led political storm over the administration’s shifting accounts grew, the office of the nation’s top intelligence official announced that as a result of new information, it had determined that the consulate had been hit by a "deliberate and organized attack," and that it was responsible for the narrative that the assault began “spontaneously."

Yet the statement by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence failed to clear up how the administration came up with its assertion that the attack was launched during a protest against the video. Issued by a spokesman and not Director of National Intelligence James Clapper himself, the statement made no reference to a protest or the video.
 


Email: hallam@mcclatchydc.com, jlanday@mcclatchydc.com; Twitter: @hannahallam, @jonathanlanday

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/10/18/171933/obama-administration-officials.html#storylink=cpy
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5194


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #172 on: October 19, 2012, 12:27:48 PM »

Documents show Stevens worried about Libya security threats, Al Qaeda before consulate attack
 Fox News ^ | 10-19-2012 | James Rosen

Posted on Friday, October 19, 2012 2:56:57 PM by sheikdetailfeather

Across 166 pages of internal State Department documents -- released Friday by a pair of Republican congressmen pressing the Obama administration for more answers on the Benghazi terrorist attack -- slain U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and the security officers assigned to protect him repeatedly sounded alarms to their superiors in Washington about the intensifying lawlessness and violence in Eastern Libya, where Stevens ultimately died.

On Sept. 11 -- the day Stevens and three other Americans were killed -- the ambassador signed a three-page cable, labeled "sensitive," in which he noted "growing problems with security" in Benghazi and "growing frustration" on the part of local residents with Libyan police and security forces. These forces the ambassador characterized as "too weak to keep the country secure."


(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5194


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #173 on: October 19, 2012, 07:37:57 PM »

Before death, Amb. Stevens warned of "violent" Libya landscape
 CBS News ^ | October 19, 2012 | by Sharyl Attkisson

Posted on Friday, October 19, 2012 8:02:27 PM by Oldeconomybuyer

(CBS News) In the weeks before his death, U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens sent the State Department several requests for increased security for diplomats in Libya.

Stevens and three other Americans were killed in a terror attack this past Sept. 11 at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi and a separate attack that same night on a safe house where consulate staff had been evacuated.

Steven's memos to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which is investigating attacks, show he personally pressed for strengthened security.

On July 9, 2012, Stevens sent a "request for extension of tour of duty (TDY) personnel." That refers to a 16-man military temporary security team with expertise in counter terrorism. They were set to leave in August, but Stevens asked to keep them "thru mid-September."

On August 2, six weeks before he died, Stevens requested "protective detail bodyguard potions," saying the added guards "will fill the vacuum of security personnel currently at post who will be leaving with the next month and will not be replaced." He called "the security condition in Libya ... unpredictable, volatile and violent." It's not known what happened to that request.


(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5194


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #174 on: October 19, 2012, 07:42:45 PM »

CIA Told DC Benghazi Attack Not Spontaneous Within 24 Hours
 Big Peace ^ | 10/19/12 | Awr Hawkins

Posted on Friday, October 19, 2012 9:42:36 PM by trappedincanuckistan

The CIA is indicating that they told Washington the Benghazi attack was militant in nature, rather than spontaneous, within 24 hours of its occurrence.

According to a report released today, the "CIA station chief in Libya" alerted Washington that the attack was not in response to a video.

However, media outlets are doing their best to leave Obama a little wiggle room by claiming "it is unclear who, if anyone, saw the cable outside the CIA at that point." In other words, the station manager sent the alert, but there's no hard evidence anyone saw the alert in Washington.

Quick question: What does it say about the culture within the Obama administration if, in fact, they ignored or didn't even look at the CIA alert?


(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!