CIA knew almost immediately that attack was terrorism

[Quantum Windbag]

I am having a hard time tracking the story I am supposed to believe.

• Obama tells everyone that the attack was a protest over the video.
• He then insists he said it was terrorism from the beginning.
• UN Ambassador Susan Rice goes on multiple talk shows saying it was a protest over the video.
• Does anyone notice this directly contradicts what Obama says he said?
• Obama insists that we should question him if we have a problem with his story.
• He continues to hide behind a press that is willing to cover for him leaving those of us that want to question him wondering how that is supposed to happen.
• Sources back up the fact that Rice was lied to by CIA.
• Petreaus is set to testify that CIA knew almost immediately that attack was not about video.

CNN: Petraeus Knew "Almost Immediately" That Benghazi Was Terrorism | RealClearPolitics


This leads to new questions that I will be accused of being a racist sexist bigot for even thinking about.

 

[Lakhota]

Sooo, why didn't he tell Obama and Rice...?

 

[Lakhota]

Fox Tries To Prevent Susan Rice Nomination With Libya Smears | Research | Media Matters for America

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Sooo, why didn't he tell Obama and Rice...?

What makes you think he didn't tell Obama? The man insists he called it terrorism in his presser the next day, even if the rest of the world can't remember that happening, or find a reference to it in his speech, yet you want me to believe that he wasn't told that it was terrorism.

As for Rice, since she wasn't in his chain of command, why should he tell her?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Fox Tries To Prevent Susan Rice Nomination With Libya Smears | Research | Media Matters for America

What does this have to do with the OP? Does it have something to do with you being a fake Indian?

 

[Lakhota]

 

[Wiseacre]

So, Petraeus knew almost immediately that Benghazi was a terrorist attack, right? So who wrote the 'talking points memo' that was the basis for comments by Rice, Carney, other admin people and the president himself for weeks?

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

fox tries to prevent susan rice nomination with libya smears | research | media matters for america

what does this have to do with the op? Does it have something to do with you being a fake indian?

lol

 

[Claudette]

So, Petraeus knew almost immediately that Benghazi was a terrorist attack, right? So who wrote the 'talking points memo' that was the basis for comments by Rice, Carney, other admin people and the president himself for weeks?

Do you gotta ask?? Hell. That fuck sent all his minions out to lie there asses off about Benghazi.

Benghazi doesn't mean jack to him. He got re elected and the lies were all about him getting reelected.

I'm sure he doesn't give a rats ass about those four men or what anyone has to say about it. He's not running for office again and he doesn't need anyone to vote for him.

 

[Ravi]

Sooo, why didn't he tell Obama and Rice...?

What makes you think he didn't tell Obama? The man insists he called it terrorism in his presser the next day, even if the rest of the world can't remember that happening, or find a reference to it in his speech, yet you want me to believe that he wasn't told that it was terrorism.

As for Rice, since she wasn't in his chain of command, why should he tell her?

It is in his speech the next day. You just don't want to find it.

Lies like this are why Mitten lost the election.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/17/politics/fact-check-terror/index.html

 

[Caroljo]

Sooo, why didn't he tell Obama and Rice...?

What makes you think he didn't tell Obama? The man insists he called it terrorism in his presser the next day, even if the rest of the world can't remember that happening, or find a reference to it in his speech, yet you want me to believe that he wasn't told that it was terrorism.

As for Rice, since she wasn't in his chain of command, why should he tell her?

It is in his speech the next day. You just don't want to find it.

Lies like this are why Mitten lost the election.

CNN Fact Check: A day after Libya attack, Obama described it as 'acts of terror' - CNN.com

He mentioned an "act of terror" in his speech. He did NOT say that Benghazi was an act of terrorism. The word terror was not even in the same sentence as Benghazi. And for a week or more after the attack he was still saying it was the video! He's a liar.......

 

[Ravi]

He was discussing the attack. The implication is clear.

btw, do we even know now who is responsible for the attack and what the motivation was?

 

[Claudette]

Holy shit Ravi.

Who the fuck would be attacking us in Benghazi??

AQ, Hamas, Islamic Brotherhood?? The list can go on.

Motivation: You really need to ask??

 

[Ravi]

I've believed from the beginning that it was terrorism, while some of the nutters here and in the public (Republicans) claimed is was an act of war by Libya.

But we don't actually know the facts yet.

 

[PratchettFan]

I am having a hard time tracking the story I am supposed to believe.

• Obama tells everyone that the attack was a protest over the video.
• He then insists he said it was terrorism from the beginning.
• UN Ambassador Susan Rice goes on multiple talk shows saying it was a protest over the video.
• Does anyone notice this directly contradicts what Obama says he said?
• Obama insists that we should question him if we have a problem with his story.
• He continues to hide behind a press that is willing to cover for him leaving those of us that want to question him wondering how that is supposed to happen.
• Sources back up the fact that Rice was lied to by CIA.
• Petreaus is set to testify that CIA knew almost immediately that attack was not about video.

CNN: Petraeus Knew "Almost Immediately" That Benghazi Was Terrorism | RealClearPolitics


This leads to new questions that I will be accused of being a racist sexist bigot for even thinking about.

Let me see if I understand the drift of your point. You think the President and the American security agencies should immediately publish, for the whole world to see, the results of classified operations and investigations? You think it is a bad idea for these folks to, just as a thought, hold back that kind of information in an effort to perhaps not provide strategic information to our enemies? Or do you think when our leaders get in front of a microphone our enemies immediately turn off their TV sets in an effort to play fair?

 

[editec]

I really do not understand why some of us are so hung up on the issue of what EXACTLY motivated that terrorist attack.

Coming as it did very after the outrage over that movie became an international issue, it seems possible that the movie gave the terrorists an excuse for that specific attack.

Of course, given that US embassies and property are and have been attacked regularly over the last score of years, anyway, the timing of the attack could have been purely coincidental, too.

But per usual, the right wing kooks are seeking to turn a molehill into a mountain of faux outrage over some goofy notion that FOX news lying-heads fed them.

It WAS NOT about the movie, they insist, as though that was the only germane issue of the attack.

Who cares what the specific motivation was? I ask myself, " Given that Islamic fundmentalists need no specific motivation to attack us other than the same hate for the USA they have had for the last 30+ years."

 

[PratchettFan]

I really do not understand why some of us are so hung up on the issue of what EXACTLY motivated that terrorist attack.

Coming as it did very after the outrage over that movie became an international issue, it seems possible that the movie gave the terrorists an excuse for that specific attack.

Of course, given that US embassies and property are and have been attacked regularly over the last score of years, anyway, the timing of the attack could have been purely coincidal, too.

But per usual, the right wing kooks are seeking to turn a molehill into a mountain of faux outrage over some goofy notion that FOX news lying-heads fed them.

It WAS NOT about the movie, they insist, as though that was the only germane issue of the attack.

Who cares what the specific motivation was? I ask myself, " Given that Islamic fundmentalists need no specific motivation to attack us other than the same hate for the USA they have had for the last 30+ years."

I understand the why. If there is an opportunity to find fault, then you take it. I personally would not be at all surprised to discover that we knew almost immediately the nature of the attack. But to know that we would have had to have assets in place. To tell the world we knew it would be tell the world we had assets in place. Better to let the world think you didn't know it so they didn't think we had assets in place. But heck, let's not allow rational thinking to get in the way of partisan politics.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I am having a hard time tracking the story I am supposed to believe.

• Obama tells everyone that the attack was a protest over the video.
• He then insists he said it was terrorism from the beginning.
• UN Ambassador Susan Rice goes on multiple talk shows saying it was a protest over the video.
• Does anyone notice this directly contradicts what Obama says he said?
• Obama insists that we should question him if we have a problem with his story.
• He continues to hide behind a press that is willing to cover for him leaving those of us that want to question him wondering how that is supposed to happen.
• Sources back up the fact that Rice was lied to by CIA.
• Petreaus is set to testify that CIA knew almost immediately that attack was not about video.

CNN: Petraeus Knew "Almost Immediately" That Benghazi Was Terrorism | RealClearPolitics


This leads to new questions that I will be accused of being a racist sexist bigot for even thinking about.

Obama ordered everyone to lie to cover his fuck up

 

[CrusaderFrank]

As soon as Obama ordered him to lie, Petreaus should have arrested Obama on the spot for aiding and abetting terrorism

 

[Zoom-boing]

I really do not understand why some of us are so hung up on the issue of what EXACTLY motivated that terrorist attack.

Coming as it did very after the outrage over that movie became an international issue, it seems possible that the movie gave the terrorists an excuse for that specific attack.

Of course, given that US embassies and property are and have been attacked regularly over the last score of years, anyway, the timing of the attack could have been purely coincidal, too.

But per usual, the right wing kooks are seeking to turn a molehill into a mountain of faux outrage over some goofy notion that FOX news lying-heads fed them.

It WAS NOT about the movie, they insist, as though that was the only germane issue of the attack.

Who cares what the specific motivation was? I ask myself, " Given that Islamic fundmentalists need no specific motivation to attack us other than the same hate for the USA they have had for the last 30+ years."

The cause of the attack isn't the issue, per se, the issue is Obama's knowing that it was a terrorist attack from nearly the beginning but lying to the public for weeks insisting that it was a video. Why would he lie? Because he has stated over the course of his first term (paraphrasing) that AQ terror is down (he got Bin Laden!), things are much better (he got Bin Laden!), nothing to see here (he got Bin Laden!). Imagine the egg on Obuttheads face that it turns out hey, guess what? Not only is AQ still a threat they're better, stronger, faster. Now how would that info getting out to John Q. Public reflect on the man actively seeking a second term? Not only did he lie, his teflon suit via the press has kept him safe from scrutiny. And here folks are, scratching their heads pretending that they can't figure this out. Must be nice to live in a rose colored world. If the president were a Republican the story would have exploded like a nuclear bomb.