Hidden Tapes & Secret Emails: Right Wing Now Throwing Kitchen Sink At Obama On Libya

[candycorn]

By Hayes Brown

In the closing days of the election, Republicans are throwing everything they can think of at President Obama to rattle his position on national security. Though a CBS poll taken immediately after the final Presidential debate had 64 percent of undecided voters believing Obama would be better on national security than Mitt Romney, the right remains convinced that Libya will be Obama’s undoing.

Despite former Bush administration Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice imploring that attacks be held off until an investigation is complete, more partisan Republicans refuse to heed her advice.

As varying and disparate as they are, these right-wing claims all focus more on attacking the Obama administration than any desire to seek the truth on Benghazi. For the last month and a half, after Ambassador Susan Rice’s Sept. 16 appearance on several news shows, the right has taken every opportunity to try to politicize the attacks. So far all of their attempts and claims have gone down in flames.

In comparison, the State Department’s investigation is set to be completed in the coming weeks, which will lay out in full any security failures. Likewise, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence will be convening hearings after the election to determine what intelligence failures actually happened on Sept. 11.

More: Hidden Tapes & Secret Emails: Right Wing Now Throwing Kitchen Sink At Obama On Libya | ThinkProgress

The secret cables reveal Obama on the grassy knoll

 

[BlindBoo]

Well you can bet your boots that if Bush were POTUS right now the LSM would have Benghazi plasters on the news 24/7. The NY slimes would have 8 inch front page headings and they would run it for weeks.

Oh wait. I forgot. This is Barry a Dem and they sure wouldn't want a story like Benghazi to upset his run for that second term. Never mind.

Ummm yeah sure they would. Like they never once were cheerleaders for President Bushes blunderous invasion and occupation of Iraq based on inuendos and lies would they. Yeah they'd crucify him if he tried that huh? If President Bush allow us to be hit here at home by terrorist they wouldn't call for unity angainst a foriegn aggressor, they call for his impeachment.

 

[emptystep]

No it's not but it isn't going the rabid right wingers way, not by a long shot. You've cried "Wolfe" too many time for any normal person to take serious.

Panetta on Benghazi attack: 'Could not put forces at risk' – CNN Security Clearance - CNN.com Blogs

He said it was not enough to discern exactly what was happening.

"We didn't have good eyes on the situation. There were security forces there on the ground, but they're in the middle of a firefight - not sending a Sitrep (Situational Report).

The official could not reveal the specific reaction times for the military's Fleet Anti Terrorism Security Teams, which are classified, but said "it would be physically impossible for them to get there in time to intervene in that attack from say, Rota, Spain."

He cited the time it takes just to get their transportation in the air. The official said "these situations normally deteriorate over time ... but usually in a few days, not two hours." He explained that even quick-reaction teams are often positioned for places where intelligence shows a "deteriorating situation" near an embassy.

The official also provided context for Panetta's and Gen. Martin Dempsey's remarks about criticism on the response.

"It's not helpful to provide partial answers," Dempsey said. And Panetta criticized what he called "Monday morning quarterbacking."

The defense official said it was directed at criticism coming from pundits and Capitol Hill.

"In perfect hindsight, yes - we'd do it differently. But how it looks weeks later is not how it looked at the time.

"You had the movie, the 9/11 anniversary and unrest in various countries in that region. All that factored into the decision to put troops on a heightened state of alert. But that doesn't mean forces are positioned everywhere in the world, ready to run to the rescue. We're not the fire department. And there was no actionable intelligence that Benghazi was going to be attacked on 9/11."

Bullshit. 7 hours and there wasn't enough time?

Pitiful that you defend this.

Defend what? That the president shouldn't be impeached on bullshit information because the right wing fear mongering echo chamber has it's panties in a tight wad over his looming re-election.

At a Pentagon news briefing, Panetta said there was no "real-time information" to be able to act on

A defense official provided more context on Panetta's comments about the decision-making involved in not sending U.S. troops

"It's not helpful to provide partial answers," Dempsey said. And Panetta criticized what he called "Monday morning quarterbacking."

The defense official said it was directed at criticism coming from pundits and Capitol Hill.

"In perfect hindsight, yes - we'd do it differently. But how it looks weeks later is not how it looked at the time.

So as a follow-up question, tinydancer, would it satisfy your appetite if Obama fired Panetta?

(And off I again....)

 

[tjvh]

They can try to make hay with that issue, but the only people who are paying attention are right wing tools.

Yeah... You Obama fluffers have no problem with your Messiah LYING to the American people.

 

[GoneBezerk]

Liberal scum point to some scam investigation by the State Department that will end weeks to months after the election and after most people don't care anymore. The bullshit report will cover up for Obamination and Clinton, just stating the fact 4 Americans died in Libya.

Meanwhile dumb liberals don't understand why Obamination's actions during the attack and after the attack matter. The evil liberals are busy helping Obamination cover up his crimes.

 

[BlindBoo]

Liberal scum point to some scam investigation by the State Department that will end weeks to months after the election and after most people don't care anymore. The bullshit report will cover up for Obamination and Clinton, just stating the fact 4 Americans died in Libya.

Meanwhile dumb liberals don't understand why Obamination's actions during the attack and after the attack matter. The evil liberals are busy helping Obamination cover up his crimes.

So give me some exact quotes from the testemony of President Bush under oath, to the 9-11 commission and the failure of the Bush administration to protect the number 1 terrorist target in the West, (where thousands died). Then we can talk about your allegations of a scam investigation or cover up, in to the breakdown of the security situation in Benghazi, Lybia. Mmmmm-Kay?

 

[Claudette]

Well you can bet your boots that if Bush were POTUS right now the LSM would have Benghazi plasters on the news 24/7. The NY slimes would have 8 inch front page headings and they would run it for weeks.

Oh wait. I forgot. This is Barry a Dem and they sure wouldn't want a story like Benghazi to upset his run for that second term. Never mind.

Ummm yeah sure they would. Like they never once were cheerleaders for President Bushes blunderous invasion and occupation of Iraq based on inuendos and lies would they. Yeah they'd crucify him if he tried that huh? If President Bush allow us to be hit here at home by terrorist they wouldn't call for unity angainst a foriegn aggressor, they call for his impeachment.

Are you serious??

Yes of course you are. Never mind.

 

[Claudette]

Liberal scum point to some scam investigation by the State Department that will end weeks to months after the election and after most people don't care anymore. The bullshit report will cover up for Obamination and Clinton, just stating the fact 4 Americans died in Libya.

Meanwhile dumb liberals don't understand why Obamination's actions during the attack and after the attack matter. The evil liberals are busy helping Obamination cover up his crimes.

So give me some exact quotes from the testemony of President Bush under oath, to the 9-11 commission and the failure of the Bush administration to protect the number 1 terrorist target in the West, (where thousands died). Then we can talk about your allegations of a scam investigation or cover up, in to the breakdown of the security situation in Benghazi, Lybia. Mmmmm-Kay?

Well Boo you might want to explain why Clinton didn't take out UBL when he had several opportunities to do so?? Perhaps if he had there would have been no 9/11.

Two can play that game Boo.

As for Benghazi three very good men are dead because our Govt left them to die. The POTUS was aware of the situation.

I do believe that if he ordered them to be saved they would have been. Don't you??

 

[GoneBezerk]

What the fuck are you talking about???

Libya.....ummm and you go to Buuuuuuuush. It is 2012, asswipe.

The 9-11 Commission was bipartisan and there was no cover up. There has been nothing on Libya except lies coming out your mouth and other liberals, especially the idiot hiding behind the curtains in the White House.

People like you should be locked away for life because you are scum and insane.

Liberal scum point to some scam investigation by the State Department that will end weeks to months after the election and after most people don't care anymore. The bullshit report will cover up for Obamination and Clinton, just stating the fact 4 Americans died in Libya.

Meanwhile dumb liberals don't understand why Obamination's actions during the attack and after the attack matter. The evil liberals are busy helping Obamination cover up his crimes.

So give me some exact quotes from the testemony of President Bush under oath, to the 9-11 commission and the failure of the Bush administration to protect the number 1 terrorist target in the West, (where thousands died). Then we can talk about your allegations of a scam investigation or cover up, in to the breakdown of the security situation in Benghazi, Lybia. Mmmmm-Kay?

 

[Rinata]

Well you can bet your boots that if Bush were POTUS right now the LSM would have Benghazi plasters on the news 24/7. The NY slimes would have 8 inch front page headings and they would run it for weeks.

Oh wait. I forgot. This is Barry a Dem and they sure wouldn't want a story like Benghazi to upset his run for that second term. Never mind.

Bull!!!! Bush was only accused of things he actually did. But then how would you know??? You bat crap crazies never held him accountable for anything, did you?? Ass.

 

[Rinata]

Liberal scum point to some scam investigation by the State Department that will end weeks to months after the election and after most people don't care anymore. The bullshit report will cover up for Obamination and Clinton, just stating the fact 4 Americans died in Libya.

Meanwhile dumb liberals don't understand why Obamination's actions during the attack and after the attack matter. The evil liberals are busy helping Obamination cover up his crimes.

Oh, geez. Another psycho.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Defend what? That the president shouldn't be impeached on bullshit information because the right wing fear mongering echo chamber has it's panties in a tight wad over his looming re-election.

At a Pentagon news briefing, Panetta said there was no "real-time information" to be able to act on

A defense official provided more context on Panetta's comments about the decision-making involved in not sending U.S. troops

"It's not helpful to provide partial answers," Dempsey said. And Panetta criticized what he called "Monday morning quarterbacking."

The defense official said it was directed at criticism coming from pundits and Capitol Hill.

"In perfect hindsight, yes - we'd do it differently. But how it looks weeks later is not how it looked at the time.

A team that is specially trained to go into situations where intelligence is sketchy was prepositioned in Italy in case it was need, but not sent into Libya. Why?

The State Department said it had real time information, and the FBI used recordings from that feed to debrief the security staff, but Panetta insists the military did not have real time information. Why?

Obama says he gave a very clear directive to secure our personnel, but we didn't. Why?

You insist that asking these questions is nothing but partisanship. Why?

It's been a disgusting display of hyperpartisanship from the day of, no, during the assault, proving that the rabid right will stoop to any low to diminish this presidents chances of re-election.

The State Department had a briefing in which they described how the attackers breached the walls, used diesel they had brought with them to set fire to the bungalow the security forces were stationed in, and wandered around the residential area looking for the Ambassador, even peering into the safe room through bars on the window. Yet me pointing this out is hyper partisan.

Got it.

 

[Rinata]

Richard Betts writes in his seminal 1978 piece on intelligence failures, "Analysis, War, and Decision: Why Intelligence Failures are Inevitable," that "intelligence failures are not only inevitable, they are natural." In his 2002 piece, "Fixing Intelligence," he notes that "even the best intelligence systems will have BIG failures."

Betts says so much information is being collected around the globe regarding so many potential targets, with so many enemy actors adopting deceptive tactics to mislead analysts, that uncovering every threat and thwarting every possible attack is virtually impossible.

This overwhelming abundance of information, Betts says, may result in false alarms -- making it more difficult to discern if the threat of an upcoming attack is real. The global stream of information constantly includes vague information regarding security risks.

People have questioned why the administration didn't immediately report that the Benghazi attack was the work of terrorists. But we don't know whether analysts had enough credible intelligence on hand at the time to be absolutely sure of the nature of the attack. Reports indicate that the intelligence community's evaluations evolved in the following days and weeks as information came in, and policymakers were briefed as assessments changed and solidified. This is common practice.

It's also important to keep in mind that the better a state's intelligence capabilities, the more reports it collects, making assessments take longer as mountains of information are sifted through.

These realities are significant as the intelligence community's role in the Libya attack is examined under a political microscope.

Government e-mails sent about two hours after the attack and obtained by CNN show that an Islamist group, Ansar al-Sharia, had claimed responsibility for Benghazi on Facebook and Twitter, one of many channels of information intel analysts need to examine before reaching conclusions. The group denied responsibility the next day.

Claims such as these need to be corroborated. Sometimes multiple groups claim responsibility after attacks; obviously claims of responsibility are often false. It's also possible that the attackers had ties to multiple groups, or had different motives. Expecting policymakers to publicly examine and go through every conflicting piece of intelligence collected in the hours before and after an attack would be unreasonable and potentially even damaging to national security.

Don't rush to join Benghazi blame game - CNN.com

 

[OODA_Loop]

No reason to not respond to requests for aid from Americans under attack.

Before and during.

 

[Cammmpbell]

Clinton was accused of crimes, and found not guilty.

The story is that Bill Clinton was guilty. After the Republican house impeached him the publisher of the Hustler magazine, Larry Flynt offered millions of dollars for anyone who could produce facts about Republicans who were just as guilty of the same things. It cost him five or six million dollars but Flynt revealed stories about Bob Barr paying for an abortion for his ex wife and Livingston and Henry Hyde having dalliences of the same nature. It resulted in both of them effectively resigning but the main part is that when the case went to the senate for trial half of those pricks knew they were just as guilty so guess what.....they didn't dare find Bill Clinton guilty of the same things they were either doing or had done before. Flynt told them he had plenty of other stuff to reveal if it came to that. I laughed my ass off.

Final Story.....the Republicans used every tactic they could muster for Clinton's two terms trying to remove him from office and they failed.

The actual story is that Bubba LIED under oath.

Short story.

Pathetic Story.

He was properly impeached and the only reason -- the ONLY reason -- the fucker didn't get convicted in the Senate trial is that cheap ass politics reigned supreme.

What the hell did I say??

The story is that Bill Clinton was guilty. After the Republican house impeached him the publisher of the Hustler magazine, Larry Flynt offered millions of dollars for anyone who could produce facts about Republicans who were just as guilty of the same things. It cost him five or six million dollars but Flynt revealed stories about Bob Livingston and Henry Hyde having dalliences of the same nature. It resulted in both of them effectively resigning but the main part is that when the case went to the senate for trial half of those pricks knew they were just as guilty so guess what.....they didn't dare find Bill Clinton guilty of the same things they were either doing or had done before. Flynt told them he had plenty of other stuff to reveal if it came to that. I laughed my ass off.

The Republican senate's high confidence for the President's removal from office dissipated considerably after the circumstances of Bob Livingston's resignation on December 19--and was further diminished by Flynt's continuing crusade to expose hypocrisy in the wake of his revelations about Bob Barr paying for an abortion for his ex wife on January 11. In fact, other than the unmasking of Kenneth Starr as a partisan sexual witchhunter after the release of The Starr Report in September 1998 and the excellent legal work performed by the President's attorneys before and during the Senate trial, there was no single factor which had a greater impact on the impeachment process than Larry Flynt.
Had Flynt never emerged in this drama, Bob Livingston would have become Speaker of the House and the impeachment of the President would have shifted from the House to the Senate with a tremendous, even an overwhelming momentum.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

Fox just reported that have more classified documents, one they discussed shows Chris Stevens himself informing the State Dept and the WH that his Libyan detail had possibly been infiltrated by Al Qaeda and that he no longer trusted them.. VERY DAMNING.. and yet.. HILLARY, OBAMA.. DID NOTHING. More evidence of TOTAL INCOMPETENCE!

 

[Rinata]

No reason to not respond to requests for aid from Americans under attack.

Before and during.

Oy Vey. And I'm not even Jewish. You people would have made Mother Teresa want to slap you silly.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Final Story.....the Republicans used every tactic they could muster for Clinton's two terms trying to remove him from office and they failed.

Clinton perjured himself under oath in a Federal court as a sitting President.

 

[OODA_Loop]

No reason to not respond to requests for aid from Americans under attack.

Before and during.

Oy Vey. And I'm not even Jewish. You people would have made Mother Teresa want to slap you silly.

Calls for help were made before and during.

No response.

Why ?

Simple question.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

Final Story.....the Republicans used every tactic they could muster for Clinton's two terms trying to remove him from office and they failed.

Clinton perjured himself under oath in a Federal court as a sitting President.

The Librul Zombie Squad like to pretend that never happened.. It was just a blow job, remember?