At last, Obama reveals the truth about Benghazi attacks in an interview

[Oldstyle]

Come on, Boo...at this point it's patently OBVIOUS that there was indeed a cover-up of what happened at Benghazi and it's also patently OBVIOUS that the Obama Administration lied about the attack being caused by the YouTube video. I don't know how you can claim otherwise with a straight face.

 

[Oldstyle]

Then why was the CIA involved?

Because that's their job?

I notice you got off the whole "it happened because of GOP budget cuts!" talking point in a big hurry, OnePercenter. Good move on your part! An even better move would be to refrain from posting bullshit in the first place.

It's the CIA's job to protect foreign embassy's?

"Preempt threats and further US national security objectives by collecting intelligence that matters, producing objective all-source analysis, conducting effective covert action as directed by the President, and safeguarding the secrets that help keep our Nation safe."

Ah yeah...that's the first line in their mission statement, 1%er! Those CIA operatives over at the Annex weren't there on R&R.

 

[Jarhead]

Senate report: Attacks on U.S. compounds in Benghazi could have been prevented - The Washington Post

"The attacks were preventable, based on extensive intelligence reporting on the terrorist activity in Libya — to include prior threats and attacks against Western targets — and given the known security shortfalls at the U.S. Mission,” the panel said in a statement.

The report also noted, chillingly, that the FBI’s investigation of the attacks has been hampered in Libya and that 15 people “supporting the investigation or otherwise helpful to the United States” have since been killed in Benghazi. The report said it was unclear whether those killings were related to the inquiry.

The report found no evidence of the kind of political coverup that Republicans have long alleged. "

"In response to the report, the State Department issued an update of its efforts to improve security at overseas posts and make other changes recommended by an independent oversight panel — the Accountability Review Board — shortly after the attacks. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/u...ficials-resign-following-benghazi-report.html

Once again you rely on the media to make conclusions for yourself. I prefer to analyze official information for myself.

Both articles are based on and have links to the Senate Report and the report from the independent oversight panel respectively.

You sound like you get your information exclusively from the Echo-Chamber.

I have one question....

The report confirmed that there was not enough time for the military to get there before the attack came to an end...

But that was knowing when the attack ended.

How did the administration know, while the attack was taking place, how long it would last?

As I heard someone say yesterday...

If you were having a heart attack, would you expect the ambulance to head in your direction immediately, or would you be OK if the driver determined there was no way they would get to you in time and therefore not even attempt the drive?

Seeing as the NYT didn't even address this issue, shows me it was nothing more than regurgitating the basics.

 

[BlindBoo]

Come on, Boo...at this point it's patently OBVIOUS that there was indeed a cover-up of what happened at Benghazi and it's also patently OBVIOUS that the Obama Administration lied about the attack being caused by the YouTube video. I don't know how you can claim otherwise with a straight face.

Those echo-fact are only obvious to subscribers of the echo-chamber.

Where is the quote where they say unequivocally that the attack was caused solely by a video?

In the real world when a statesman qualities their statement with "There is an investigation ongoing and we'll wait until that investigation is complete....." anything that follows should be considered pure speculation. What did the investigation reveal?

Cover-up? Nixon was caught in a cover-up. You should research that if you want to know what a real cover up is about.

 

[Redfish]

Come on, Boo...at this point it's patently OBVIOUS that there was indeed a cover-up of what happened at Benghazi and it's also patently OBVIOUS that the Obama Administration lied about the attack being caused by the YouTube video. I don't know how you can claim otherwise with a straight face.

Those echo-fact are only obvious to subscribers of the echo-chamber.

Where is the quote where they say unequivocally that the attack was caused solely by a video?

In the real world when a statesman qualities their statement with "There is an investigation ongoing and we'll wait until that investigation is complete....." anything that follows should be considered pure speculation. What did the investigation reveal?

Cover-up? Nixon was caught in a cover-up. You should research that if you want to know what a real cover up is about.

your view from the state of libtardia is typical of brain dead liberals. Facts to you are like kryptonite to superman. Facts destroy you libs every time, because your entire philosophy of life is a fraud and a lie.

 

[Jarhead]

Come on, Boo...at this point it's patently OBVIOUS that there was indeed a cover-up of what happened at Benghazi and it's also patently OBVIOUS that the Obama Administration lied about the attack being caused by the YouTube video. I don't know how you can claim otherwise with a straight face.

Those echo-fact are only obvious to subscribers of the echo-chamber.

Where is the quote where they say unequivocally that the attack was caused solely by a video?

In the real world when a statesman qualities their statement with "There is an investigation ongoing and we'll wait until that investigation is complete....." anything that follows should be considered pure speculation. What did the investigation reveal?

Cover-up? Nixon was caught in a cover-up. You should research that if you want to know what a real cover up is about.

you seem to ignore something....

It was revealed that the President was advised within hours by Panetta that the attack was planned and by a terrorist faction.

That being said...

To say "it is under investigation so I will not comment" is fine....

But to say it appears to be the result of a video but under investigation so we don't know for sure is outright misleading.

Take off your partisan glasses and see what happened...it is quite simple....

It was campaign time.

His mantra was "al-quaeda is on the run"

He did not want the right to capitalize on the attack and say "on the run, my ass"

So he mislead the country for political expediency.

It is not rocket science....

 

[Oldstyle]

Come on, Boo...at this point it's patently OBVIOUS that there was indeed a cover-up of what happened at Benghazi and it's also patently OBVIOUS that the Obama Administration lied about the attack being caused by the YouTube video. I don't know how you can claim otherwise with a straight face.

Those echo-fact are only obvious to subscribers of the echo-chamber.

Where is the quote where they say unequivocally that the attack was caused solely by a video?

In the real world when a statesman qualities their statement with "There is an investigation ongoing and we'll wait until that investigation is complete....." anything that follows should be considered pure speculation. What did the investigation reveal?

Cover-up? Nixon was caught in a cover-up. You should research that if you want to know what a real cover up is about.

LOL...you know as well as I do that the Obama Administration knew right from the start that the attack wasn't because of the YouTube video and a subsequent protest. You can see the State Department trying to force that narrative and quash mention of a terror attack, from the memos going back and forth between the State Department and the CIA. The fact that Susan Rice was sent out nearly a week later to the Sunday morning talk shows STILL pushing that narrative shows without question that this was an attempt to mislead the American people leading up to the election. The Obama people felt they needed to preserve their election year talking point that Barack Obama had Al Queda on the run and they were more than willing to lie to get that done.

What's ridiculous is that anyone would argue it didn't happen. It did and it's OBVIOUS that it did. They got away with it...but that doesn't mean they didn't do it.

 

[BlindBoo]

Once again you rely on the media to make conclusions for yourself. I prefer to analyze official information for myself.

Both articles are based on and have links to the Senate Report and the report from the independent oversight panel respectively.

You sound like you get your information exclusively from the Echo-Chamber.

I have one question....

The report confirmed that there was not enough time for the military to get there before the attack came to an end...

But that was knowing when the attack ended.

How did the administration know, while the attack was taking place, how long it would last?

As I heard someone say yesterday...

If you were having a heart attack, would you expect the ambulance to head in your direction immediately, or would you be OK if the driver determined there was no way they would get to you in time and therefore not even attempt the drive?

Seeing as the NYT didn't even address this issue, shows me it was nothing more than regurgitating the basics.

Within an hour of the initial attack the team from the CIA Annex had pushed the rioters out of the Consulate building and evacuated the survivors to the relative safety of Annex compound.

 

[Jarhead]

Both articles are based on and have links to the Senate Report and the report from the independent oversight panel respectively.

You sound like you get your information exclusively from the Echo-Chamber.

I have one question....

The report confirmed that there was not enough time for the military to get there before the attack came to an end...

But that was knowing when the attack ended.

How did the administration know, while the attack was taking place, how long it would last?

As I heard someone say yesterday...

If you were having a heart attack, would you expect the ambulance to head in your direction immediately, or would you be OK if the driver determined there was no way they would get to you in time and therefore not even attempt the drive?

Seeing as the NYT didn't even address this issue, shows me it was nothing more than regurgitating the basics.

Within an hour of the initial attack the team from the CIA Annex had pushed the rioters out of the Consulate building and evacuated the survivors to the relative safety of Annex compound.

People died after that.

Why was the military not dispatched?

 

[BlindBoo]

Come on, Boo...at this point it's patently OBVIOUS that there was indeed a cover-up of what happened at Benghazi and it's also patently OBVIOUS that the Obama Administration lied about the attack being caused by the YouTube video. I don't know how you can claim otherwise with a straight face.

Those echo-fact are only obvious to subscribers of the echo-chamber.

Where is the quote where they say unequivocally that the attack was caused solely by a video?

In the real world when a statesman qualities their statement with "There is an investigation ongoing and we'll wait until that investigation is complete....." anything that follows should be considered pure speculation. What did the investigation reveal?

Cover-up? Nixon was caught in a cover-up. You should research that if you want to know what a real cover up is about.

your view from the state of libtardia is typical of brain dead liberals. Facts to you are like kryptonite to superman. Facts destroy you libs every time, because your entire philosophy of life is a fraud and a lie.

Yours in an opinion of an Echo-Chambermaid, steeped in paraphrased factoids handed down from your masters based on incomplete and out of context quotes used to deceive the weak minded.

 

[Oldstyle]

Both articles are based on and have links to the Senate Report and the report from the independent oversight panel respectively.

You sound like you get your information exclusively from the Echo-Chamber.

I have one question....

The report confirmed that there was not enough time for the military to get there before the attack came to an end...

But that was knowing when the attack ended.

How did the administration know, while the attack was taking place, how long it would last?

As I heard someone say yesterday...

If you were having a heart attack, would you expect the ambulance to head in your direction immediately, or would you be OK if the driver determined there was no way they would get to you in time and therefore not even attempt the drive?

Seeing as the NYT didn't even address this issue, shows me it was nothing more than regurgitating the basics.

Within an hour of the initial attack the team from the CIA Annex had pushed the rioters out of the Consulate building and evacuated the survivors to the relative safety of Annex compound.

The team from the CIA Annex (which had gone to the Consulate against orders to wait) failed to locate Ambassador Stevens and were forced to withdraw because they were under attack. Are you making the argument THAT situation was so benign that no further military assets were needed in Libya? Really...Boo?

 

[Oldstyle]

I mean think about it...our Consulate is burning and our Ambassador is missing...but hey, it's all good! Call the Special Ops forces off because we've got everything under control!!!

 

[rdean]

We already know the reason. The Republican Senate reduced the security budget $360M, which is the reason CIA operatives were killed in the attack.

The Republicans didn't do jack shit by themselves. It's already been proven that cuts had no effect on the security in Benghazi, much of which was supposed to be provided by Libya. We could have gotten our people out of harm's way prior to the anniversary of 9/11, as other countries did, or left the current security in place. Security was removed just before the attack, after pleas for more help were requested. The anniversary of 9/11 should have meant elevated security or evacuation because threat levels are always higher on that day. Again, we knew threats were being made and there is no excuse in the world for not acting. Maybe no one is this administration is smart enough to handle such threats.

There is no way those threats were not known, as they had been made public in the months prior to 9/11. Even family members worried about their loved ones in Benghazi before the attack. I can't believe anyone is so damn stupid that they believe the State Dept said, "Sorry, you'll have to deal with terrorists on your own because we can't afford to help you." That would have to be the way it went for the budget cuts to used as an excuse and even the least sophisticated liberal must understand how lame that is.

The cuts don't explain why the threat was ignored, why stand down orders were issued or why a lie was told to protect the radical Muslims behind it.

If that's true, then why did Republicans RAISE embassy security budgets by $2,000,000,000.00 after Benghazi if they were right the first time and it wasn't needed?

And why did the ambassador refuse military security twice?

House Republicans Propose Extra $2B for Embassy Security | Fox Business

Ambassador Stevens Twice Said No To Military Offers Of More Security, U.S. Officials Say: Report

Notice how I added links? One ever from Fox. So right wingers know that's the truth, right?

 

[Redfish]

Those echo-fact are only obvious to subscribers of the echo-chamber.

Where is the quote where they say unequivocally that the attack was caused solely by a video?

In the real world when a statesman qualities their statement with "There is an investigation ongoing and we'll wait until that investigation is complete....." anything that follows should be considered pure speculation. What did the investigation reveal?

Cover-up? Nixon was caught in a cover-up. You should research that if you want to know what a real cover up is about.

your view from the state of libtardia is typical of brain dead liberals. Facts to you are like kryptonite to superman. Facts destroy you libs every time, because your entire philosophy of life is a fraud and a lie.

Yours in an opinion of an Echo-Chambermaid, steeped in paraphrased factoids handed down from your masters based on incomplete and out of context quotes used to deceive the weak minded.

Obama, Clinton, and Rice lied to the American people and the entire world for weeks with claims that the attack was solely caused by a reaction to a video that only a handfull of people in the entire world had seen--------they LIED. They lied because they knew that the truth might hurt obama in the election. He claimed that Al Qaeda was on the run and no longer a threat------acknowledging the terrorist attack in Benghazi would have shown that to be a lie.

There were military assets within range that could have helped and maybe saved lives, they were told to wait.

Yes, NIxon covered up spying on a campaign office, clinton covered up sex in the oval office--------------how many people died in those cover ups?

 

[Oldstyle]

That team from the Annex had to fight it's way BACK to the Annex under heavy fire...or didn't you get that part of the story?

 

[BlindBoo]

Come on, Boo...at this point it's patently OBVIOUS that there was indeed a cover-up of what happened at Benghazi and it's also patently OBVIOUS that the Obama Administration lied about the attack being caused by the YouTube video. I don't know how you can claim otherwise with a straight face.

Those echo-fact are only obvious to subscribers of the echo-chamber.

Where is the quote where they say unequivocally that the attack was caused solely by a video?

In the real world when a statesman qualities their statement with "There is an investigation ongoing and we'll wait until that investigation is complete....." anything that follows should be considered pure speculation. What did the investigation reveal?

Cover-up? Nixon was caught in a cover-up. You should research that if you want to know what a real cover up is about.

you seem to ignore something....

It was revealed that the President was advised within hours by Panetta that the attack was planned and by a terrorist faction.

That being said...

To say "it is under investigation so I will not comment" is fine....

But to say it appears to be the result of a video but under investigation so we don't know for sure is outright misleading.

Take off your partisan glasses and see what happened...it is quite simple....

It was campaign time.

His mantra was "al-quaeda is on the run"

He did not want the right to capitalize on the attack and say "on the run, my ass"

So he mislead the country for political expediency.

It is not rocket science....

Actually that was a report that a terrorist group had claimed responsibly on twitter or other social media. No way to confirm that it was true. Fact is the attack on the consulate did not have the hallmarks of an extensively planned al Qaeda operation.

Mitt Romney certainly knew it was campaign time when he launched his attack on the administration during the crisis.

Everyone knew extremist had attacked us and 4 American were dead because of it.

There was no cover-up.

 

[Oldstyle]

We already know the reason. The Republican Senate reduced the security budget $360M, which is the reason CIA operatives were killed in the attack.

The Republicans didn't do jack shit by themselves. It's already been proven that cuts had no effect on the security in Benghazi, much of which was supposed to be provided by Libya. We could have gotten our people out of harm's way prior to the anniversary of 9/11, as other countries did, or left the current security in place. Security was removed just before the attack, after pleas for more help were requested. The anniversary of 9/11 should have meant elevated security or evacuation because threat levels are always higher on that day. Again, we knew threats were being made and there is no excuse in the world for not acting. Maybe no one is this administration is smart enough to handle such threats.

There is no way those threats were not known, as they had been made public in the months prior to 9/11. Even family members worried about their loved ones in Benghazi before the attack. I can't believe anyone is so damn stupid that they believe the State Dept said, "Sorry, you'll have to deal with terrorists on your own because we can't afford to help you." That would have to be the way it went for the budget cuts to used as an excuse and even the least sophisticated liberal must understand how lame that is.

The cuts don't explain why the threat was ignored, why stand down orders were issued or why a lie was told to protect the radical Muslims behind it.

If that's true, then why did Republicans RAISE embassy security budgets by $2,000,000,000.00 after Benghazi if they were right the first time and it wasn't needed?

And why did the ambassador refuse military security twice?

House Republicans Propose Extra $2B for Embassy Security | Fox Business

Ambassador Stevens Twice Said No To Military Offers Of More Security, U.S. Officials Say: Report

Notice how I added links? One ever from Fox. So right wingers know that's the truth, right?

They raised budgets for embassy security because our enemies had just successfully attacked our consulate and killed our Ambassador. Having done so and not having anyone brought to justice for it will PROBABLY embolden them to try the same thing elsewhere.

I know you're not the brightest bulb on the tree, Deanie...but surely even YOU can figure that out?

Once again...the person from the State Department in charge of Libya stated quite clearly under oath that budget concerns did not effect security decisions in Benghazi. Blaming what happened on the GOP trying to trim our out of control spending is typical progressive spin. THIS ONE BELONGS TO THE OBAMA WHITE HOUSE AND HILARY CLINTON'S STATE DEPARTMENT!!!

 

[Oldstyle]

Those echo-fact are only obvious to subscribers of the echo-chamber.

Where is the quote where they say unequivocally that the attack was caused solely by a video?

In the real world when a statesman qualities their statement with "There is an investigation ongoing and we'll wait until that investigation is complete....." anything that follows should be considered pure speculation. What did the investigation reveal?

Cover-up? Nixon was caught in a cover-up. You should research that if you want to know what a real cover up is about.

you seem to ignore something....

It was revealed that the President was advised within hours by Panetta that the attack was planned and by a terrorist faction.

That being said...

To say "it is under investigation so I will not comment" is fine....

But to say it appears to be the result of a video but under investigation so we don't know for sure is outright misleading.

Take off your partisan glasses and see what happened...it is quite simple....

It was campaign time.

His mantra was "al-quaeda is on the run"

He did not want the right to capitalize on the attack and say "on the run, my ass"

So he mislead the country for political expediency.

It is not rocket science....

Actually that was a report that a terrorist group had claimed responsibly on twitter or other social media. No way to confirm that it was true. Fact is the attack on the consulate did not have the hallmarks of an extensively planned al Qaeda operation.

Mitt Romney certainly knew it was campaign time when he launched his attack on the administration during the crisis.

Everyone knew extremist had attacked us and 4 American were dead because of it.

There was no cover-up.

You're unbelievable, Boo...it's obvious that there was a cover-up. The Obama Administration lied to the American people when they sent Susan Rice out to those Sunday morning talk shows and when Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton were blaming the YouTube video.

 

[Redfish]

Those echo-fact are only obvious to subscribers of the echo-chamber.

Where is the quote where they say unequivocally that the attack was caused solely by a video?

In the real world when a statesman qualities their statement with "There is an investigation ongoing and we'll wait until that investigation is complete....." anything that follows should be considered pure speculation. What did the investigation reveal?

Cover-up? Nixon was caught in a cover-up. You should research that if you want to know what a real cover up is about.

you seem to ignore something....

It was revealed that the President was advised within hours by Panetta that the attack was planned and by a terrorist faction.

That being said...

To say "it is under investigation so I will not comment" is fine....

But to say it appears to be the result of a video but under investigation so we don't know for sure is outright misleading.

Take off your partisan glasses and see what happened...it is quite simple....

It was campaign time.

His mantra was "al-quaeda is on the run"

He did not want the right to capitalize on the attack and say "on the run, my ass"

So he mislead the country for political expediency.

It is not rocket science....

Actually that was a report that a terrorist group had claimed responsibly on twitter or other social media. No way to confirm that it was true. Fact is the attack on the consulate did not have the hallmarks of an extensively planned al Qaeda operation.

Mitt Romney certainly knew it was campaign time when he launched his attack on the administration during the crisis.

Everyone knew extremist had attacked us and 4 American were dead because of it.

There was no cover-up.

Then what were Rice and Obama doing when they claimed repeatedly that it was a random act caused by a video? That wasn't covering up the facts?

 

[BlindBoo]

I have one question....

The report confirmed that there was not enough time for the military to get there before the attack came to an end...

But that was knowing when the attack ended.

How did the administration know, while the attack was taking place, how long it would last?

As I heard someone say yesterday...

If you were having a heart attack, would you expect the ambulance to head in your direction immediately, or would you be OK if the driver determined there was no way they would get to you in time and therefore not even attempt the drive?

Seeing as the NYT didn't even address this issue, shows me it was nothing more than regurgitating the basics.

Within an hour of the initial attack the team from the CIA Annex had pushed the rioters out of the Consulate building and evacuated the survivors to the relative safety of Annex compound.

The team from the CIA Annex (which had gone to the Consulate against orders to wait) failed to locate Ambassador Stevens and were forced to withdraw because they were under attack. Are you making the argument THAT situation was so benign that no further military assets were needed in Libya? Really...Boo?

Wrong again. They waited on the orders of their superiors in Benghazi for more manpower and fire power. 6 Americans and 14 or so Libyans drove the rioter out and rescued everyone but the Ambassador whom they feared was dead. The military commanders were given orders by the President to use every available asset to save lives. It was their decision to evacuate the survivors to the fortified US Embassy in Tripoli.