CIA knew almost immediately that attack was terrorism

[Staidhup]

The evidence points to the President having full knowledge as to the immediate nature of the Benghazi attack, terrorism, and that the State Department had prior knowledge as to the safety concerns of the Ambassador. When one considers the implications and similarities between the hostage crisis in Iran and that of Benghazi, it becomes apparent that for no other reason, than that of politics, the President and his minions employed smoke and mirrors to tone down and deflect potential political fall out resulting from having had prior warnings and concerns being expressed by employees and ambassador to the State Department and doing nothing. It is unfortunate that the media will play a vital role in covering up the fact that the President, Secretary of State, and host of others chose to sacrifice American lives in the name of politics, furthermore, that the administration conspired to cover up truth with a script orchestrated to deflect blame onto the shoulders of others. The order to stand down and sacrifice the diplomatic mission and staff is and was inexcusable.

 

[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.

Name the "nutter" blaming Libya. If I am not mistaking most cons see Obama's choice to side with MB to be a huge part of the problem, hence the reason to blame a video and not Obama's failed foreign policies.

We also knew beyond a shadow of a doubt we were being lied to.

That's the fact Ravi... Now you guys want to backtrack.

Here are three links, I'm sure you can find more. But we'll conveniently forget all this, won't we.


UPDATE: Killing of Libyan ambassador 'an act of war'

Opinion: An act of war, not 'senseless violence' - Newt Gingrich - POLITICO.com

Bryan Fischer: Libya embassy attack ‘was an act of war’ | The Raw Story

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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."

I will believe that theory as soon as you prove to me that time travel is possible.

Now that I have got that nonsense out of the way, let me point out that most of the people calling this terrorism are not hung up on why the attack happened. We understand that terrorists don't need reasons to do what they do because they are motivated by hate. Since we are not hung up on the myth that Obama has turned around the image of the US in the Arab world, and that he is personally responsible for the Arab Spring, we don't have a need to rationalize the motives of assholes, we simply deal with the fact that they hate us, and deal with them.

Maybe you should stop worrying about the why and projecting your need to validate Obama onto others.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Are you trying to tell me the world doesn't know we have a consulate with a CIA annex in Benghazi? What the fuck do you think the attack was about? Why did it happen when the Ambassador was there?

Stop pretending you can think, it makes you look really stupid.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

I repeat. Let's not let rational thinking get in the way of partisan politics.

There is a difference between rationalization and rational thinking. For the record, you are doing the first believing you are being the second.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

No, YOU simply won't admit that he and his minions spent the next 10 days blaming a silly video.

Why do you people need to lie about this?

The best part is that Ravi was right there insisting it was about the video, not terrorism, now she is insisting it was always terrorism, and that we are lying.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Are you people really going to go through this all over again.

The President identified the attack as terrorism the day after it happened.

You can pretend he didn't, just like you can pretend he wasn't born in the US, and just like you can pretend that Jeep is moving to China.

Your delusions aren't magically going to come true just because you keep repeating them. The truth is far more stubborn than you are.

Yet Rice was sent out with the story that it wasn't terrorism, and you agreed with her. That makes you part of the problem.

 

[Claudette]

Holy Cow. We all know who lied and continued to lie about Benghazi.

 

[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.

Where's the part where they knew as it was happening that it was a terrorist attack? That claim has been made here.

Where's the part where Obama was watching as the Ambassador died? That was all we heard about in the week before the election. How many umpteen topics was it?

Where's the part about Petraeus being forced to resign so he would not testify?

I guess we are now going to see a mass collective amnesia about all the manufactured bullshit people ate and regurgitated by the shovelful here.

I don't buy for one second such people are interested in the truth. Not when they drink the piss just because it is something damaging to the object of their hatred, regardless of the lack of evidence or its dishonesty.

.

Can I start demanding you defend the stuff that Salt says? Rdean? If you can't deal with what I say without resorting to strawman arguments I suggest you go play with your Barbie dolls, Ken is probably all the intellectual debate you can honestly deal with.

 

[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.

Are you trying to tell me the world doesn't know we have a consulate with a CIA annex in Benghazi? What the fuck do you think the attack was about? Why did it happen when the Ambassador was there?

Stop pretending you can think, it makes you look really stupid.

Ok. Though I admit this is a pointless excercise I will attempt to explain this in small words. An "asset" is a person with information who can tell us stuff. If you say you know something and the bad men know only so many people could have told you, that tells them who the asset might be. So smart national security people try not to let the bad guys know what they know in order to protect who is telling them stuff. That way, those people can continue to tell them stuff rather than be shot by the bad guys.

I can only assume you don't work in any kind of classified position, which should be a relief for us all.

 

[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.

Basically you are finding "scandal" by splitting hairs.

It's disgusting. And it won't solve shit.

Quite the opposite. It makes it harder to govern.

But then again..you folks absolutely hate the government when people you don't like are running it.

Basically, I am trying to hold the government accountable for what it says to us, just like you pretend to do, but only if the guy in the oval office is named Bush.

 

[Freemason9]

Why in the hell is this an issue? What IS the issue, exactly? Is Talk Radio Republican Empire upset because the warmongering rhetoric was not sufficient?

What in the striding fuck is the Right Wing hollering about, anyway?

Jesus Christ, those folks are stupidly irritating.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Statement from Rep. Peter King on this morning's briefing with Petraeus. You can read the hashed up version via news agencies or view the full, original version here:
Error | C-SPAN

Some very interesting comments indeed. More hearings coming???

Easy to sum it up, the CIA told everyone one thing, and the White House came up with a different story they liked better.

 

[Freemason9]

Statement from Rep. Peter King on this morning's briefing with Petraeus. You can read the hashed up version via news agencies or view the full, original version here:
Error | C-SPAN

Some very interesting comments indeed. More hearings coming???

Easy to sum it up, the CIA told everyone one thing, and the White House came up with a different story they liked better.

Even if this is utterly true, what fucking difference does it make??

 

[Ravi]

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.

No, YOU simply won't admit that he and his minions spent the next 10 days blaming a silly video.

Why do you people need to lie about this?

The best part is that Ravi was right there insisting it was about the video, not terrorism, now she is insisting it was always terrorism, and that we are lying.

I never said the attack on the ambassador was about the video. I said the riots were about the video. Negged for lying.

 

[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.

Liar.

You left out the very first two bullet points:

1. In the middle of the night, Mitt Romney put more Americans in harm's way with a rash and inaccurate statement.

2. The morning after the attack, Obama told the American people it was a terrorist attack.

You also left out the FACT that Rice was repeating the intel she had gotten from the CIA.

Okay, that's all. You can go back to lying now.

Three things that let me know the universe is still here.

1. The rotation of the Earth cause the Sun to appear to rise in the East.
2. Sex.
3. Luddly says something stupid.

One more time.

1. Romney and Obama both agreed that the statement from the embassy in Cairo was wrong. Obama even ordered them to take it down because it did not reflect the administrations position. If Romney endangered people, then Obama pulled the trigger.
2. The day after the attack Obama talked about how he spent the previous day visiting veterans and how it made him fell about the 9/11/01 acts of terror.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Are you trying to tell me the world doesn't know we have a consulate with a CIA annex in Benghazi? What the fuck do you think the attack was about? Why did it happen when the Ambassador was there?

Stop pretending you can think, it makes you look really stupid.

Ok. Though I admit this is a pointless excercise I will attempt to explain this in small words. An "asset" is a person with information who can tell us stuff. If you say you know something and the bad men know only so many people could have told you, that tells them who the asset might be. So smart national security people try not to let the bad guys know what they know in order to protect who is telling them stuff. That way, those people can continue to tell them stuff rather than be shot by the bad guys.

I can only assume you don't work in any kind of classified position, which should be a relief for us all.

The Libyan government publicly announced that it was an act of terror, and that it was preplanned, the day after the attack.

If Obama is worried about protecting assets why didn't he make sure the doctor who helped us identify bin Laden was safe before he announced the attack? Why didn't he send people into the consulate the next day to gather up classified materials, including the names of "assets" in the local militia groups? Do you have any reasonable explanation of how it would have endangered assets to admit the self evident truth when everyone in the world knows we have cell phones, and that we actually rescued the people that were in Benghazi before Obama tried to blame the video? Do you think it is reasonable to presume that the people who were under attack were aware that there was no demonstration before the attack?

Seriously dude, stop rationalizing, it's pathetic.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Statement from Rep. Peter King on this morning's briefing with Petraeus. You can read the hashed up version via news agencies or view the full, original version here:
Error | C-SPAN

Some very interesting comments indeed. More hearings coming???

Easy to sum it up, the CIA told everyone one thing, and the White House came up with a different story they liked better.

Even if this is utterly true, what fucking difference does it make??

What makes it an issue is that Rice is a potential nominee for Secretary of State, and Obama publicly challenged anyone who has questions for her to bring them to him.

Any other stupid questions?

 

[PratchettFan]

Are you trying to tell me the world doesn't know we have a consulate with a CIA annex in Benghazi? What the fuck do you think the attack was about? Why did it happen when the Ambassador was there?

Stop pretending you can think, it makes you look really stupid.

Ok. Though I admit this is a pointless excercise I will attempt to explain this in small words. An "asset" is a person with information who can tell us stuff. If you say you know something and the bad men know only so many people could have told you, that tells them who the asset might be. So smart national security people try not to let the bad guys know what they know in order to protect who is telling them stuff. That way, those people can continue to tell them stuff rather than be shot by the bad guys.

I can only assume you don't work in any kind of classified position, which should be a relief for us all.

The Libyan government publicly announced that it was an act of terror, and that it was preplanned, the day after the attack.

If Obama is worried about protecting assets why didn't he make sure the doctor who helped us identify bin Laden was safe before he announced the attack? Why didn't he send people into the consulate the next day to gather up classified materials, including the names of "assets" in the local militia groups? Do you have any reasonable explanation of how it would have endangered assets to admit the self evident truth when everyone in the world knows we have cell phones, and that we actually rescued the people that were in Benghazi before Obama tried to blame the video? Do you think it is reasonable to presume that the people who were under attack were aware that there was no demonstration before the attack?

Seriously dude, stop rationalizing, it's pathetic.

Think what you like. I said I knew it was a pointless exercise.

 

[WillowTree]

Statement from Rep. Peter King on this morning's briefing with Petraeus. You can read the hashed up version via news agencies or view the full, original version here:
Error | C-SPAN

Some very interesting comments indeed. More hearings coming???

Easy to sum it up, the CIA told everyone one thing, and the White House came up with a different story they liked better.

Even if this is utterly true, what fucking difference does it make??

You don't have a problem with the leader of the free world concocting a lie, looking you in the eye and then lying? Really? Cuckold. Do you feel really safe now? welldoyahuh? And, then the bastard stood right there willing to let Petraeus fall on the sword.