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

CBS- Complicit in the cover up:
CBS News has released a clip of an interview by Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes on Sep. 12 with President Barack Obama that indicates Obama knew the assault on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya was a premeditated terror attack--and suggests the White House later deceived the public by blaming pr
ot
ests against an anti-Islam video. CBS chose not to air the clip for over a month--but did air Obama’s attack on Romney that same night.

Obama told Kroft that the attack in Benghazi was different from the violent protest at the U.S. embassy in Cairo: "You're right that this is not a situation that was exactly the same as what happened in Egypt, and my suspicion is, is that there are folks involved in this who were looking to target Americans from the start."

Obama's remarks pointed towards a premeditated attack, in contrast to the story the White House went on to tell for weeks.

CBS chose not to air that portion of the interview with President Obama--not even in the days and weeks that followed, when it was highly relevant--first to the question of the nature of the Benghazi attack, then to the question of whether the president had in fact called it an act of terror from the start.

According to Fox News, the clip first appeared online on Oct. 19. It was embedded Oct. 24 in an article by CBS News’ Sharyl Attkisson.

What CBS chose to air, instead, was President Obama’s attack on his Republican rival, Mitt Romney, who had criticized the administration’s apologetic response to the Cairo demonstration.
Obama said Romney “seems to have a tendency to shoot first and aim later.” That portion of the interview aired immediately, and drove the news for days. Obama’s comment suggesting that the attack had been premeditated was not aired.

Attkisson reported this week that emails linking an Al Qaeda affiliate to the Benghazi attack had been sent to the White House Situation Room just over two hours after the attack had begun. The emails suggest that the Obama administration knew from the outset that the Benghazi attack had been a terrorist attack--and that it knowingly misled the public when it repeatedly claimed there was no evidence of terrorist involvement.

When the video story unraveled, the White House tried to argue that President Obama had called the Benghazi attack an act of terror all along. In the second presidential debate, the President famously pointed to his Sep. 12 statement in the Rose Garden as proof, though his reference to “acts of terror” on that occasion had been general and not specific to the Benghazi attack, which he implied had been provoked by the video.

The new CBS footage suggests that Obama did, in fact, describe the Benghazi attacks as premeditated terrorism--not in the Rose Garden but in the White House itself, in a portion of an interview that did not air until more than a month later.

During that time, both CBS and Obama could have referred to the interview, but did not--likely because doing so would have vindicated Obama at the cost of exposing his subsequent deceit.

The fact that CBS refrained from publishing the critical clip from the interview widens the political scandal surrounding Benghazi into a media scandal.

National Public Radio’s Mara Liasson criticized CBS on Fox News Special Report yesterday, saying that CBS ought to have made the entire interview with Obama available immediately, in the public interest.

http://nation.foxnews.com/60-minutes/2012/09/24/cbs-cuts-key-portion-obama-interview
 
The situation room in cluding obumer watch the live feed.
You have no case so shut the hell up with your slant ignorance.

Usually, under this administration, the kitchen sink has been loaded with filthy, stinking dried out dirty dishes.
 
Mitt's whole campaign strategy now hangs by a thread on making Benghazi into something it isn't. Fucking sad people. This is for the Office of President of the United States of America not some mud slinging contest for four year olds.
 
Mitt's whole campaign strategy now hangs by a thread on making Benghazi into something it isn't. Fucking sad people. This is for the Office of President of the United States of America not some mud slinging contest for four year olds.

Romney's not talking about it at all. We're driving the narrative on every board we can:D Romney is staying focused on the economy.

And what do you mean "making Benghazi is something it isn't". Panetta has admitted they made the decision to let the men die.

Don't you get it?

They let them die. Truth.

Oh and then the Adminstration lied their asses off that this was a "spontaneous attack because of a video". Liars.

This isn't going away.
 
Last edited:
Mitt's whole campaign strategy now hangs by a thread on making Benghazi into something it isn't. Fucking sad people. This is for the Office of President of the United States of America not some mud slinging contest for four year olds.

Romney's not talking about it at all. We're driving the narrative on every board we can:D Romney is staying focused on the economy.

And what do you mean "making Benghazi is something it isn't". Panetta has admitted they made the decision to let the men die.

Don't you get it?

They let them die. Truth.

Oh and then they lied their asses off that this was a "spontaneous attack because of a video". Liars.

OK, I have about 15 minutes let's just figure out how "they let them die". Please explain.
 
Mitt's whole campaign strategy now hangs by a thread on making Benghazi into something it isn't. Fucking sad people. This is for the Office of President of the United States of America not some mud slinging contest for four year olds.

Romney's not talking about it at all. We're driving the narrative on every board we can:D Romney is staying focused on the economy.

And what do you mean "making Benghazi is something it isn't". Panetta has admitted they made the decision to let the men die.

Don't you get it?

They let them die. Truth.

Oh and then they lied their asses off that this was a "spontaneous attack because of a video". Liars.

OK, I have about 15 minutes let's just figure out how "they let them die". Please explain.

Anyone?
 
Mitt's whole campaign strategy now hangs by a thread on making Benghazi into something it isn't. Fucking sad people. This is for the Office of President of the United States of America not some mud slinging contest for four year olds.

Romney's not talking about it at all. We're driving the narrative on every board we can:D Romney is staying focused on the economy.

And what do you mean "making Benghazi is something it isn't". Panetta has admitted they made the decision to let the men die.

Don't you get it?

They let them die. Truth.

Oh and then they lied their asses off that this was a "spontaneous attack because of a video". Liars.

OK, I have about 15 minutes let's just figure out how "they let them die". Please explain.

Quite simple.

Panetta made the decision not to send in a rescue team. He claimed it was "too risky" for the best trained, the best equipped fighting force on the planet to go in an attempt a rescue.

No rescue attempt. They let them die.
 
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

It is treason for someone in the Obama Administration to leak emails and videos. Especially to that guy Assange.

But if it is for Fox News, that is okay.


.
 
Even President Carter ordered a rescue attempt for the Iranian hostages. It failed, but at least he tried.
 
Romney's not talking about it at all. We're driving the narrative on every board we can:D Romney is staying focused on the economy.

And what do you mean "making Benghazi is something it isn't". Panetta has admitted they made the decision to let the men die.

Don't you get it?

They let them die. Truth.

Oh and then they lied their asses off that this was a "spontaneous attack because of a video". Liars.

OK, I have about 15 minutes let's just figure out how "they let them die". Please explain.

Quite simple.

Panetta made the decision not to send in a rescue team. He claimed it was "too risky" for the best trained, the best equipped fighting force on the planet to go in an attempt a rescue.

No rescue attempt. They let them die.

There are so many versions of this that I want to make sure we are on the same page here. Who and where was the rescue team and when was the decision made not to send the team in? Also what would have been the team's mode of transportation?
 
As if the War against Americans who use non-government approved recreational substances (the real cause of the border violence not F & F) or the Islamic Radicals war on all things American would somehow stop under a Republican President!

Could it be the Democrats decided not to react this time to the Rabid Right wing Echo-chamber noise machine?

Yes we know, blame Republicans for your guy's awful mess. Par for the course i guess. No pun intended...Ok, a little intended. ;)

Both have been going on for a long time now. I'll bet this president has killed a great deal more terrorists than the terrorists have kill Americans.

There were over 2700 JUST AMERICANS killed on 9/11/01.
 
Even President Carter ordered a rescue attempt for the Iranian hostages. It failed, but at least he tried.

What does this have to do with Carter? You figured out the answer to my last question yet?

Anyone else know what tinydancer is talking about?
 
If Obama supporters are tired of the accusations towards Obama about Benghazi, there is a fast way to stop them. He can come out and tell people what happened. Was he in the situation room or did he delegate the disaster?

The rumor is that he plans to do that at the same time Mitt Romney produces records showing his holdings in foreign banks and his secret accounts in the Cayman Islands.

Facts about such accounts:

An offshore bank is a bank located outside the country of residence of the depositor, typically in a low tax jurisdiction (or tax haven) that provides financial and legal advantages. These advantages typically include:

greater privacy (see also bank secrecy, a principle born with the 1934 Swiss Banking Act)

low or no taxation (i.e. tax havens)

easy access to deposits (at least in terms of regulation)

protection against local, political, or financial instability

Nobody has died over Romney's "Accounts"!
And besides, accounts over seas is not illegal.....murder is.
 
Even President Carter ordered a rescue attempt for the Iranian hostages. It failed, but at least he tried.

:bang3:

Did he do it during the attack on the embassy?

No.

The attempt was FIVE MONTHS LATER.

Nice try.

.
 
Last edited:
Mitt's whole campaign strategy now hangs by a thread on making Benghazi into something it isn't. Fucking sad people. This is for the Office of President of the United States of America not some mud slinging contest for four year olds.

Romney's not talking about it at all. We're driving the narrative on every board we can:D Romney is staying focused on the economy.

And what do you mean "making Benghazi is something it isn't". Panetta has admitted they made the decision to let the men die.

Don't you get it?

They let them die. Truth.

Oh and then the Adminstration lied their asses off that this was a "spontaneous attack because of a video". Liars.

This isn't going away.


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."
 
Mitt's whole campaign strategy now hangs by a thread on making Benghazi into something it isn't. Fucking sad people. This is for the Office of President of the United States of America not some mud slinging contest for four year olds.

Romney's not talking about it at all. We're driving the narrative on every board we can:D Romney is staying focused on the economy.

And what do you mean "making Benghazi is something it isn't". Panetta has admitted they made the decision to let the men die.

Don't you get it?

They let them die. Truth.

Oh and then the Adminstration lied their asses off that this was a "spontaneous attack because of a video". Liars.

This isn't going away.


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."

See? I knew someone had the answer. It just wasn't you tinydancer.

Until next time.......
 
If you think that we should have sent military forces in to defend Benghazi consulate, then you would have to agree that it's O.K. to foreign powers to send military forces into the U.S. to defend any perceived threats to their embassies and consulates.

Guess what!? It's the host country's responsibility to provide anything beyond routine security for embassies and consulates. Otherwise all principals of diplomacy fall a part, and any nation could launch an invasion of another under the pretext of their embassy being threatened.

Wingnuts - Try thinking just a little for a change!
 
Yes we know, blame Republicans for your guy's awful mess. Par for the course i guess. No pun intended...Ok, a little intended. ;)

Both have been going on for a long time now. I'll bet this president has killed a great deal more terrorists than the terrorists have kill Americans.

There were over 2700 JUST AMERICANS killed on 9/11/01.

Oh shit, I guess I should have also qualified that by saying "on this presidents watch........."
 
OK, I have about 15 minutes let's just figure out how "they let them die". Please explain.

Quite simple.

Panetta made the decision not to send in a rescue team. He claimed it was "too risky" for the best trained, the best equipped fighting force on the planet to go in an attempt a rescue.

No rescue attempt. They let them die.

There are so many versions of this that I want to make sure we are on the same page here. Who and where was the rescue team and when was the decision made not to send the team in? Also what would have been the team's mode of transportation?

Here ya go sparky! He refused to send a rescue team. Ergo he let them die.

Panetta: Too little information, too much risk to send military into Benghazi during attack

WASHINGTON — The U.S. military did not quickly intervene during the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya last month because military leaders did not have adequate intelligence information and felt they should not put American forces at risk, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Thursday.


Panetta: Too little information, too much risk to send military into Benghazi during attack - The Washington Post

And I'll get a direct link to the other information you asked for.
 
If you think that we should have sent military forces in to defend Benghazi consulate, then you would have to agree that it's O.K. to foreign powers to send military forces into the U.S. to defend any perceived threats to their embassies and consulates.

Guess what!? It's the host country's responsibility to provide anything beyond routine security for embassies and consulates. Otherwise all principals of diplomacy fall a part, and any nation could launch an invasion of another under the pretext of their embassy being threatened.

Wingnuts - Try thinking just a little for a change!

Leave it to a simpleton like DickyH to say such mindless lib-droid crap.

Yes, you hapless turd. We could have and should have sent in our forces JUST as we did when it was time to take out bin Laden.
 

Forum List

Back
Top