Libya Questions

[daphillenium]

Hey, I'm going to stir the pot here. I've been seeing a lot on facebook and here lately of Obama and the state department ignoring and denying assistance to Benghazi. According to many posts and links the information is that we had troops that could have thwarted the attack less than an hour away and things of the sort. Also they had a live feed where they just watched our people die and did nothing.

From what I can tell so far, the only people reporting on this is faux news. Now, there have been things that Faux news reports on that other news and investigative reporters pick up on and also report on it. However, after a few days of Faux news anchors reporting on this, there still only seems to be references to Faux news original "investigation and reports."

To me, I don't see how anyone could sit there and watch it and deny assistance so I simply don't believe what faux news is reporting. It seems like they took something and put it out there without any truth to it in order to confuse and try to swing undecided voters right before their election. It seems like this is there golden ticket to the presidency. However, there hasn't been any other credible reporting on it besides fox news.

Anyway, does anyone have any credible reports besides something that references the orginal fox news investigation or emails. I did some searching and only found one article by (get this) yahoo news that had the CIA lady denying anyone every denying assitance or telling people to stand down.

 

[Sherry]

Everyone has reported on it...only FOX has reported on it extensively.

 

[Sallow]

I am sure NewsMax, or WorldNewsDaily or Brietbart will soon has an expose of how Obama personally led Al Qaeda terrorists via intra dimensional transporter into Libya while giving China all the plans for our super secret nuclear vaporizers while eating Borscht with Putin.

Good stuff.

 

[flacaltenn]

Fox news NEEDS to stay on this.. Because there are questions even FOX isn't asking..

Like how did it happen that DAYS after the attack -- CNN was able to walk into into our bombed out consulate and pick up the Ambassador's diary off the floor?? WTF was keeping the site secure for an official investigation if the PRESS is trampling the scene and collecting evidence before the GOVT does?

DOD confirms there was an UNARMED drone overhead for surveillance. A Lot of the "allegations" are reasonable and confirmed. If NBC and MSNBC wants to take a pass at this story --- there are others who don't..

 

[Rozman]

Sorry I don't get Faux News on my cable service...
I do however get Fox.

 

[daphillenium]

Fox news NEEDS to stay on this.. Because there are questions even FOX isn't asking..

Like how did it happen that DAYS after the attack -- CNN was able to walk into into our bombed out consulate and pick up the Ambassador's diary off the floor?? WTF was keeping the site secure for an official investigation if the PRESS is trampling the scene and collecting evidence before the GOVT does?

DOD confirms there was an UNARMED drone overhead for surveillance. A Lot of the "allegations" are reasonable and confirmed. If NBC and MSNBC wants to take a pass at this story --- there are others who don't..

Tru, that's what I'm talking about. Fox news has a bad rep even for me as throwing out garbage and calling it factual. I'd like to see someone else take up these claims and investigate them. I am afraid that this is going to just wither away until after the election. BS

 

[flacaltenn]

Fox does a dam good at straight journalism.. You don't like Hannity or big-mouth O'Riley -- don't watch that crap.. I don't.

But the news bureau is WAAAAYY more on the ball than other networks..

I'll tear anyone who lies to me to shreds.. And I hold a grudge. So I'm not a kool-aid drinker.

This is a prime example of you and your buds just not liking the story that Fox is clinging to.. PERHAPS it's politically motivated. But with questions like the one I pointed out above -- I'm CERTAIN the Obama Admin lied to me ---- And --- like I said ---- I'm pissed...

 

[Wiseacre]

Fox isn't making this stuff up, they're just reporting information as they become aware of it. They don't have to make stuff up, the facts are damning enough as it is. The MSM is supposed to be critical of both political parties not just the repubs, but they aren't. They should be asking the same questions Fox is asking, and covering the same events and information as it comes in, but mostly they're not doing that. Here's some real questions for you, answer 'em if you can:

It is a fact that the Benghazi consulate has had a lot of incidents leading up to the attack, more than enough to keep the 16 man security team they had there in place. But in August the security team was pulled out. Why? It wasn't a financial problem, a senior State Dept testified before Congress that money wasn't an issue. The leader of that security team requested an extension for his team to remain there, and so did the ambassador himself. This is fact, not supposition; but repeated requests were denied. I want to know who denied it and why.

From the first few minutes people at the State Dept knew the Consulate was under attack, and they knew there was never any demonstration over a video. Within 24 hours of the attack the CIA station chief sends a report to his HQ in Langley advising them that it was a terrorist attack. But then 3 days later a talking points memo appears on capitol hill suggesting that a demonstration over the video may have been the cause of the attack. Who wrote that memo? On what intel was it based?

For at least a couple of weeks various people associated with the Obama Admin pushed the demonstration/video story; how could they not know by then it was not true? Did somebody cherrypick which information they would use and which they would discard? Who made those decisions? Are you going to tell me the President of the United States does not know within minutes what the fuck happened? Our consulate is attacked and our ambassador is murdered, and he doesn't know the truth? Sorry, I ain't buying it.

This already getting too long so I'll bypass the other questions and just focus on this: when something like this happens, we should be told the plain truth. By the President. To this day he has not done so. He feigns outrage and insult when he himself could have and should have held a press conference or delivered an address to tell the story. 6 weeks after the attack, are you telling me we still don't know? Why do we have to wait until the election is over, why shouldn't we be told the whole story as soon as it became available? I gotta say, it smacks of a coverup. It feels like a stonewalling job, delay and say nothing until after Nov 6. That really sucks man. That ain't why we elected him in the first place.

 

[asaratis]

Fox news NEEDS to stay on this.. Because there are questions even FOX isn't asking..

Like how did it happen that DAYS after the attack -- CNN was able to walk into into our bombed out consulate and pick up the Ambassador's diary off the floor?? WTF was keeping the site secure for an official investigation if the PRESS is trampling the scene and collecting evidence before the GOVT does?

DOD confirms there was an UNARMED drone overhead for surveillance. A Lot of the "allegations" are reasonable and confirmed. If NBC and MSNBC wants to take a pass at this story --- there are others who don't..

Tru, that's what I'm talking about. Fox news has a bad rep even for me as throwing out garbage and calling it factual. I'd like to see someone else take up these claims and investigate them. I am afraid that this is going to just wither away until after the election. BS

That what some Dem Senator said on a talking head show yesterday...something to the effect "There'll be a full investigation after the election!" Obama does not want one right now. The MSM does not want one right now (because it hurts their boy, Obama) the Obama worshipers don't care if it ever gets investigated.

Obama is in hog heaven with this recent storm to deal with and take attention away from Benghazi.

Obama is a despicable coward and a liar! He is a disgrace to the office of POTUS!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Hey, I'm going to stir the pot here. I've been seeing a lot on facebook and here lately of Obama and the state department ignoring and denying assistance to Benghazi. According to many posts and links the information is that we had troops that could have thwarted the attack less than an hour away and things of the sort. Also they had a live feed where they just watched our people die and did nothing.

From what I can tell so far, the only people reporting on this is faux news. Now, there have been things that Faux news reports on that other news and investigative reporters pick up on and also report on it. However, after a few days of Faux news anchors reporting on this, there still only seems to be references to Faux news original "investigation and reports."

To me, I don't see how anyone could sit there and watch it and deny assistance so I simply don't believe what faux news is reporting. It seems like they took something and put it out there without any truth to it in order to confuse and try to swing undecided voters right before their election. It seems like this is there golden ticket to the presidency. However, there hasn't been any other credible reporting on it besides fox news.

Anyway, does anyone have any credible reports besides something that references the orginal fox news investigation or emails. I did some searching and only found one article by (get this) yahoo news that had the CIA lady denying anyone every denying assitance or telling people to stand down.

I posted a link to an AP story that you are, obviously, ignoring.

 

[jwoodie]

The real question is why there is a news blackout on this subject by the mainstream media. I'm sure they will be overzealous in their coverage AFTER the election.

 

[Trajan]

Fox isn't making this stuff up, they're just reporting information as they become aware of it. They don't have to make stuff up, the facts are damning enough as it is. The MSM is supposed to be critical of both political parties not just the repubs, but they aren't. They should be asking the same questions Fox is asking, and covering the same events and information as it comes in, but mostly they're not doing that. Here's some real questions for you, answer 'em if you can:

It is a fact that the Benghazi consulate has had a lot of incidents leading up to the attack, more than enough to keep the 16 man security team they had there in place. But in August the security team was pulled out. Why? It wasn't a financial problem, a senior State Dept testified before Congress that money wasn't an issue. The leader of that security team requested an extension for his team to remain there, and so did the ambassador himself. This is fact, not supposition; but repeated requests were denied. I want to know who denied it and why.

From the first few minutes people at the State Dept knew the Consulate was under attack, and they knew there was never any demonstration over a video. Within 24 hours of the attack the CIA station chief sends a report to his HQ in Langley advising them that it was a terrorist attack. But then 3 days later a talking points memo appears on capitol hill suggesting that a demonstration over the video may have been the cause of the attack. Who wrote that memo? On what intel was it based?

For at least a couple of weeks various people associated with the Obama Admin pushed the demonstration/video story; how could they not know by then it was not true? Did somebody cherrypick which information they would use and which they would discard? Who made those decisions? Are you going to tell me the President of the United States does not know within minutes what the fuck happened? Our consulate is attacked and our ambassador is murdered, and he doesn't know the truth? Sorry, I ain't buying it.

This already getting too long so I'll bypass the other questions and just focus on this: when something like this happens, we should be told the plain truth. By the President. To this day he has not done so. He feigns outrage and insult when he himself could have and should have held a press conference or delivered an address to tell the story. 6 weeks after the attack, are you telling me we still don't know? Why do we have to wait until the election is over, why shouldn't we be told the whole story as soon as it became available? I gotta say, it smacks of a coverup. It feels like a stonewalling job, delay and say nothing until after Nov 6. That really sucks man. That ain't why we elected him in the first place.

My emphasis- that Site Security Team (SST) team is funded by the Dept. of defense btw... So any state dept underfunding is BS.

 

[Trajan]

I am sure NewsMax, or WorldNewsDaily or Brietbart will soon has an expose of how Obama personally led Al Qaeda terrorists via intra dimensional transporter into Libya while giving China all the plans for our super secret nuclear vaporizers while eating Borscht with Putin.

Good stuff.

usual slobbering...... when the going gets tough, free verse...

 

[Serioususername]

Fox isn't making this stuff up, they're just reporting information as they become aware of it. They don't have to make stuff up, the facts are damning enough as it is. The MSM is supposed to be critical of both political parties not just the repubs, but they aren't. They should be asking the same questions Fox is asking, and covering the same events and information as it comes in, but mostly they're not doing that. Here's some real questions for you, answer 'em if you can

The job of the media is to supply us with accurate information, just because every other Media outlet isn't reporting every single little tidbit of information from every unnamed source that wants to get a word in edgewise- doesn't mean their biased. Fox could be making this shit up, they're not naming sources. It could be true as the Earth is round, but they're not naming sources.

From the first few minutes people at the State Dept knew the Consulate was under attack, and they knew there was never any demonstration over a video. Within 24 hours of the attack the CIA station chief sends a report to his HQ in Langley advising them that it was a terrorist attack. But then 3 days later a talking points memo appears on capitol hill suggesting that a demonstration over the video may have been the cause of the attack. Who wrote that memo? On what intel was it based?

They certainly did not know from the first few minutes that there was no protest, or demonstration. I've never seen a report from anyone saying that such information wasn't passed along in anything less then 24 hours, as you go on to talk about. As for that email, it had a few things wrong in it, mainly the link to the terrorist group- saying they took credit when a few people who's job it is to watch things like facebook and twitter for updates said they couldn't find such a post. Plus that same group, after the attack said it wasn't them. So you can't very well say they were wrong to not outright call it a terrorist attack based on that- because it's not an accurate report in of itself.

Here's a story about how witnesses said they grabbed civilians and urged them to chant against the film.

For at least a couple of weeks various people associated with the Obama Admin pushed the demonstration/video story; how could they not know by then it was not true? Did somebody cherrypick which information they would use and which they would discard? Who made those decisions? Are you going to tell me the President of the United States does not know within minutes what the fuck happened? Our consulate is attacked and our ambassador is murdered, and he doesn't know the truth? Sorry, I ain't buying it.

Uh. The President isn't Omniscient, he can't know exactly what happened within minutes because he wasn't there, and he couldn't exactly get the people who were there to, within minutes of the attack starting off, brief him or anyone else able to tell him. The President himself doesn't sift through all the information that comes in personally, that's what you have Intelligence EXPERTS for, I mean shit, are people really so blinded with blood lust for Obama to believe he spends hours and hours slogging through reports himself? Or do you think, Maybe, just Maybe somebody like the CIA does that sort of thing. Kind of like how the President doesn't personally look at every single Assault Rifle, Air Craft carrier, or plane to decide how much funding the military gets.

This already getting too long so I'll bypass the other questions and just focus on this: when something like this happens, we should be told the plain truth.

Oh, sure, and you and everyone else knew the plain truth within 48 hours. The Plain truth doesn't just flop around in front of you in these sorts of cases, even now we've got so many contradictions flying around you can't be sure- I struggle to fathom how confusing it must have been 24-to-48 hours afterward.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Fox does a dam good at straight journalism.. You don't like Hannity or big-mouth O'Riley -- don't watch that crap.. I don't.

But the news bureau is WAAAAYY more on the ball than other networks..

I'll tear anyone who lies to me to shreds.. And I hold a grudge. So I'm not a kool-aid drinker.

This is a prime example of you and your buds just not liking the story that Fox is clinging to.. PERHAPS it's politically motivated. But with questions like the one I pointed out above -- I'm CERTAIN the Obama Admin lied to me ---- And --- like I said ---- I'm pissed...

What news bureau? Who are you referring to? Lets examine your claim that FOX does "a dam good" at straight journalism.

 

[flacaltenn]

Fox isn't making this stuff up, they're just reporting information as they become aware of it. They don't have to make stuff up, the facts are damning enough as it is. The MSM is supposed to be critical of both political parties not just the repubs, but they aren't. They should be asking the same questions Fox is asking, and covering the same events and information as it comes in, but mostly they're not doing that. Here's some real questions for you, answer 'em if you can

The job of the media is to supply us with accurate information, just because every other Media outlet isn't reporting every single little tidbit of information from every unnamed source that wants to get a word in edgewise- doesn't mean their biased. Fox could be making this shit up, they're not naming sources. It could be true as the Earth is round, but they're not naming sources.

From the first few minutes people at the State Dept knew the Consulate was under attack, and they knew there was never any demonstration over a video. Within 24 hours of the attack the CIA station chief sends a report to his HQ in Langley advising them that it was a terrorist attack. But then 3 days later a talking points memo appears on capitol hill suggesting that a demonstration over the video may have been the cause of the attack. Who wrote that memo? On what intel was it based?

They certainly did not know from the first few minutes that there was no protest, or demonstration. I've never seen a report from anyone saying that such information wasn't passed along in anything less then 24 hours, as you go on to talk about. As for that email, it had a few things wrong in it, mainly the link to the terrorist group- saying they took credit when a few people who's job it is to watch things like facebook and twitter for updates said they couldn't find such a post. Plus that same group, after the attack said it wasn't them. So you can't very well say they were wrong to not outright call it a terrorist attack based on that- because it's not an accurate report in of itself.

Here's a story about how witnesses said they grabbed civilians and urged them to chant against the film.

For at least a couple of weeks various people associated with the Obama Admin pushed the demonstration/video story; how could they not know by then it was not true? Did somebody cherrypick which information they would use and which they would discard? Who made those decisions? Are you going to tell me the President of the United States does not know within minutes what the fuck happened? Our consulate is attacked and our ambassador is murdered, and he doesn't know the truth? Sorry, I ain't buying it.

Uh. The President isn't Omniscient, he can't know exactly what happened within minutes because he wasn't there, and he couldn't exactly get the people who were there to, within minutes of the attack starting off, brief him or anyone else able to tell him. The President himself doesn't sift through all the information that comes in personally, that's what you have Intelligence EXPERTS for, I mean shit, are people really so blinded with blood lust for Obama to believe he spends hours and hours slogging through reports himself? Or do you think, Maybe, just Maybe somebody like the CIA does that sort of thing. Kind of like how the President doesn't personally look at every single Assault Rifle, Air Craft carrier, or plane to decide how much funding the military gets.

This already getting too long so I'll bypass the other questions and just focus on this: when something like this happens, we should be told the plain truth.

Oh, sure, and you and everyone else knew the plain truth within 48 hours. The Plain truth doesn't just flop around in front of you in these sorts of cases, even now we've got so many contradictions flying around you can't be sure- I struggle to fathom how confusing it must have been 24-to-48 hours afterward.

Protocols exist to get vital info to the PREZ 24/7 within MINUTES of the reports. Cables were FLYING out of Benghazi/Tripoli detailing the situation. (Not to mention dozens of memos that Hill. Clinton was priveleged to prior to the attack). We KNOW that an emergency was declared by the post and that the Prez should have notified. If the Prez had WANTED TO -- he could have walked down to the situation room and WATCHED THE ATTACK on his wall. But I don't think he did.. Why do suppose that is???

 

[Wiseacre]

Fox isn't making this stuff up, they're just reporting information as they become aware of it. They don't have to make stuff up, the facts are damning enough as it is. The MSM is supposed to be critical of both political parties not just the repubs, but they aren't. They should be asking the same questions Fox is asking, and covering the same events and information as it comes in, but mostly they're not doing that. Here's some real questions for you, answer 'em if you can

The job of the media is to supply us with accurate information, just because every other Media outlet isn't reporting every single little tidbit of information from every unnamed source that wants to get a word in edgewise- doesn't mean their biased. Fox could be making this shit up, they're not naming sources. It could be true as the Earth is round, but they're not naming sources.


OK, Fox doesn't just make this stuff up, that's load of crap. Their information comes from testimony before Congress, texts or video that shows exactly what somebody actually said, emails or reports from those involved, and facts about who did or did not do what when. The only unnamed sources are the ones in the State Dept or CIA or in the Obama Admin who weren't authorized to provide information to the press, or maybe just Fox News. This happens on every big story on every news outlet under every administration, it's been going on for years. Don't give me this BS that it's just Fox News. And they're honest enough to tell us up front where the information came from.

From the first few minutes people at the State Dept knew the Consulate was under attack, and they knew there was never any demonstration over a video. Within 24 hours of the attack the CIA station chief sends a report to his HQ in Langley advising them that it was a terrorist attack. But then 3 days later a talking points memo appears on capitol hill suggesting that a demonstration over the video may have been the cause of the attack. Who wrote that memo? On what intel was it based?

They certainly did not know from the first few minutes that there was no protest, or demonstration. I've never seen a report from anyone saying that such information wasn't passed along in anything less then 24 hours, as you go on to talk about. As for that email, it had a few things wrong in it, mainly the link to the terrorist group- saying they took credit when a few people who's job it is to watch things like facebook and twitter for updates said they couldn't find such a post. Plus that same group, after the attack said it wasn't them. So you can't very well say they were wrong to not outright call it a terrorist attack based on that- because it's not an accurate report in of itself.


The State Dept knew there was no demonstration from the beginning, they had a senior official (Charlene Lamb) in real time communication with the Benghazi consulate. They knew right away that the streets in front of the consulate were empty less than an hour before the attack started. The State Dept official testified to that before Congress.

I know that the Benghazi CIA station chief cabled Washington within 24 hours that it was not a demonstration but a planned attack, likely by Al Qaida linked group(s). You think that person was wrong? The commander of the 16 man Site Security Force that requested an extension of their deployment to the consulate due to an increased security risk, was he lying?


Here's a story about how witnesses said they grabbed civilians and urged them to chant against the film.

For at least a couple of weeks various people associated with the Obama Admin pushed the demonstration/video story; how could they not know by then it was not true? Did somebody cherrypick which information they would use and which they would discard? Who made those decisions? Are you going to tell me the President of the United States does not know within minutes what the fuck happened? Our consulate is attacked and our ambassador is murdered, and he doesn't know the truth? Sorry, I ain't buying it.

Uh. The President isn't Omniscient, he can't know exactly what happened within minutes because he wasn't there, and he couldn't exactly get the people who were there to, within minutes of the attack starting off, brief him or anyone else able to tell him. The President himself doesn't sift through all the information that comes in personally, that's what you have Intelligence EXPERTS for, I mean shit, are people really so blinded with blood lust for Obama to believe he spends hours and hours slogging through reports himself? Or do you think, Maybe, just Maybe somebody like the CIA does that sort of thing. Kind of like how the President doesn't personally look at every single Assault Rifle, Air Craft carrier, or plane to decide how much funding the military gets.


Again, Obama's State Dept knew what was going on. As it was happening. The guys who were fighting and dying sure as hell knew what was going on, they asked for help several times but were denied. So SOMEBODY knew what was happening, how come the president didn't know? He's supposed to know this stuff, he's supposed to be getting the full and accurate picture ASAP. If he didn't, then I damn well want to know why. Does he need more than 6 weeks to figure that out? And blood lust? That's just asinine.

This already getting too long so I'll bypass the other questions and just focus on this: when something like this happens, we should be told the plain truth.

Oh, sure, and you and everyone else knew the plain truth within 48 hours. The Plain truth doesn't just flop around in front of you in these sorts of cases, even now we've got so many contradictions flying around you can't be sure- I struggle to fathom how confusing it must have been 24-to-48 hours afterward.

I think if he was confused from contradictory reports than that's what he and his minions should've said. "We're waiting to get the whole and complete story", but no, for several days leading into weeks he puts out the ridiculous fiction about the demonstration/video. Why? Cuz for months he's been saying his efforts have put Al Qaida on the run and all but defeated. And this attack in Benghazi flies in the face of all his rhetoric on the subject, so he made the political decision to lie to us and run with the BS story about the demonstration knowing damn well it wasn't true. I don't think he was confused at all, I think he gambled on the MSM letting the story die quickly. Which they did, except for Fox News.

Tell me, what would you be saying if this happened under a republican president? What do you think the MSM would be doing with the story then? You think it would be on page 9 of the NY Times? Doesn't the double standard trouble you at all? Do you not think it is the responsibility of the press to hold every president and elected official accountable, regardless of which party they belong to? Do you not think every news outlet should be impartial in their criticism?

 

[Serioususername]

OK, Fox doesn't just make this stuff up, that's load of crap. Their information comes from testimony before Congress, texts or video that shows exactly what somebody actually said, emails or reports from those involved, and facts about who did or did not do what when. The only unnamed sources are the ones in the State Dept or CIA or in the Obama Admin who weren't authorized to provide information to the press, or maybe just Fox News. This happens on every big story on every news outlet under every administration, it's been going on for years. Don't give me this BS that it's just Fox News. And they're honest enough to tell us up front where the information came from.

That's at least partially malarkey, Some of their information comes from testimony, or Video's or the emails. That sort of information is reported on by everybody because at least it can come off as halfway not made up, being that there's transcripts, copies, etc, etc. A lot of stuff has come from a bunch of people being interviewed saying an unnamed source from inside the military said this happened, or that happened. You're getting mad that every other news station is being a bit more cautious about what they're reporting, as opposed to having everyone who has something to say from Bert that works in the CIA mail room, who shall not be named- come on. The only reason Fox is SO "On Top" of this story is because it has a bone to pick with Democrats. Not because of some dedication to proper journalism. If such were the case they;d maybe show a little respect for sourcing themselves.

The State Dept knew there was no demonstration from the beginning, they had a senior official (Charlene Lamb) in real time communication with the Benghazi consulate. They knew right away that the streets in front of the consulate were empty less than an hour before the attack started. The State Dept official testified to that before Congress.

The State Department Knew nothing more then the CIA or anyone else who did intelligence. They testified that they never came to the conclusion that there was a demonstration, I can't find any story that says that the State Department knew right away. What I can find are stories saying the CIA is the one that created the brief including the protest, stories interviewing people that were there saying the terrorist gathered civilians to start protesting and stories talking about all the protests springing up about the movie in the region.

I know that the Benghazi CIA station chief cabled Washington within 24 hours that it was not a demonstration but a planned attack, likely by Al Qaida linked group(s). You think that person was wrong? The commander of the 16 man Site Security Force that requested an extension of their deployment to the consulate due to an increased security risk, was he lying?

Are you talking about the emails that told the people back in Washington that an extremist faction had taken credit for the attacks on Twitter and Facebook? Because yes, that was VERY wrong- as I pointed out earlier. People who watch Extremist social networking posts said they never saw such a post- and that same group said they weren't part of it. Lying is the wrong term anyway, incorrect considering the situation, it's not like they wear their affiliates on their jackets like Stock car drivers.

Again, Obama's State Dept knew what was going on. As it was happening. The guys who were fighting and dying sure as hell knew what was going on, they asked for help several times but were denied.

The State Department Knew there was an attack happening, beyond that right then and there they didn't know who it was. The people on the ground had ideas, and theories, but if it was that easy, really that easy. Why would the CIA provide talking points to the contrary? Why do we even have multiple sources of information, witnesses from the ground, knowledge of whats going on in the region. Didn't I link you to the news bit quoting an intelligence expert pointing out expecting clear and concise information next day is ludicrous(Ludicrous being my own insert).

So SOMEBODY knew what was happening, how come the president didn't know? He's supposed to know this stuff, he's supposed to be getting the full and accurate picture ASAP. If he didn't, then I damn well want to know why. Does he need more than 6 weeks to figure that out? And blood lust? That's just asinine.

EVERYONE knew there was an attack happening. Are we talking about the attack, or who it was perpetrated by? Getting an accurate picture of the later can take a little longer ya know. As any and most will point out, you've got all kinds of information coming in from multiple sources. You've got people telling you there was a protest, people telling you there wasn't, people telling you they a known terrorist group was involved, people telling you it wasn't, people telling you it was just members of a known terrorist group not acting in the name of said group, etc, etc. You're making it seem as if the rally was implausible- which isn't the case when you take into account the fact that they were happening everywhere in the region, people ON THE GROUND also said there were people being gathered to chant against the film, shit like that.

"We're waiting to get the whole and complete story"

The CIA gave him talking points, and I'm sure in at least one of his interviews he or someone he sent out said the information could change as intelligence kept coming in.

Tell me, what would you be saying if this happened under a republican president?

The same thing, I don't hate Republicans just because their Republicans. I don't like specific people sure, but that's because of what they've done not because of their party. I can respect a person with different views from my own. I didn't call for Bush's head anymore then anyone else.

What do you think the MSM would be doing with the story then? You think it would be on page 9 of the NY Times?

I wasn't as much into politics when Bush was in office, how did his various perceived foreign policy failings get publicized? Was the whole "No WMD's" thing on every news channel 24/7 with people constantly popping up with "Unnamed sources" providing new information?

 

[flacaltenn]

<<SeriousUserName>>

The State Department Knew nothing more then the CIA or anyone else who did intelligence. They testified that they never came to the conclusion that there was a demonstration, I can't find any story that says that the State Department knew right away. What I can find are stories saying the CIA is the one that created the brief including the protest, stories interviewing people that were there saying the terrorist gathered civilians to start protesting and stories talking about all the protests springing up about the movie in the region.

How could the CIA NOT KNOW the story ?? It was THEIR ANNEX that came attack directly after the consulate was breached?? Think their guys weren't on the horn describing the nature of the attackers who FOLLOWED the ambassador from the consulate to the CIA Annex??

It was a RUNNING GUN BATTLE. Mobs don't do running battle logistics.. Besides -- how many CIA ANNEXES get crowds of people protesting a movie?

This deflection by the Admin is pure horsedroppings. The fact that you're believing that BS is disturbing.
I happen to believe that Fox DOES have sources who were there. Eventually they will be deposed and identified. But right now --- THEIR STORY makes a hell of a lot more sense than YOUR story bro...

 

[rdean]

The very first question should be, "Why did Republicans cut funding for embassy security over the objections of Sec. of State Clinton"?