Reuters: White House TOLD OF militant claim two hours after LIBYA ATTACK, emails show

So the question is why does it matter that the presdient defined who attacked us in Lybia within the first few days? A terrorist attack is a terrorist attack and the man responsable is in jail.

So what if the presdient had conflicting information in the first few days?
 
So the question is why does it matter that the presdient defined who attacked us in Lybia within the first few days? A terrorist attack is a terrorist attack and the man responsable is in jail.

So what if the presdient had conflicting information in the first few days?

He didn't have conflicting evidence .. he simply was not going to tell the truth.

He wants you to believe that the Libyan people sided with him agaist Gaddafi.

He doesn't want you to know of CIA involvement in the overthrow of yey another nation that was no threat whatsoever to America.
 
He didn't have conflicting evidence .. he simply was not going to tell the truth.

He wants you to believe that the Libyan people sided with him agaist Gaddafi.

He doesn't want you to know of CIA involvement in the overthrow of yey another nation that was no threat whatsoever to America.

I dont see it that way, I saw plenty of Lybians upset about the killing of the American Ambassador. I also dont see the difference between if it was Al Queda that planned and organized this attack or an angery mob, in fact Id say that an angery mob would have been worse for Obama because that is the Lybian people more than some terrorist orginization...
 
So the question is why does it matter that the presdient defined who attacked us in Lybia within the first few days? A terrorist attack is a terrorist attack and the man responsable is in jail.

So what if the presdient had conflicting information in the first few days?

The man responsible is in jail? Really, Jughead?

The president DIDN'T have conflicting information. He knew within 2 hours, this was a planned coordinated terrorist attack by an alQaeda affiliate, and made the decision to lie to the American people for two weeks about that. The minute his Carney started barking about this being the result of a protest over a video, we all thought it was the typical Arab-ass-kiss Obama is known for...Shalom aleikhem! Turns out, he was trying to cover up the fact that he failed to act quickly and at least attempt to save an Ambassador. To date, there has been no retaliation or retribution on the terrorist group claiming responsibility, and there won't likely be one from this president. Instead, we STILL have his sycophants running around promoting the idea this was about the video.
 
Well again... you are now claiming facebook/twitter posts aren't reliable evidence, but you've argued that a YouTube video caused protests and uprisings. Face it, you morons just pick and choose what "truth" you're going to tell on a minute-by-minute basis! It doesn't matter if what you say contradicts what you just said, we're supposed to forget that and just hear what you're lying out your ass about NOW!

I tell ya what we DON'T deserve... "Leaders" who LIE and MISLEAD while jaunting off to Vegas to raise money for their political campaigns, while an Ambassador is hold-up in a bunker waiting for a rescue that isn't coming! And to have YOU still trying to SPIN your way out of this, is PATHETIC!

You right wingers are the only ones confused. You are either lying or you are just dumbfounded by your own spin. I have not contradicted myself once. The Middle East is a biiiiigggg place. There is lots going on there. There are many actors and motivations. They don't all have a direct line to Al Quaida, they don't all agree with that organization and they are not all motivated by the same things.

The twitter and facebook posts of Ansar al Sharia are not reliable proof unless YOU CLAIM that Ansar al Sharia was solely responsible, the attack was a spontaneous uprising with no planning and entirely motivated by the video. I don't believe that. Neither did the administration. They expressed doubts about that and continued to investigate. The email concerning Ansar al Sharia shows the EARLY intelligence that was later discredited. It shows why the administration thought there MIGHT be a connection between BENGHAZI and the videos.

The protest in Cairo and across most of the region were absolutely about the video. The producer was a Coptic Christian and if you were not such a xenophobic dipshit that lumps them altogether you might know that theiur are strong tensions between Coptics and Muslims in Egypt.

The proof of that is not based solely on a youtube video of the "Innocence of Muslims." There were instigators within Egypt that replayed the video. Do you want me to show you all the images and news reports of portesters holding signs denouncing the video again?

The Ansar al Sharia in Benghazi seemed to have taken action after seeing what happened in Cairo. They were calling for more such uprising and attacks. There is another militia group suspected of having been involved that may have had more direct ties and there planning may have been longer range.

What Napolitano said is quite accurate. There are many militia groups running around Lybia and it is a chaotic situation created by the toppling of the regime. However, I am not so sure there is/was any better alternative. I also agree with his distaste of Obama's unilateral act of war. Not so much because of this one incident but because of the precedent it sets. Obama skipped going to congress because the Republicans lead by the psychopath McCain were going to demand that we go in with massive force, bog ourselves down and create another Iraq.

I am not contradicting myself. It's just a complex and complicated issue which is why it confuses simpleminded morons or as they are known in US, Conservative Republicans.

SF has not really considered any of this, he is just kissing ass and anything that gives him a reason to bash Obama is good enough for him.
 
The man responsible is in jail? Really, Jughead?

The president DIDN'T have conflicting information. He knew within 2 hours, this was a planned coordinated terrorist attack by an alQaeda affiliate, and made the decision to lie to the American people for two weeks about that. The minute his Carney started barking about this being the result of a protest over a video, we all thought it was the typical Arab-ass-kiss Obama is known for...Shalom aleikhem! Turns out, he was trying to cover up the fact that he failed to act quickly and at least attempt to save an Ambassador. To date, there has been no retaliation or retribution on the terrorist group claiming responsibility, and there won't likely be one from this president. Instead, we STILL have his sycophants running around promoting the idea this was about the video.

You will not be satisfied untill President Obama invades Iraq over this?
 
I dont see it that way, I saw plenty of Lybians upset about the killing of the American Ambassador. I also dont see the difference between if it was Al Queda that planned and organized this attack or an angery mob, in fact Id say that an angery mob would have been worse for Obama because that is the Lybian people more than some terrorist orginization...

What you saw were Libyans in BENGHAZI .. the hotbed of terrorism .. upset because their paymaster had been killed.

Have you asked yourself why MSM didn't show you the massive demonstration by the Libyan people AGAINST NATO bombing?

If you really want to know who killed Stevens ..

Benghazi Attack. Libya’s Green Resistance Did It… And NATO Powers Are Covering Up
http://www.globalresearch.ca/libyas-green-resistance-did-it-and-nato-powers-are-covering-up/5305409

Stevens was no innocent bystander. He was an active participant in destroying Libya? He ran to Benghazi to hide among Al Queda and the terrorists he used.
 
What you saw were Libyans in BENGHAZI .. the hotbed of terrorism .. upset because their paymaster had been killed.

Have you asked yourself why MSM didn't show you the massive demonstration by the Libyan people AGAINST NATO bombing?

If you really want to know who killed Stevens ..

Benghazi Attack. Libya’s Green Resistance Did It… And NATO Powers Are Covering Up
http://www.globalresearch.ca/libyas-green-resistance-did-it-and-nato-powers-are-covering-up/5305409

Stevens was no innocent bystander. He was an active participant in destroying Libya? He ran to Benghazi to hide among Al Queda and the terrorists he used.

To me the point is that Stevens is dead, and some group of Lybian people are responsable. It it was because they were outraged over a video, or promoted by a terrorist group, the facts are the same and the result if the same. Now, Lybia was not and is not a friend of the USA. THat has not and will not change.
 
To me the point is that Stevens is dead, and some group of Lybian people are responsable. It it was because they were outraged over a video, or promoted by a terrorist group, the facts are the same and the result if the same. Now, Lybia was not and is not a friend of the USA. THat has not and will not change.

Wrong again good brother.

Libyans killed Stevens were furious that he helped to destroy their country. The notion that this was about a video is ridiculous.

People who defend their country from outside intervention destruction and mass-murder are not called 'terrorists.'

There are OBVIOUS truths here.

Riddle me this ..


Libyans hated Gaddafi?
 
The man responsible is in jail? Really, Jughead?

The president DIDN'T have conflicting information. He knew within 2 hours, this was a planned coordinated terrorist attack by an alQaeda affiliate, and made the decision to lie to the American people for two weeks about that. The minute his Carney started barking about this being the result of a protest over a video, we all thought it was the typical Arab-ass-kiss Obama is known for...Shalom aleikhem! Turns out, he was trying to cover up the fact that he failed to act quickly and at least attempt to save an Ambassador. To date, there has been no retaliation or retribution on the terrorist group claiming responsibility, and there won't likely be one from this president. Instead, we STILL have his sycophants running around promoting the idea this was about the video.

The information he had from the emails is that Ansar al Sharia claimed responsibility for leading a spontaneous uprising in response to the video. They had expressed support of Al Quaida, they are not Al Quaida "affiliates", that is they act independently of Al Quaida. As Napolitano stated, they were one of the many militias that has been empowered by the toppling of Quadafi and providing various military and police functions within Lybia.
 
.

SF has not really considered any of this, he is just kissing ass and anything that gives him a reason to bash Obama is good enough for him.

That is simply pure partisan nonsense on your part. I posted the transcript of Carney. He continually came back to 'it was the video'... this is several days after the attack. If the admin was truly waiting for all the facts and the investigation he would not have tried to hammer home the 'it was the video, not our policies' line of bullshit. Yes, he left open the possibility that it could have been something else, but he most certainly was not open minded or waiting for the investigation when he made his remarks.

We all know Cairo was due to the video. You keep pretending that I am ignoring the video did cause turmoil, yet that is not the case. The point in fact is that the Obama admin, via Carney especially, went out of their way to try and label the video as cause for the attack. They did not wait for an investigation. A point you continue to ignore. Which is why you keep trying to spin this back to Egypt and the fact that there are other issues in the region.

None of that changes how the Obama admin responded.
 
Wrong again good brother.

Libyans killed Stevens were furious that he helped to destroy their country. The notion that this was about a video is ridiculous.

People who defend their country from outside intervention destruction and mass-murder are not called 'terrorists.'

There are OBVIOUS truths here.

Riddle me this ..


Okay so if they were not terrorists, or if they were, to me its the same result... Some group of Lybian people killed our ambassador. Now if there is evidence that the Lybian government did it, I support a strong response. Are you saying the government did it?
 
You will not be satisfied untill President Obama invades Iraq over this?

I will be satisfied on November 6th, when Romney buries Obama at the polls. This is the most incompetent and feckless president we have ever had, and that's really sad. So many people had such high hopes for our first black president, and none of those hopes have come to fruition. He has literally failed at every level, on every front. And now, he is caught in his own lies to the point he can't escape, but you're doing your damndest to extricate him. Keep dancing, keep spinning! The American people are watching!
 
Okay so if they were not terrorists, or if they were, to me its the same result... Some group of Lybian people killed our ambassador. Now if there is evidence that the Lybian government did it, I support a strong response. Are you saying the government did it?

I said the Green Resistance did it. That is not the government.

Stevens helped to get lots and lots of innocent people killed. He was a CIA operative more than an Ambassador.

Why is it strange to you that the people in the countries we attack and destroy would resist and kill those responsible?

I ask again .. Libyans hated Gaddafi?

You're not facing the truth staring you in the face brother.

How do you ignore millions of Libyans standing for Gaddafi and against NATO?
 
To me the point is that Stevens is dead, and some group of Lybian people are responsable. It it was because they were outraged over a video, or promoted by a terrorist group, the facts are the same and the result if the same. Now, Lybia was not and is not a friend of the USA. THat has not and will not change.

And the FACT will not change, that Obama knew within 2 hours the attacks were not a spontaneous uprising but a planned coordinated terror attack on the anniversary of 9/11. The FACT will not change, that the Ambassador had BEGGED for extra security in the weeks and months before the attacks. The FACT will not change, that we left air support on the ground and failed to respond to what Obama knew was a terror attack, and allowed the terrorists to kill an Ambassador, while he planned a fundraising trip to Vegas. And finally, the FACT will not change, that for TWO WEEKS, the Administration stuck by a LIE that this was the result of protests over a video and NOT a terrorist attack.
 
That is simply pure partisan nonsense on your part. I posted the transcript of Carney. He continually came back to 'it was the video'... this is several days after the attack. If the admin was truly waiting for all the facts and the investigation he would not have tried to hammer home the 'it was the video, not our policies' line of bullshit. Yes, he left open the possibility that it could have been something else, but he most certainly was not open minded or waiting for the investigation when he made his remarks.

We all know Cairo was due to the video. You keep pretending that I am ignoring the video did cause turmoil, yet that is not the case. The point in fact is that the Obama admin, via Carney especially, went out of their way to try and label the video as cause for the attack. They did not wait for an investigation. A point you continue to ignore. Which is why you keep trying to spin this back to Egypt and the fact that there are other issues in the region.

None of that changes how the Obama admin responded.

Carney did not hammer home that it was the video in BENGHAZI from anything I have seen. The transcript of what you posted proves you wrong. You just seem to be under the impression that Cairo and Benghazi (or Egypt and Lybia or the Middle East and Lybia) are synonyms, represent the same area and/or can be mixed interchangeably into a sentence and it does not change the intent of the speaker. That is WRONG! Further, it is dishonest and just stupid.

If you have something else, please post it. All I have seen so far is a press secretary that was trying hard to clarify a complicated situation to a press corps that seemed intent on finding a simple minded solution that would allow them to create one narrative for everything.

Was it partisan nonsense when I agreed with Napolitano's criticizism of Obama for going into Lybia in violation of the Constitution in the first place? I don't like Obama. But on this issue I don't like Republicans more. If Obama had done what Napolitano and I would have suggested on Lybia the GOP and Romney would have bashed him from another angle. They want more agressive military action.
 
I said the Green Resistance did it. That is not the government.

Stevens helped to get lots and lots of innocent people killed. He was a CIA operative more than an Ambassador.

Why is it strange to you that the people in the countries we attack and destroy would resist and kill those responsible?

I ask again .. Libyans hated Gaddafi?

You're not facing the truth staring you in the face brother.

How do you ignore millions of Libyans standing for Gaddafi and against NATO?

Some Lybians hated Quadaffi, some loved him. I do not pretend, never have, that all Lybians wanted him ousted, if that were the case they would not have needed NATO.
 
And the FACT will not change, that Obama knew within 2 hours the attacks were not a spontaneous uprising but a planned coordinated terror attack on the anniversary of 9/11. The FACT will not change, that the Ambassador had BEGGED for extra security in the weeks and months before the attacks. The FACT will not change, that we left air support on the ground and failed to respond to what Obama knew was a terror attack, and allowed the terrorists to kill an Ambassador, while he planned a fundraising trip to Vegas. And finally, the FACT will not change, that for TWO WEEKS, the Administration stuck by a LIE that this was the result of protests over a video and NOT a terrorist attack.

First off, you are completely wrong about what they knew from the emails and I think your time period is wrong as well.

But what do you think air support would have accomplished?

Also, I seriously doubt the President handles his own travel plans or that his movements are impulsive actions where details are left to the last minute. When you keep going on about that nonsense it only shows what a hack you are.
 
Back
Top