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

Yeah, but he didn't really call it an act of terror, if you read the transcript as he suggested. Still, that was the claim... problem is, the claims change depending on the question. If you ask why they didn't respond to the "act of terror" and try to save the Ambassador, it's because they didn't have enough information and weren't sure what was going on. When you question them about the claims it was a "spontaneous uprising" they attempt to claim it was both. Some Libyans spontaneously uprose over a video, and a planned coordinated terror attack happened, just like that! So we now have three claims rotating out on an as-needed basis, to answer whatever the question.

Yeah, yeah, yeah we get it. You are an idiot who wants a soundbite and one nice neat little simple narrative to the entirety of the Middle East. You don't like that it is complicated and messy.

I am bothered by the Obama administrations implied threats on speech, but that has zero chance of becoming policy and has not even been seriously proposed. The bulk of you blathering is just about your rabid hate of Obama and nothing more.
 
Bravo posted it earlier, his spokesCarney repeatedly said it wasn't a terrorist attack. That went on for 2 weeks, and it wasn't until Romney called him out in the second debate, that they ran to this "no acts of terror will shake our resolve" line in his Rose Garden speech. But then, if they knew it was an act of terror (i.e.; terrorist attack), why didn't they send the fighter jets in from Italy? Oh wait... we didn't know anything for certain! Again, they claim they didn't know, but they also did know! Both at the same time!

Bravo offered nothing.

It appears they did not send the fighter jets in because they felt it would be disruptive to the new regime and there was not likely to be anything to be gained from it. The casualties were all likely suffered within the first hour.

Since when do you believe it is a good idea to invade the war room? I thought you always believed that was a matter of national security? Oh yeah, now that it might score your side some political points that no longer matters.
 
It does appear that not all the casualties were suffered in the first hour, however. Woods disobeyed orders and put himself in jeopardy which is what the orders were seeking to avoid.
 
The attacks went on for 7 hours. The Ambassador was in the safe room most of that time.


The attacks didn't go on for 7 hours. There was an initial attack that lasted about an hour and then a subsequent attack six or seven hours later. Remember those emails, Dix? What did the second one say?
 
The attacks went on for 7 hours. The Ambassador was in the safe room most of that time.

Not according to your source.

Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that an urgent request from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. consulate and subsequent attack several hours later was denied by U.S. officials -- who also told the CIA operators twice to "stand down" rather than help the ambassador's team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11.

Former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods was part of a small team who was at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team came under attack. When he and others heard the shots fired, they informed their higher-ups at the annex to tell them what they were hearing and requested permission to go to the consulate and help out. They were told to "stand down," according to sources familiar with the exchange. Soon after, they were again told to "stand down."

Woods and at least two others ignored those orders and made their way to the consulate which at that point was on fire. Shots were exchanged. The rescue team from the CIA annex evacuated those who remained at the consulate and Sean Smith, who had been killed in the initial attack. They could not find the ambassador and returned to the CIA annex at about midnight.
 
Parse it all you like, the information is out there now. You ain't gonna avoid the truth.

Throughout the 7-hour ordeal, the CIA requested support numerous times and were denied. Now, it's really just too bad it was the CIA requesting help and not the dignitaries in the consulate, because that totally blows your claims about lack of adequate intelligence out of the water. They knew it was a planned and coordinated terrorist attack, and they sat there and did NOTHING! Now you'll have to live with that decision, like it or not.
 
Parse it all you like, the information is out there now. You ain't gonna avoid the truth.

Throughout the 7-hour ordeal, the CIA requested support numerous times and were denied. Now, it's really just too bad it was the CIA requesting help and not the dignitaries in the consulate, because that totally blows your claims about lack of adequate intelligence out of the water. They knew it was a planned and coordinated terrorist attack, and they sat there and did NOTHING! Now you'll have to live with that decision, like it or not.

Parse what? I pasted the relevant parts concerning Stevens verbatim. I did not change anything except to place emphasis on the keys. Your own sources betray you because you are not actually reading them or trying to comprehend. You are looking for anything that will support your preconceived bias.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/10/benghazi-libya-state-emails

"[T]he president and his advisers repeatedly told us the attack was spontaneous reaction to the anti-Muslim video and that it lacked information suggesting it was a terrorist assault," wrote Jennifer Rubin, president of the Washington Post's Mitt Romney fan club. "Bottom line? Barack Obama was willfully and knowingly lying to the American people," wrote Danielle Pletka, vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute. (Of course, the idea that the video played a role is not inconsistent with the idea that the attack was an "act of terror," a phrase the president himself used to describe the attack in the days following the incident.)
There's only one problem—well, actually, there are many, but one big one: The email appears to have been incorrect. Ansar al-Sharia in Benghazi, the group suspected of attacking the consulate, never claimed responsibility for the assault. In fact, according to Aaron Zelin, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy who monitors jihadist activity online, Ansar al-Sharia in Benghazi didn't post about the attack on its Facebook or Twitter page until September 12, the day after the attack. They expressed their approval of the incident, but they didn't take credit; they did imply members of the group might have been involved, according to Zelin, stating, "Katibat Ansar al-Sharia [in Benghazi] as a military did not participate formally/officially and not by direct orders." The statement also justifies the attack by implicitly alluding to the anti-Islam video linked to unrest in other parts of the Middle East, saying, "We commend the Libyan Muslim people in Benghazi [that were] against the attack on the [Muslim] Prophet [Muhammad]."

"It is possible staffers were mistaken in the heat of the moment," wrote Zelin in an email to Mother Jones. "Not only was there no statement from ASB until the following morning, but it did not claim responsibility." (Zelin provided Mother Jones with screenshots of AAS's Twitter feed and Facebook page, which he also provided to CNN. It's possible the posts could have been deleted, but there's no way to prove that.)

Even if the State Department email had been accurate, conservatives pounced on it eagerly without underlying corroboration, thereby providing a pretty good example of how complicated intelligence analysis can be and why it's a bad idea to simply jump on a piece of information that fits your preconceived biases. The email was just one piece of information gathered in the aftermath of the attack. While the White House's initial explanation that the attack had begun as a protest turned out to be wrong, the email itself doesn't bear on two of the major remaining questions: what role the video played and whether the attack was planned or spontaneous.

You'd think that this would be obvious, but in the future it's a good idea to remember that just because someone posts something on Facebook, that doesn't necessarily mean it's true. Even better: Just because someone said someone posted something on Facebook doesn't mean it's true. Even if you really, really want it to be.
 
You'd think that this would be obvious, but in the future it's a good idea to remember that just because someone posts something on Facebook, that doesn't necessarily mean it's true. Even better: Just because someone said someone posted something on Facebook doesn't mean it's true. Even if you really, really want it to be.

The CIA requested support three times and were denied, told to "stand down." This happened while the administration was watching real-time video of the attacks as they happened. The CIA, as you may recall, is the agency responsible for telling politicians what is going on, so the excuse that they didn't really know what was going on because they couldn't trust facebook, simply falls apart. Couple this with the fact they were watching real-time video of the attack itself, and had the coordinates and Spectre gunships just minutes away, and the question becomes, just how stupid and incompetent are these people?
 
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?

Good luck with that. I've been trying to find out the same thing for weeks now.
 
The CIA requested support three times and were denied, told to "stand down." This happened while the administration was watching real-time video of the attacks as they happened. The CIA, as you may recall, is the agency responsible for telling politicians what is going on, so the excuse that they didn't really know what was going on because they couldn't trust facebook, simply falls apart. Couple this with the fact they were watching real-time video of the attack itself, and had the coordinates and Spectre gunships just minutes away, and the question becomes, just how stupid and incompetent are these people?

Are you just this stupid or is this just mental laziness? Your response has no relevance to the text you quoted.
 
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.
What man was responsible that is in jail?

So what if the presdient had conflicting information in the first few days?
There was this "shoot first then aim later" thing they were talking about, why don't you ask them?
 
It could have possibly saved the Ambassador's life. Our fighter jets could have strafed the attackers and dispersed them before they got to the Ambassador and killed him. It's not a guarantee that this would have worked, but it wasn't attempted, we did nothing! Instead, Obama failed to take action and went on with his routine as scheduled, and sent his people out to LIE about this for two weeks.

I can tell you this, if I were president and someone started attacking our consulate or embassy in a country where I had fighter jets less than an hour away, there would be a response and it would be swift and brutal, and I really wouldn't give two fucks if the attacks were over a video OR a planned terrorist attack! These are OUR PEOPLE!

You must have been mad as hell when reagan didn't bomb the crap out of Lebanon after the 1983 barracks attack.
 
Again... The CIA requested support three times and were denied, told to "stand down." This happened while the administration was watching real-time video of the attacks as they happened. The CIA, as you may recall, is the agency responsible for telling politicians what is going on, so the excuse that they didn't really know what was going on because they couldn't trust facebook, simply falls apart. Couple this with the fact they were watching real-time video of the attack itself, and had the coordinates and Spectre gunships just minutes away, and the question becomes, just how stupid and incompetent are these people?

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

But he didn't. He watched the attacks happen in real time. His CIA requested support as it happened.

You know, the thing is, it doesn't really matter who or why the attacks on your people are occurring, the main thing at the time would be to do whatever you can to help them, wouldn't it? What if law enforcement operated the way the Obama administration did? You have an intruder in your house, murdering your family and you call 911 from the closet... Oh sorry, can't send help your way because we're not exactly sure what's happening there yet!
 
Hey, Dix, what did that second email released yesterday say?

I don't know about emails or facebook postings, I do know that 2 drones were watching the events unfold and broadcasting real-time video back to the White House. I also know the CIA requested assistance several times over the course of the 7-hour attacks, and were denied. I also know that two Marines who bravely held off the attackers and protected the Ambassador were killed 6 hours into the ordeal, and that we had Spectre gunships less than an hour away that could have been dispatched.

And I also know that all the lies and distortion you are spinning today, is not going to hold water with the American public. I realize it sucks to have to take one in the political shorts on this, but that's what is happening in real-time now. Just so you know.
 
Back
Top