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

look you idiot the comoplete picture was NOT known at the time.
Click to expand...

Seems like the SAME THING could have been said about Bush's "My Pet Goat" moment too, but you didn't cut him any slack over that, did you? In any event, the "complete picture" appears to have been known 2 hours after the attack began, while the Ambassador was still among the living, and THIS president chose to DO NOTHING!
 
Superfreak said:
So essentially, you lied. You have no desire to have an intelligent conversation.
Click to expand...

I don't consider your overparsing, context dropping and ad homs to be intelligent discussion. I ignored the majority of your poo flinging and instead focused MOST of my response on the relevant points. If you can do the same we can have an intelligent discussion, but apparently you would rather focus on the comments that may have impacted your ego.

These emails don't add much of anything to the witch hunt against Obama. In fact, they actually show why the administration may have thought it was more tightly linked to the video. Regardless, the administration appears to have continued to pursue the truth throughout while those in the right wing media, encouraged and supported by Republican office holders and candidates, don't appear to care about anything but the impact this may have on the election.
 
TheRocketSurgeon said:
Here we go with the ridiculous over parsing so superfragile can make himself seem important by finding some little out of context fragment on which to save face. Not interested, douchebag. I will respond to the few points you made and I am going to ignore all your ego trip bs where you try to turn this into some sort of contest between us.

I based what I said about Ansar al Sharia's motivations on their own statements. There is NO proof that THEY were part of any longer term planning. But their claims of responsbility were later discredited and it does seem that ANOTHER more organaized group, with stronger ties to Al Quaida was actually responsible for the attack or brought in the heavy guns. You are mixing up the facts and cherry picking the ones you like. It is quite likely that both groups played a role.

Obama mentioned this almost immediately. There is no proof of a coverup or any sort of sinister plot by the administration. That they are not omniscient is a known fact and not surprising to any rational person.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57538689/emails-detail-unfolding-benghazi-attack-on-sept-11/

Fourteen hours after the attack, President Obama sat down with Steve Kroft of "60 Minutes" for a previously scheduled interview and said he did not believe it was simply due to mob violence.


"You're right that this is not a situation that was -- exactly the same as what happened in Egypt and my suspicion is that there are folks involved in this who were looking to target Americans from the start," Mr. Obama said.

You seemed to accept the information in post 8 as a reliable source on the early infromation available and claims of Ansar al Sharia. Are you now going back on that?

It is not obvious that this embassy was severely lacking in security. The one in Cairo was overrun by people using their bare hands. Many diplomats have come forward and state that the security measures are too tight and counterproductive.
Click to expand...

Hear, hear!
 
Dixie said:
Seems like the SAME THING could have been said about Bush's "My Pet Goat" moment too, but you didn't cut him any slack over that, did you? In any event, the "complete picture" appears to have been known 2 hours after the attack began, while the Ambassador was still among the living, and THIS president chose to DO NOTHING!
Click to expand...

The facts as detailed in the emails seem to indicate, to me, that most of the casualties were likely suffered in the first hour. What was Obama supposed to do to save the ambassador?
 
TheRocketSurgeon said:
I don't consider your overparsing, context dropping and ad homs to be intelligent discussion.
Click to expand...

So, pointing out where you attacked, then proclaimed you wanted an intelligent conversation was an ad hom? LMAO...

Quoting your exact words was 'context dropping'???

You should look up words before you use them.

I ignored the majority of your poo flinging and instead focused MOST of my response on the relevant points. If you can do the same we can have an intelligent discussion, but apparently you would rather focus on the comments that may have impacted your ego.
Click to expand...

LMAO... ok String.

These emails don't add much of anything to the witch hunt against Obama. In fact, they actually show why the administration may have thought it was more tightly linked to the video. Regardless, the administration appears to have continued to pursue the truth throughout while those in the right wing media, encouraged and supported by Republican office holders and candidates, don't appear to care about anything but the impact this may have on the election.
Click to expand...

The above is simply partisan nonsense. The Obama admin came out for two weeks telling us it was a response to a video. This, despite evidence to the contrary coming to light. I can understand the initial confusion, but to continue for two weeks telling us it was a video that caused it was nonsense.

The Obama admin only changed their story when forced to do so due to mounting evidence. To claim they are pursuing the truth is simply a partisan wish on your part. Hence the Biden claim that 'we didn't know anything about a request for more security'. Like everything else... its someone else's fault.
 
TheRocketSurgeon said:
Ansar al Sharia claimed it was in response to the movie but more likely and directly they took action after seeing what was happening in Cairo, which was pretty obviously due to the movie. This group operates within Lybia and has acted violently in support of their radical application of Islam before.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/09/12/the_battle_of_the_shrines
Click to expand...

Superfreak said:
Please quote the portion of the article that states they claimed the attack was due to the video, because I am not seeing it upon first read. Thanks.
Click to expand...

TheRocketSurgeon said:
That was not the point of that article. The article was to establish that this group acts violently to defend their radical brand of Islam.

Ansar al Sharia claimed it was in response to the video when they claimed responsibility for the attack. When they later retracted they still showed sympathy and support for defending the honor of the prophet.

Is this gonna be one of those cases where you cherry pick and ignore the pieces of info that don't fit your preconceived narrative? Of course, the answer is always yes.
Click to expand...

The above was our exchange... you are the one that took this from a discussion into an attack... so if you decide to get off your high horse, let me know.
 
Thats funny.....

How we go with the ridiculous over parsing so superfragile can make himself seem important by finding some little out of context fragment on which to save face"

This from the hypocrites that made an issue of the phrase "binders of women"......and tried to connect
Obamas generic "Acts of terror" while talking about the WTC with the very specific issue of Libya where Obama refused to
refer the "killers", the "attackers" as TERRORISTS.....and then on The View when asked directly....again refused.

and to the private talk with Kerry Ladka where Obama gave him ”more information about why he delayed calling the attack a terrorist attack.” A confession if I eveer
heard one.

Poor Darla...Poor RockSturgeon
 
Again String... you claimed that you feel it was short term and not long term planning, yet they knew where the safe house was & they coordinated attacks on the compound and then the safe house. You never addressed that... instead you went into your petty little attack.
 
TheRocketSurgeon said:
The facts as detailed in the emails seem to indicate, to me, that most of the casualties were likely suffered in the first hour. What was Obama supposed to do to save the ambassador?
Click to expand...

1) He could have had fighter coverage over the area within an hour
2) He could have sent spec ops forces over from Sicily

Would that have saved the ambassador... don't know. But what we do know is that doing nothing was a bad call.
 
Superfreak said:
The above is simply partisan nonsense. The Obama admin came out for two weeks telling us it was a response to a video. This, despite evidence to the contrary coming to light. I can understand the initial confusion, but to continue for two weeks telling us it was a video that caused it was nonsense.

The Obama admin only changed their story when forced to do so due to mounting evidence. To claim they are pursuing the truth is simply a partisan wish on your part. Hence the Biden claim that 'we didn't know anything about a request for more security'. Like everything else... its someone else's fault.
Click to expand...

They came out for two weeks claiming that they were still investigating and that there may have been a connection to the widespread protests concerning the video. Not even the timeline compiled by hack's that bravo has posted does anything to disprove that.

The right wing echo chamber seems to act as if the protests and any connection to them was completely fabricated by the administration. That's just not true. They were happening and members of the press were making the connection with or without the administration. The administration did not plant these ideas and did not have enough information to argue the connection was totally implausible.

It STILL seems there was SOME connection. That does not mean it was the only motivating factor. Again, the emails do nothing but show that the administration had some reason to accept the early narrative.

The ACTUAL motivations are not really relevant and I don't care if you get a statement from every one of the terrorists claiming that they enjoyed the movie. There is still no reason to pretend this entire incident is somehow Obama's fault or that he did anything wrong in response. There is absolutely no proof of a coverup or that the administration purposely misled anyone.

Nobody in their right mind understands why "acts of terror" insufficiently demonstrated the administrations understanding of this as a terrorist attack. Rabid nutjobs see some sort of codeword in it, I guess, or Obama was supposed to know the secret handshake to demonstrate his understanding of it as terrorism. Can you explain it?

Partisan??? Lol... I am still not voting for/supporting any Democrats. If Feingold runs again, maybe I will. However, I have supported several Republicans. The partisan nonsense is all yours.
 
Last edited:
Dungheap said:
Because the CIA did it, which we've known for a while now. The CIA's initial assessment of a spontaneous protest continued to appear in its PDB through September 22. You can question why the Obama Administration didn't push back on that assessment given conflicting information from the State Department, but there is no mystery why Obama Administration officials linked the attack to spontaneous protests given the CIA assessment:




http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203400604578071302911132288.html
Click to expand...

but if you believe intelligence from the CIA, you are still a liar....a la bush...right?
 
cannabis said:
but if you believe intelligence from the CIA, you are still a liar....a la bush...right?
Click to expand...

I'm not re-litigating the Iraq War, Yurt. You can view the situations as similar, but I sure as shit do not. The Bush Administration flat lied about what the intelligence community said about Iraq and chose to believe certain aspects of the intelligence while discounting other views that didn't fit its narrative.
 
I still dont understand why it makes a difference, either way its terrorism and the truth is going to be gotten.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top