Obama administration KNEW Benghazi WAS TERRORIST ATTACK

[SnakeEyes]

http://news.yahoo.com/email-alerts-describe-9-11-benghazi-consulate-assault-015521878--abc-news-politics.html     

Thank you and good night! 

[XJDenton]

1. The email headers are garbled.
2. The word terror isn't mentioned in either the article or the emails.

[El Barto]

3. People in volatile and dynamic situations aren't often the most credible sources of intel.

I don't think this is a smoking gun by any means.  However, as another piece of the puzzle, I'm probably willing to concede that they were trying to be misleading about the situation.  As I said before, fog of war buys you a few days.  However, they seem to have had a decent picture well before then.  As I also said before, I just don't see that it matters.  I figure there are two scenarios for them trying to obscure the circumstances.  One is that they were trying (quite feebly) to deny Romney the opportunity to use it as a political football.  From the second the news broke, the Republicans were looking for a way to spin it.  Obama's team might have just wanted to make it a different issue.  The other option is that they're trying to cover up some kind of wrong doing, or some kind of major incompetence.  One's a political clusterfuck of the sort that happens all the time in a democracy as perverse as ours, the other is a genuine coverup.  Only the latter would bother me. 

Honestly, I'm not sure which scenario I'd consider more likely.  Stupid political maneuvers happen all the time.  Frankly, I have no idea how any politicians keep their bullshit in order.  It's also possible that they actually did act with real negligence to the situation.  Again, the sort of thing that happens all the time at that level.  Like I said a few days ago, shit happens and Libya's a dangerous place.  This is the cost of doing business in places that you've fucked with for many years.  Determining what's reasonable and what's not in a situation like that is tricky business.  Just because they appear to have gotten it wrong doesn't mean they bungled the situation, although that's certainly how it will be made to appear.  Yet more grounds for a coverup.

As for how much an actual coverup would trouble me, it depends on the circumstances, but probably not enough to matter.  There's very little Obama could do to disappoint me any more than he already has.  Quite frankly, the guy sucks.  However, Myth has done nothing to make me think he's even remotely competent.  Against a viable challenger, this would matter.  Running essentially unopposed, it's not enough to make me prefer him less. 

[Scheavo]

This?

The third email updates officials that Ansar al-Sharia claimed responsibility for the Benghazi attack on Facebook and Twitter, and has threatened to attack the Tripoli embassy.

Because terrorist groups have a tendency to claim credit for, well, anything, even if they didn't have anything to do with it, because getting credit for any sort of attack boosts their image and boosts their ability to recruit. We can't just take their word for it, there's an investigation that occurs to find out what happened.

[Perpetual Change]

1. The email headers are garbled.
2. The word terror isn't mentioned in either the article or the emails.

Yup. Not sure what all the fuss is about.

[Progmetty]

Fuss is about lack of other things to make fuss about.

[rumborak]

I am baffled to what extent this is blown up. While the opposing party claims rape is a gift of God.

[lordxizor]

I am baffled to what extent this is blown up. While the opposing party claims rape is a gift of God.

Republicans are desperate to show Obama is weak on foreign policy, so they latch onto this I guess. Ido 't get the big deal. Why do people think we deserve to have all the information immediately? Take acoustic days to get all the facts together and then make a report.

And I don't understand why this is a terrorist attack. Wasn't their goal to kill the ambassador? Isn't killing a political figure usually called an assassination?

[Scheavo]

One thing this is demonstrating to me, is just how much I don't want conservatives in charge. If they honestly believe that a group taking credit for the attacks means Obama and the administration should have taken that claim on face value, then they really aren't competent to be in charge.

[rumborak]

Bizarrely, I think Romney is actually the most normal out of the whole bunch. The shit that's been coming out from the rest of the Republicans over the last few days is just stunning, and illustrates why they are unfit to rule anything.
BTW, there's nothing wrong with conservatives per se; it's Republicans who have gone off the deep end. I mean, look at the top 3 CNN articles right now:

Candidate: Rape pregnancy God's will
Romney's son apologizes to Obama (he said he wanted to "take a swing" at him)
Trump's big announcement

And Ann Coulter isn't even on there yet.

[chknptpie]

I'm not sure how this topic is even a constructive debate or discussion. It really has no impact one way or another in my opinion.

[kirksnosehair]

I've gotta tell ya, this is really a big yawn.  Who gives a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut what words were used to describe what happened?  zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


The manufactured outrage about this is, frankly, silly. 

[Scheavo]

Now, I don't remember a single mention of Libya during the last Presidential debate, am I correct in that? I didn't fully catch the first 20 mins of it, so maybe it happened there?

I say that, because I think it's important to note how Romney didn't mention it. He probably knew that if he did, Obama would crush him on it. The point has been won, and it seems to me that all but the most die-hard Republicans are still clinging to this.

[El Barto]

I say that, because I think it's important to note how Romney didn't mention it. He probably knew that if he did, Obama would crush him on it. The point has been won, and it seems to me that all but the most die-hard Republicans are still clinging to this.

I don't think that's quite fair.  There actually is the distinct possibility that Obama's State department bungled something so severely that it cost 4 people their lives, and then lied to people to obfuscate the fact.  It's by no means certain that's the case, and I've already made my general indifference pretty well known either way, but I think it's certainly a fair subject for consideration.

[Scheavo]

There actually is the distinct possibility that Obama's State department bungled something so severely that it cost 4 people their lives,

I'm fine with that, but that's not the exact point I'm talking about. I'm talking more about this;

and then lied to people to obfuscate the fact.

There is just zero evidence that occurred, and that seems to be the point Republicans are trying desperately to attack. They're completely set on attacking the response to the attack.

[bosk1]

and then lied to people to obfuscate the fact.

There is just zero evidence that occurred, and that seems to be the point Republicans are trying desperately to attack. They're completely set on attacking the response to the attack.

Competely putting aside for a moment that we're talking about the Obama administration, let's just point out the fact that these people are politicians.  There may NOT yet be specific evidence that they lied.  But the default position when evaluating a politician's "official statement" on an issue should be skepticism, IMO.

[Scheavo]

Skepticism is hell of a lot different then accusations of a cover-up, of misleading the public, etc. Republicans aren't showing skepticism, they're throwing out accusations and assumptions of guilt.

[El Barto]

Based on what we've seen, I'd say that the likelihood of the coverup is much greater than that of the bungling.  It really does seem like they were being misleading.  What's confusing is that without there being a valid reason for a coverup, the coverup itself is actually fairly meaningless. 

[lordxizor]

What did they have to gain with a cover-up? They had to know that they couldn't go on saying it was an unorganized attack forever. For me to believe it was a conscious effort to deceive the American public, there has to be an obvious thing for the White House to gain by lying. I just don't see what that would be.

[hefdaddy42]

What did they have to gain with a cover-up? They had to know that they couldn't go on saying it was an unorganized attack forever. For me to believe it was a conscious effort to deceive the American public, there has to be an obvious thing for the White House to gain by lying. I just don't see what that would be.

This is where I stand.

[yorost]

I am baffled to what extent this is blown up. While the opposing party claims rape is a gift of God.

What's been said might be deplorable, but you are skewing the words in saying that.

[SnakeEyes]

What is wrong with you people?  Jay Carney stood in front of reporters and said they had no evidence that it was a terrorist attack and had no evidence of who did it.  We now know that WHITE HOUSE was getting e-mails in REAL TIME about what was happening and even knew WHO it was.  This is an abomination.  The President of the United States went to sleep that night knowing that four U.S. citizens were murdered in another country, then got up the next day, went to a bunch of stupid fundraisers to get RE-ELECTED and, if that weren't bad enough, lied to the American people about it. 

Yeah, some of you are in serious denial.  And, by the way, I don't like Romney at all and I'm pretty sure I'm not even voting this year, so don't accuse me of being biased toward one or the other.  I don't like either of them.  But, this is just awful.  I would say even impeachable. 

[Nick]

As someone else already stated, somebody taking responsibility for something isn't evidence in this case. You remember the secret santa that did/does drop a 10,000 dollar check in a Salvation Army pot every year? If I take credit for that here and now it doesn't mean diddly.

Was the president vague about things, absolutely, but rightfully so. When something like this happens on the other end of the world making any definitive statements quickly would be downright stupid because there is no way we could know anything for sure right away. The video being brought up at all was stupid, but that was the biggest mistake here.

And before you cry denial please answer the following question. Are you desperate to have this be a gotcha moment? Do you actively wish to see -gate added to this story at some point?

[SnakeEyes]

The claim of responsibility isn't even a main point.  The main point is that they KNEW IT WAS A TERRORIST ATTACK.  They knew it wasn't freaking "protests."  And, you are proving my point.  You said:  "the president was rightfully vague."  But, then you said, "the stupid thing was bringing up the video."  No, it wasn't a "stupid thing."  It was a LIE.  HE KNEW it was a terrorist attack.  Sorry, it's a fact.  Obama supporters can't argue their way out of this.  And, no, I don't want to play "gotcha" when four Americans are dead.  You might want to play politics, I don't.  Wrong is wrong.  Bush was also wrong to say Iraq wasn't a mess when hundreds of people were getting blown up a day.   Happy that I blamed Bush for something?

[SnakeEyes]

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1910824379001/   

[Scheavo]

We now know that WHITE HOUSE was getting e-mails in REAL TIME about what was happening and even knew WHO it was. 

No. They. Did. Not.

They had an attack, and someone claiming responsibility. That is not knowing who did it. Beyond which, the emails in question were a spot report, and taking them to be true is very rash.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-evidence-doesnt-show-planning-in-libyan-attack/2012/10/19/ff7ff326-1a36-11e2-bd10-5ff056538b7c_story.html

U.S. intelligence officials said Friday that no evidence has surfaced to indicate that the Sept. 11 assault on a U.S. diplomatic outpost in Libya was planned in advance, a conclusion that suggests the attack was spontaneous even if it involved militants with ties to al-Qaeda.

“There isn’t any intelligence that the attackers pre-planned their assault days or weeks in advance,” a U.S. intelligence official said. “The bulk of available information supports the early assessment that the attackers launched their assault opportunistically after they learned about the violence at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo.”

That emerging consensus among analysts at the CIA and other agencies could lend new support to the Obama administration, which has struggled to fend off Republican allegations that it has been reluctant to admit that the attack in Benghazi was an act of terrorism.

I can easily argue "my way out of it," because there is absolutely nothing which are you bringing up which has any veracity to your claims. You claim that the video played no role, but that's not what the intelligence is saying. You claim that the administration KNEW quickly that it was a "terrorist" attack, and that it somehow denied this - even though Obama said it was an act of terror, and any continued argument that he didn't is just ignoring reality and trying to play semantics to a silly degree. I don't see a single claim that you have made that has actually stood up to fact checking.

Anyways, I'm done.

[SnakeEyes]

No. They. Did. Not.

They had an attack, and someone claiming responsibility. That is not knowing who did it. Beyond which, the emails in question were a spot report, and taking them to be true is very rash.

Like I said, the "claiming responsibility" point isn't even the main problem.  The main problem is that there are people with guns and explosives showing up and systematically destroying the entire place.  THAT IS NOT A PROTEST.  It's a terrorist attack.  Let me humor you and concede that Obama called it an "act of terror" (which he didn't, but just for the fun of it).  The timeline would be as follows:

-  Obama makes a speech in the Rose Garden, calls the attack an "act of terror"
-  Clinton and Susan Rice go on TV and say it's a protest in response to a You Tube Video....

UH OH!  What do we call that?  A CONTRADICTION!  Scheavo, I know you want to marry Obama and have children with him, but please, dude.  This is wrong.  It was a lie and it was a cover up because it made their foreign policy look bad.  Everyone knows it.  Stop defending it.  What's so wrong with admitting that they screwed up and made a mistake?  I'd actually respect Obama if he just came out and said, "Yeah, we really messed up.  I'm really sorry, we've learned from this, etc."  Even Bush admitted he was wrong about his Katrina response.  He said it was one of the biggest mistakes of his presidency.  So, what the hell is the big deal about admitting that the Bamster did something wrong?  Are you going to melt or something? 

[SnakeEyes]

Oh, and for your entertainment, Scheavo:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/24/world/benghazi-al-qaeda-in-iraq/index.html?iref=obnetwork   

spoiler:  it proves you're wrong

[Scheavo]

-  Obama makes a speech in the Rose Garden, calls the attack an "act of terror"
-  Clinton and Susan Rice go on TV and say it's a protest in response to a You Tube Video....

UH OH!  What do we call that?  A CONTRADICTION!

Nope, no contradiction. They can easily work together, and the intelligence has at least said that they did at several times in the investigation. The two are non mutually exclusive, and never have been. There was a protest in response to the YouTube video, and people intentionally used that protest as cover and a distraction to attack the US embassy.

I'll go ahead and quote the Washington Post article again:

U.S. intelligence officials said Friday that no evidence has surfaced to indicate that the Sept. 11 assault on a U.S. diplomatic outpost in Libya was planned in advance, a conclusion that suggests the attack was spontaneous even if it involved militants with ties to al-Qaeda.

Oh, and for your entertainment, Scheavo:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/24/world/benghazi-al-qaeda-in-iraq/index.html?iref=obnetwork   

spoiler:  it proves you're wrong

Just like the article in this OP, nothing you've given actually proves what you've said it does.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the documents did not tell the whole story, describing conclusions drawn from the one document as "cherry picking."

"Posting something on Facebook is not in and of itself evidence, and I think it just underscores how fluid the reporting was at the time and continued for some time to be," Clinton said.

Moreover, intelligence officials do not believe Ansar al-Sharia is solely responsible with indications now that some of the attackers were associated with al Qaeda in Iraq, al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and an Egyptian jihad network.

A spokesman for Ansar al-Sharia denied the group was responsible the day after the assault.

So you've now caught yourself in a contradiction. According to you, the email that said the group Ansar al-Sharia claimed responsibility should be proof that Obama knew it was a terrorist attack, and so his statements after that are misleading and a lie. However, also according to you, the group Ansar al-Sharia denied responsibility for the attack.

You've now proven why there's an investigation, and why you don't take initial claims at face value - and at the same time, made your very own argument wrong.

Scheavo, I know you want to marry Obama and have children with him, but please, dude. 

I'd ask you to try and keep the discussion to the facts at hand, and not try to delve into petty personal ad hominems like this, that are rather baseless. There's quite a bit I disagree with Obama on, perhaps most importantly the fact that we still have troops in Afghanistan. I don't think he should have agreed to extend the Bush tax cuts. I wish he would do something about the wiretapping that has gone on in this country. I wish he would have prosecuted Bush era War Crimes. I wish he would have prosecuted people in the banking industry. I was highly disappointed when he recently said that decriminalizing marijuana wouldn't be beneficial. The problem is, you don't have a case here. Officials were giving the most up to date information they had, and the degree to which that changed corresponds with the degree to which the investigation went along new routes. You trying to cherry pick a few emails that were not a strict report, and whose claims later turned out to be false, doesn't indicate that Obama is lying to you, or me, or that he is trying to cover anything up.

[Perpetual Change]

UH OH!  What do we call that?  A CONTRADICTION!  Scheavo, I know you want to marry Obama and have children with him, but please, dude.  This is wrong.  It was a lie and it was a cover up because it made their foreign policy look bad.  Everyone knows it.  Stop defending it.  What's so wrong with admitting that they screwed up and made a mistake?  I'd actually respect Obama if he just came out and said, "Yeah, we really messed up.  I'm really sorry, we've learned from this, etc."  Even Bush admitted he was wrong about his Katrina response.  He said it was one of the biggest mistakes of his presidency.  So, what the hell is the big deal about admitting that the Bamster did something wrong?  Are you going to melt or something?

You know SnakeEyes, you saying this over and over again doesn't make it true.

Were there some contradictions between Obama and the state department? Were they woefully on the wrong page with each other? Were they sending mixed signals? Did they seem like they were struggling with what was going on or how to handle it? I'd say yes to all of that, as many of us "Obama worshipers" here would.

But, that is a far, far cry an from an all-out "lie" and "cover-up", which you seem absolutely desperate for it to be. 

And honestly, no offense, but have you ever thought about expressing your opinion in a way that isn't as combative as possible? This is a P/R forum designed for civil discussion; not an audition for becoming the nation's next big talk radio jerkoff.

[Progmetty]

I don't get it, so the point is that Obama knew there was gonna be a terrorist attack but didn't say anything cause he wanted that ambassador dead? or is the point that in an imaginary conservative scenario the head of the CIA ran into the oval office and told Obama "Mr. President, terrorists are going to kill the ambassador in Libya" and Obama put out his joint and said as the thick smoke blew out of his nose "Fuck 'em", ""But Mr. President, American lives are.." exclaimed the CIA man but the president interrupted him slamming his desk "I said fuck'em!".
SnakeEyes at least explain to me what's the point of all these people who find this illogical and moreover irrelevant? seriously do you honestly believe that we're also lying and making up excuses? for this?!

[Perpetual Change]

or is the point that in an imaginary conservative scenario the head of the CIA ran into the oval office and told Obama "Mr. President, terrorists are going to kill the ambassador in Libya" and Obama put out his joint and said as the thick smoke blew out of his nose "Fuck 'em", ""But Mr. President, American lives are.." exclaimed the CIA man but the president interrupted him slamming his desk "I said fuck'em!"

[El Barto]

I don't get it, so the point is that Obama knew there was gonna be a terrorist attack but didn't say anything cause he wanted that ambassador dead? or is the point that in an imaginary conservative scenario the head of the CIA ran into the oval office and told Obama "Mr. President, terrorists are going to kill the ambassador in Libya" and Obama put out his joint and said as the thick smoke blew out of his nose "Fuck 'em", ""But Mr. President, American lives are.." exclaimed the CIA man but the president interrupted him slamming his desk "I said fuck'em!".
SnakeEyes at least explain to me what's the point of all these people who find this illogical and moreover irrelevant? seriously do you honestly believe that we're also lying and making up excuses? for this?!

Yeah, that's kind of the $64k question.  I'm willing to concede that there might be a coverup, but if there's not actually anything behind it, I have a hard time giving a damn. 

[Scheavo]

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/420540/october-24-2012/nonstop-libya-gate-questions

 

[El Barto]

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 on the annex itself was denied by the CIA chain of command -- 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.

At that point, they called again for military support and help because they were taking fire at the CIA safe house, or annex. The request was denied. There were no communications problems at the annex, according those present at the compound. The team was in constant radio contact with their headquarters. In fact, at least one member of the team was on the roof of the annex manning a heavy machine gun when mortars were fired at the CIA compound. The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Spectre gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/26/cia-operators-were-denied-request-for-help-during-benghazi-attack-sources-say/#ixzz2AWHqbG1T

Ya know, this really does matter.  I have no idea how much is accurate and how much is disconnect, but I know that there should absolutely be some tough questions asked.  I don't even think that this should reflect that much on Obama, who's not the one issuing deployment instructions, and I stand by my shit happens position, but there probably are some people who should be held accountable and nobody's willing to seek them out for fear of the political backlash.  That's where Obama starts to smell pretty shitty in light of all of this. 

It's actually very reminiscent of 11 years earlier, where there was monumental incompetence on the part of pretty much everybody, but nobody was ever put to the coals over it.  In 2001 it was because they wanted it to appear as something completely unpredictable and unavoidable. Maintaining the illusion let a whole bunch of people off the hook, which is unfortunate.  It's looking like more of the same now. 

I'd really like to see a timeline.  Comprehensive, of the sort a Congressional inquiry is going to put together.  I'd like to know if there actually was an AC130 on station.  I'd like to know how long it took to deploy SO from Tripoli.  Perhaps most of all, I'd like to know what the chain of command was during all of this, and who was involved.