Libya-Gate

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by bigrun

The Other Sept. 11

Blame Obama for four deaths in Libya. But don’t blame Bush for nearly 3,000 deaths in New York



The president was warned of an impending threat of terrorism. He failed to act. The attack came, Americans died, and now the administration is covering up the truth.


That’s what Republicans are arguing in 2012. Which is pretty funny, if you don’t count the dead Americans, because it’s the opposite of what the GOP said 10 years ago. Back then, the conspiracy theories and the 20/20 hindsight were about the original 9/11 attacks. And the Republican Party line was that anyone who accused the president of neglect or deceit was unpatriotic.


Jus sayin...

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a..._for_9_11.html

I don't recall Bush EVER referring to 9-11 as a 'bump in the road'.

Of course his wife didn't have to wait till her 40's to finally be proud of her country either.

Just sayin....

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

I don't recall Bush EVER referring to 9-11 as a 'bump in the road'.

Of course his wife didn't have to wait till her 40's to finally be proud of her country either.

Just sayin....

Winner

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

I don't recall Bush EVER referring to 9-11 as a 'bump in the road'. Right, he just invaded countries

Of course his wife didn't have to wait till her 40's to finally be proud of her country either. Michelle was proud of her country before and after Bush

Just sayin....

btw, did you know Michelle's husband is a Muslim?...jus askin, you and your echo...

[bigrun]

Chris Stevens' Death In Libya Shouldn't Be Politicized, Father Says.

The father of Christopher Stephens, the United States ambassador who was killed in the attack in Libya last month, said Saturday that it would be "abhorrent" for his son's death to be politicized in the presidential campaign.

In an interview with Bloomberg News, Jan Stevens said the attack on Benghazi and the ensuing investigation has no place in the upcoming election.

"The security matters are being adequately investigated," Stevens, who is getting briefings from the State Department on the investigation, said. "We don’t pretend to be experts in security. It has to be objectively examined. That’s where it belongs. It does not belong in the campaign arena."

Since the September 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Mitt Romney has been critical of President Obama's response to the tragedy, slamming the president for lapses in security at the American compound.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_1965009.html

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Winner

you shouldn't encourage dell.

[Rupert Pupkin]

The State Department is so incompetent it is mind-boggling. They hired some tiny, unknown British firm to guard the embassy and the guards were unarmed. All they had were flashlights and batons. It's as if the State Department thought Libya was the safest country in the world. I think the State Department's mindset was basically, "If we pretend it is safe then that makes it safe."

http://news.yahoo.com/benghazi-diplo...014650742.html

Most of the guards were Libyans that had no experience in security. In a country where they just had a revolution, the State Department decided to use unarmed guards with no experience to protect our embassy. Absolutely mind-boggling!

From the article: "The unarmed guards were told to sound the alarm over the radio and then run for cover if there was an attack, a Libyan who acted as a supervisor for the Blue Mountain local guard team at the mission said during an interview with Reuters."

"Despite their inexperience, the Blue Mountain guards said they feared the Americans were not concerned enough about security."

""We used to tell the Americans who spoke to us on many occasions that we needed more support in security, because it felt thin on the ground. But they didn't seem to be so worried, and (were) confident that no one will dare to come close to the consulate," one guard said.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

The State Department is so incompetent it is mind-boggling. They hired some tiny, unknown British firm to guard the embassy and the guards were unarmed. All they had were flashlights and batons. It's as if the State Department thought Libya was the safest country in the world. I think the State Department's mindset was basically, "If we pretend it is safe then that makes it safe."

http://news.yahoo.com/benghazi-diplo...014650742.html



Most of the guards were Libyans that had no experience in security. In a country where they just had a revolution, the State Department decided to use unarmed guards with no experience to protect our embassy. Absolutely mind-boggling!

From the article: "The unarmed guards were told to sound the alarm over the radio and then run for cover if there was an attack, a Libyan who acted as a supervisor for the Blue Mountain local guard team at the mission said during an interview with Reuters."

"Despite their inexperience, the Blue Mountain guards said they feared the Americans were not concerned enough about security."

""We used to tell the Americans who spoke to us on many occasions that we needed more support in security, because it felt thin on the ground. But they didn't seem to be so worried, and (were) confident that no one will dare to come close to the consulate," one guard said.

So instead of hiring an American company the State Department hired a British Company. This administration can't get out of its own way!

How are those two Chevy volts performing in Vienna? At 75K a piece I hope they're driving like STS's?

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by bigrun

btw, did you know Michelle's husband is a Muslim?...jus askin, you and your echo...

He's actually a christian who was inspired by a racist pastor who in turn is inspired by Louis Farakan, a leader in the chicago and American Muslim community. Mr. Farakan in turn puts out a weekly newsletter that features whites with devil horns. Though Obama did spend time in Indonesia and has described the call to Islam prayer chant as beautiful. To each is own I guess.

Did you know Michelle did not grow up poor? Was the daughter of a city worker who was a precinct captain, (part of the original Dailey Army) went to Princeton and Harvard law school, got a cooshy six figure medical job from Mayor Dailey II and still wasn't proud of her country till her early 40's?

[joeydb]

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Nice cartoon, if factual accuracy doesn't matter. Which is why it appeals to it's target audience, I guess

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

Nice cartoon, if factual accuracy doesn't matter. Which is why it appeals to it's target audience, I guess

It does give actual dates. I thought that was a good thing.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

It does give actual dates. I thought that was a good thing.

Yes. It gives actual dates. But it doesn't give actual statements made on those dates. It is lying about what Obama said.

Can you post those quotes as the cartoon alleges, from the first five dates given in that sequence, that support the cartoon? Public statements, all, should be easy to find?

Start with Sept 11 - post any quote that the President said on that date, saying the attacks were due to the video. Sept 12 and 13, too.

The cartoon is lying baloney, Joey. Instead of getting your political "truth" from cartoons, or web sites, try watching the actual press conferences and public statements and listening to the president's words yourself.

[Danzig]

from factcheck.org, regarding the exchange between obama and romney, and what the admin had to say in the days after the embassy attack:

Terrorist Attack in Libya

There was a sharp exchange between the candidates on the issue of the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi and the question of when the president acknowledged it was a terrorist attack. Obama said he called it an “act of terror” the day after the attack. Romney said that “it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.”

Obama is correct that he referred to “acts of terror” in a Sept. 12 speech in the Rose Garden. But after that Obama refused to characterize it as a terrorist attack while it was under investigation — even though other administration officials did.

Obama: The day after the attack, governor, I stood in the Rose Garden and I told the American people in the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened. That this was an act of terror and I also said that we’re going to hunt down those who committed this crime. …

Romney: You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack, it was an act of terror. It was not a spontaneous demonstration, is that what you’re saying?

Obama: Please proceed governor.

Romney: I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.

Obama: Get the transcript.

The transcript does show that Obama said in a Rose Garden speech on Sept. 12: “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.” That night, he said at a Las Vegas fundraiser: “No act of terror will dim the light of the values that we proudly shine on the rest of the world, and no act of violence will shake the resolve of the United States of America.” Obama employed the “act of terror” phrase a third time a day later at a campaign event in Colorado.

But Romney isn’t entirely wrong. Romney claimed Obama refused for two weeks after the Benghazi attack to call it a terrorist attack and, instead, blamed it on a spontaneous demonstration in response to an anti-Muslim video that earlier that day triggered a violent protest in Egypt.

The president did seem to suggest in his Rose Garden speech that a reason for the Benghazi attack was the video. Obama said: “Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None.”

It is also true that Obama refrained from characterizing the attack as an premeditated act of terrorism. The administration adopted a wait-and-see position, deflecting questions until the investigation into the attack could be completed. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland, for example, was asked in a Sept. 17 press briefing if the administration considered the Benghazi attack an act of terror. She said: “Again, I’m not going to put labels on this until we have a complete investigation, okay?”

A day later, Obama was asked about the Benghazi attack on “The Late Show with David Letterman.” The president said “here’s what happened” and began discussing the impact of the anti-Muslim video. He then said “extremists and terrorists used this as an excuse to attack a variety of our embassies, including the consulate in Libya.” He also said, “As offensive as this video was and, obviously, we’ve denounced it and the United States government had nothing to do with it. That’s never an excuse for violence.”

Matt Olsen, head of the National Counterterrorism Center, testified on Sept. 19 that it was a “terrorist attack.” He also said the administration still lacked “specific intelligence that there was a significant advanced planning or coordination for this attack.”

A day later, White House press secretary Jay Carney said it is “self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.” And on Sept. 21 — two days after Olsen’s testimony — Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said “what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.”

Yet, when asked on ABC’s “The View” whether it was a terrorist attack, Obama refused to say. That was on Sept. 24. He said, “We’re still doing an investigation. There’s no doubt that the kind of weapons that were used, the ongoing assault, that it wasn’t just a mob action. We don’t have all the information yet, so we’re still gathering it.”

The Romney campaign has accused the administration of misleading the public by claiming the anti-Muslim video was to blame for the attack in Benghazi, rather than admitting it was a failure to detect and prevent an act of terrorism on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. We cannot say if there was a deliberate attempt to mislead the public or whether, as the administration says, the conflicting statements in the weeks after the attack were the result of an evolving investigation. We’ll leave that for readers to decide.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

from factcheck.org, regarding the exchange between obama and romney, and what the admin had to say in the days after the embassy attack:

Why listen to what FactCheck says about the President's words, when you can listen or read the President's actual words?

You know, first hand?

Let's start here: Here's the first public statement in the Rose Garden.

Remarks by the President on the Deaths of U.S. Embassy Staff in Libya

Rose Garden

10:43 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Every day, all across the world, American diplomats and civilians work tirelessly to advance the interests and values of our nation. Often, they are away from their families. Sometimes, they brave great danger.

Yesterday, four of these extraordinary Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Benghazi. Among those killed was our Ambassador, Chris Stevens, as well as Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith. We are still notifying the families of the others who were killed. And today, the American people stand united in holding the families of the four Americans in our thoughts and in our prayers.

The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack. We're working with the government of Libya to secure our diplomats. I've also directed my administration to increase our security at diplomatic posts around the world. And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.

Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.

Already, many Libyans have joined us in doing so, and this attack will not break the bonds between the United States and Libya. Libyan security personnel fought back against the attackers alongside Americans. Libyans helped some of our diplomats find safety, and they carried Ambassador Stevens’s body to the hospital, where we tragically learned that he had died.

It's especially tragic that Chris Stevens died in Benghazi because it is a city that he helped to save. At the height of the Libyan revolution, Chris led our diplomatic post in Benghazi. With characteristic skill, courage, and resolve, he built partnerships with Libyan revolutionaries, and helped them as they planned to build a new Libya. When the Qaddafi regime came to an end, Chris was there to serve as our ambassador to the new Libya, and he worked tirelessly to support this young democracy, and I think both Secretary Clinton and I relied deeply on his knowledge of the situation on the ground there. He was a role model to all who worked with him and to the young diplomats who aspire to walk in his footsteps.

Along with his colleagues, Chris died in a country that is still striving to emerge from the recent experience of war. Today, the loss of these four Americans is fresh, but our memories of them linger on. I have no doubt that their legacy will live on through the work that they did far from our shores and in the hearts of those who love them back home.

Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. We mourned with the families who were lost on that day. I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed. And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.

As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.

But we also know that the lives these Americans led stand in stark contrast to those of their attackers. These four Americans stood up for freedom and human dignity. They should give every American great pride in the country that they served, and the hope that our flag represents to people around the globe who also yearn to live in freedom and with dignity.

We grieve with their families, but let us carry on their memory, and let us continue their work of seeking a stronger America and a better world for all of our children.

Thank you. May God bless the memory of those we lost and may God bless the United States of America.

END
10:48 A.M. EDT

[Danzig]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/22/us...ef=todayspaper

an excellent piece on the subject. this is an article that romney, and others attacking obama on this particular subject ought to read. it takes days, weeks, or longer to get the whole story.
was obama correct in the second debate when he said 'read the transcript'? no. his mention of acts of terror weren't specific to benghazi. he'd have done much better to say exactly what happened, that until the investigation was completed, no one was going to call it that-since that genie can't be put back in the bottle once it's out.

[dellinger63]

If Obama knew it was an act of terror when he spoke in the rose garden why was Susan Rice sent out messenger pigeon style to every talk show the following Sunday, to say it was an attack by a mob, inspired by a video ?

His supporters yesterday were telling him to come clean yet if he does he admits he was wrong.

Can't wait for him to expound on the new freedoms Egyptians now enjoy under a theocracy. How accepting the country has become of other religions and how when the Muslim Bro'hood said they would not seek political office they were just joking.

Then he can explain why the murder of one of our border guards with a gun provided by us had nothing to do with him or Holder. It was simply rogue agents.

Then he can wrap up by injecting his economic plan of doubling down on green and instead of 50 bankrupt companies we need bk 100. We need more federal employees because they make 34% more on average than the private sector, thus pay more taxes even though they're paid with tax money.

Maybe if he ends each sentence with I killed Osama?

Though I suppose someone else built the helicopters to get there.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

If Obama knew it was an act of terror when he spoke in the rose garden why was Susan Rice sent out messenger pigeon style to every talk show the following Sunday, to say it was a mob inspired by a video attack?

Do you think this matters (reference to CIA intelligence)?

How Mitt Romney’s Latest Attack On Libya Is Falling Apart

By Judd Legum on Oct 20, 2012 at 12:45 pm

http://thinkprogress.org/security/20...falling-apart/

There is only one reason why the RWNJ ever screamed about "Libya". It's because Mitt Romney has zero foreign policy experience, other than insulting the British.

[dellinger63]

During the three and a half years of his presidency, for Barack, the buck has always stopped at Bush. Now, with Benghazi, that has evolved to the buck stops anywhere but Barack.

Hillary has now accepted full responsibility for the Libyan debacle, but which is a more damning reality: Obama is incompetent, or he's woefully uninformed? It seems like a wash to me.

On the anniversary of 9/11, our ambassador, lured to Benghazi for assassination, went missing while the consulate was under attack...and Barack went to bed. The next morning, with our ambassador dead, Barack flew to Vegas -- that's not even leading from behind.

Who would have ever thought that "leading from behind" would be setting the bar too high?

An Obama Department of State Regional Security Officer Eric Nordstrom said, "the Taliban is on the inside of the building." Wow, the Taliban inside the State Department -- who would have thought it? What is that, leading from inside?

But don't worry, an investigation is underway -- Hillary said so -- it should be completed sometime after November 6, just like all things Barack.

The president is right; it is the story...and for almost four years, the story Barack Obama told America has been "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/...#ixzz2A3USLGEt

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

Do you think this matters (reference to CIA intelligence)?



There is only one reason why the RWNJ ever screamed about "Libya". It's because Mitt Romney has zero foreign policy experience, other than insulting the British.

Our current President was rolling in foreign policy experience when elected right?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

Our current President was rolling in foreign policy experience when elected right?

I posted something showing Romney's attack on the President over Libya has fallen apart with revelation of CIA information, and Clip Clop changes the subject completely.

Sure, I'll play, Clip Clop:

Obama as a candidate was an elected US Senator that had spent 4 years on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He had visited multiple countries.

Romney as a candidate has no foreign policy experience at all, no national experience, zero elected experience above state level.

And now, comparing the two candidates:

Obama now has four years of excellent, proven foreign policy experience as POTUS.

Romney still has zero - except, as a civilian, insulting our allies, putting his foot in his mouth with misspeaking, and causing the current administration grief by opening his mouth and playing politics outside our borders and with the lives of our troops overseas. Amateur, unqualified, ignorant, poor performance.