Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

White House Comes Clean: No Protest Outside Libya Consulate

page: 16
74
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 04:47 PM
link   
They were smoking...

What?

Good ole Baghdad Bob strikes again.

Sigh.




posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by jimmiec
 


And electing a business man like Romney is a great idea. Bush Jr. was a business/oil man, and look how well that went.



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 05:38 PM
link   
More statements.....

They still can't get it straight


includes a video:

During a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing on the September 11, 2012, attacks against U.S. diplomatic facilities in Libya, a top State Department official refused to characterize the attacks as "terrorism."

"I have just presented the facts as they've come across," said Charlene Lamb, Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Programs at State's Bureau of Diplomatic Security. "I am not making any judgments on my own" with respect to the terrorism label, she told Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN)..................

State Department Official Won't Say Benghazi Attack Was Terrorism
 



James Clapper, director of National Intelligence (DNI), has come out swinging against his critics, just two weeks after his public affairs director said that US intelligence had initially labeled the attacks on our Benghazi consulate “spontaneous.”

Back on September 28, the DNI public affairs director explained, “We provided that initial assessment to Executive Branch officials and members of Congress, who used that information to discuss the attack publicly and provide updates as they became available. As we learned more ... we revised our initial assessment to reflect new information indicating that it was a deliberate and organized terrorist attack carried out by extremists.”

But today, Clapper denied that his office had done anything wrong. “The challenge is always a tactical warning, the exact insights ahead of time that such an attack is going to take place and obviously we did not have that,” he said, in particularly Clintonian language. “This gets into the mysteries versus secrets thing. If people don't behave, emit a behavior or talk or something else ahead of time to be detected, it's going to be very hard to predict an exact attack and come up with an exact attack …. I flew back to Washington, and I'm reading the media clips about the hapless, hopeless, helpless, inept, incompetent DNI, because I acknowledged publicly that we didn't instantly have that 'God's eye, God's ear' certitude about an event that I mentioned earlier. It made me want to go right back to Australia.”....

Obama Intelligence Director on Benghazi Criticism: ‘Enough Already’
 


"Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Programs at State's Bureau of Diplomatic Security"

?? never heard of that job before.

Looks like they will call all the legions out for this one !!



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 05:49 PM
link   
SO several hours into the day here and I cannot find stories about this on any mainstream media sites. Its not on CNN its not on MSNBC its not on Yahoo, these are news pages I visit on my computer and no one is talking about this.



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by karen61057
SO several hours into the day here and I cannot find stories about this on any mainstream media sites. Its not on CNN its not on MSNBC its not on Yahoo, these are news pages I visit on my computer and no one is talking about this.


FOX has been running continuous coverage on it. The other news programs are in Obama's pocket.

Des



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Why the lies? Why the lies from the State Department, Susan Rice, the White House?

Did they think that they could cover for the terrorists?

I don't understand.

What I do know is that this is huge. A cover-up attempt by our government to avoid contreversy about an attack where 4 died.

Insane.


Why the lies? Easy, they knew the attacks were coming and denied this mysterious embassy (as in not officially listed) the security it requested.

Obama or not, doesn't matter what administration is sitting in office because this would have happened either way. Romney will not change things & by now we all should agree Obama can't bring any positive change.

Stop believing the Washington DC. They are crooks, thieves, and LIARS
edit on 10-10-2012 by Swills because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by karen61057
SO several hours into the day here and I cannot find stories about this on any mainstream media sites. Its not on CNN its not on MSNBC its not on Yahoo, these are news pages I visit on my computer and no one is talking about this.


Perhaps the "Liberal" media is suppressing ?

C-Span had the live hearings and so did other TV and radio news stations.

The entire Obama Administration is involved -- all of 'em.

I bet the media takes a different approach later when the cover ups Really get exposed.



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
We don't know who attacked the Libyan embassy .

Why do you keep saying that. Do you read what people post?
We do know. One of the attackers was the security guard.
One of the fellas who was killed posted online about the security
guard taking pictures and that he didn't think he'd live the night out ....
We absolutely DO know who attacked. and Obam knew right off
who attacked. The dead man told us in his internet posting just
hours before he was murdered.



This is something I haven't read -- so I can't comment until I get a reputable link on that.

What I did read is the "whatever-gate and attempts to cover up..." which is silly because there isn't even an official statement yet. We have an investigation of the coverup BEFORE we get at what happened?

So help me out - you're talking about something completely different from what I've heard and read.



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
We don't know who attacked the Libyan embassy .

Why do you keep saying that. Do you read what people post?
We do know. One of the attackers was the security guard.
One of the fellas who was killed posted online about the security
guard taking pictures and that he didn't think he'd live the night out ....
We absolutely DO know who attacked. and Obam knew right off
who attacked. The dead man told us in his internet posting just
hours before he was murdered.




This is something I haven't read -- so I can't comment until I get a reputable link on that.

What I did read is the "whatever-gate and attempts to cover up..." which is silly because there isn't even an official statement yet. We have an investigation of the coverup BEFORE we get at what happened?

So help me out - you're talking about something completely different from what I've heard and read.
:


Do you ever get off your duff in front of your computer, and actually watch or read any real news sites....I wish you did. Then you'd know what you are talking about.....


Des



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 





Perhaps the "Liberal" media is suppressing ? C-Span had the live hearings and so did other TV and radio news stations. The entire Obama Administration is involved -- all of 'em. I bet the media takes a different approach later when the cover ups Really get exposed.


Dare I say?

Benghazi-Gate!!!

What do we expect from corruption incorporated.
edit on 10-10-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 06:52 PM
link   
Now can somebody somewhere please explain this thinking ??

It's almost like they WANT more gasoline on the fire



The Obama State Department held a conference call with reporters tonight on the Benghazi terror attack. They did not invite FOX News on the call. Bret Baier told viewers on Special Report that FOX is usually included on such calls.

During the call, the Obama State Department said there was no protest at the consulate on 9-11 and that terrorists attacked the compound after 8:30 PM. This contradicts directly what the administration was saying after the deadly 9-11 attacks.

State Dept Holds Conference Call on Benghazi Terror Attack – Excludes FOX News
 


YouTube:

Published on Oct 9, 2012 by jackohoft

The Obama State Department held a conference call with reporters tonight on the Benghazi terror attack. They did not invite FOX News on the call. During the call, the Obama State Department said there was no protest at the consulate and that terrorists attacked the compound after 8:30 PM.

"State Dept Holds Conference Call on Benghazi Terror Attack - Excludes FOX News"

:shk:



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 



During a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing on the September 11, 2012, attacks against U.S. diplomatic facilities in Libya, a top State Department official refused to characterize the attacks as "terrorism."


Since they DON'T know -- what benefit do we get from this being a terrorist act? Terrorism is a stupid word regardless, but on it's face -- it was to against an embassy and not the general public.

There is a lot of creativity to make this a big issue -- but so far, I'll I've seen is silliness on the accusations. Libya was JUST IN A CIVIL WAR -- so the idea that there might be some warnings and threats would likely be a daily occurrence. We sent weapons and aide to the group that overthrew the previous government. Or did everyone forget that detail?

There is no perfect knowledge in this situation and things are bound to get messy. I'll reserve judgement until we get the actual facts in. The anti-Obama faction, while entertaining, doesn't have a good track record as a source once the light of day has had time to hit an incident.

Other than some policies that Republicans were pushing as well -- the Obama administration has been relatively "controversy free" over the past few years. Not for lack of squawking.

Reminds me of that "TravelGate incident" which ended with an official apology from the staff working under Kenneth Starr because they found absolutely nothing.

One of these days, the Obama administration is going to do something really, really evil. Just wait...



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 





During the call, the Obama State Department said there was no protest at the consulate on 9-11 and that terrorists attacked the compound after 8:30 PM. This contradicts directly what the administration was saying after the deadly 9-11 attacks.


... and NO it doesn't. The Obama administration didn't say that. They referenced protests PRIOR to the attack. But if they had -- what is the big fricken' deal? Seriously, nobody is harmed by someone getting this wrong. Nobody has acted on any of the intel.

Fox News being excluded makes perfect sense. Since they are the ones who keep arriving with fire trucks at their own false alarms only to call any "revelation" some kind of a Gate. Or they take a vanilla statement ands lead it with; "The Obama administration now admits...." something that they said a few weeks ago you idiots!

Oy Vey!



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Well if South Park said it it must be true! LOL! Amazing!



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 07:31 PM
link   
There was a breaking news on the protest next to the u.s embassy, followed by the attack. The media conflicts with what the white house claims. either the white house is lying or the MSM
edit on 10-10-2012 by Jordan River because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Destinyone
 


And so you don't have a link to this stuff I should know that you say everyone knows...

Here's a good account of events as the STATE DEPARTMENT is now bringing out new details; LINK

Nothing about having an "insider security guard" help. Nothing about the motivations. Just what people did after a surprise attack.

I can't be required to know every wingnut articles making the rounds on the internet. You make bold claims then back them up -- I'm linking to whatever official statements I can find.

The speculation that the video prompted the attack was something I recognized as nonsense to begin with -- I'm still not sure who made that connection, it just seemed to be on the news and "Experts Say."

>> If you tell me right now you watch Fox News to get informed, I will understand and stop wasting my time as if you are rational.



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jordan River
There was a breaking news on the protest next to the u.s embassy, followed by the attack. The media conflicts with what the white house claims. either the white house is lying or the MSM
edit on 10-10-2012 by Jordan River because: (no reason given)


The white house talked about "protests proceeding the attack in the area" -- on a previous page I link to all the "official" statements. The White House NEVER SAYS, that protests were in front of the Libyan embassy and those protestors broke in and killed people -- the media put two and two together and came up with TWELVE. But I haven't read everything.

It seems like the CIA misinformed the White House on some things, and the Media has been sourcing "anonymous officials" which is code for "we pulled it out of our rear" -- it used to be that reporters would confirm sources -- but they report bad information and then report the confusion of someone reporting on their bad reporting. It all sells commercial air time so on problems for their pockets.

I've had about 3 different people make this same logic error making assumptions of what I just told them -- so it seems epidemic. People want to hear a certain thing that is juicy, and somehow sample the words wrong.

>> So far I see no BENEFIT to the White House on manipulating the information. Bankers and Oil barons want Libya, but the Obama administration doesn't seem to have an agenda to have more war in the region (though I can't say the same for our CIA). And the people saying; "They were warned about the threat" are just the usual morons who probably worried about birth certificates. Libya is a fricken' war zone -- I'm so sick of these fools. They cover up REAL problems in this world by creating noise over EVERYTHING. There are plenty of problems with the Obama administration -- but that doesn't get honestly discussed because there are so, so many stupid accusations.

I'll criticize the Obama administration when they screw something up -- but it's hard to trust a thing this anti-Obama fools say. They've been so wrong in the past and keep assuming if they just keep yammering on about all their other accusations that prove false, someone is going to take notice.



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
See you are another one that is denying reality so you can feel good about supporting a non christian.

1 - I am not supporting Romney. I already voted for Gary Johnson via absentee ballot.

2 - Big main stream christian religions say that Mormons aren't christian because they don't believe in the same kind of christianity as they do. These main stream christian religions made up a list of what is necessary to for them to consider others as 'christian'. That's poppycock on their part. Being a 'Christian' means being CHRIST-ian. Following Christ as best you understand him.

That's like having 4 kids playing in a tree house and 3 of them get together to arbitrarily make up rules saying that the 4th can't play in the tree house because the 4th kid has freckles or something. Kinda silly.

3 - Watch the southpark episode link I posted. You'll find it funny and you will also come to know that I very much do understand what the Mormons believe. I do not share their belief at all. I see it easily debunked. But that is THEIR brand of Christian-ity. Just as Baptists have theirs and Catholics have theirs and Amish have theirs .. etc etc


I would say that if someone says they believe in Christ, they are a Christian. At the same time, however -- Mormonism isn't even the same philosophy as other other Abrahamic religions. You could SAY that Muslims are Christians, since they too believe in Jesus -- but they consider him a profit and not the son of God.

In my opinion, Mormonism is almost as close to Scientology other than using different "NAMES" for the important people.

For instance, to a Catholic, when you die, you go to Heaven, Hell or Purgatory. As a Mormon, when you die, if you've given the church a bunch of money, you run your own planet. Also, someone can Baptize a heathen like me after the fact and I'm embraced by that 6'2" tall god/man who specifically lives on a planet the name of which I can't remember.

The Vatican holds of the inherency of prior scripture, and it's up to us to learn its meaning. However, with Mormons, a Messenger can re-interpret or claim that there is a new message, and that supersedes everything that went before. Especially if it's determined one day, that too many people have found out about the golden tablets written in ancient Egyptian in a Salesman's backyard that was translated by a seeing stone in a hat -- and they just aren't buying it.

To me, it's just a more modern version of a burning bush delivering stone tablets.

Not trying to take sides here, but I think that an objective analysis of the ACTUAL beliefs of Mormons vs. other Christian groups would show that their PHILOSOPHIES are entirely different.
edit on 10-10-2012 by VitriolAndAngst because: wrote the wrong word
edit on 10-10-2012 by VitriolAndAngst because: a sentence was the reverse of what I was trying to say.



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
reply to post by xuenchen
 



During a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing on the September 11, 2012, attacks against U.S. diplomatic facilities in Libya, a top State Department official refused to characterize the attacks as "terrorism."


Since they DON'T know -- what benefit do we get from this being a terrorist act? Terrorism is a stupid word regardless, but on it's face -- it was to against an embassy and not the general public.

There is a lot of creativity to make this a big issue -- but so far, I'll I've seen is silliness on the accusations. Libya was JUST IN A CIVIL WAR -- so the idea that there might be some warnings and threats would likely be a daily occurrence. We sent weapons and aide to the group that overthrew the previous government. Or did everyone forget that detail?

There is no perfect knowledge in this situation and things are bound to get messy. I'll reserve judgement until we get the actual facts in. The anti-Obama faction, while entertaining, doesn't have a good track record as a source once the light of day has had time to hit an incident.

Other than some policies that Republicans were pushing as well -- the Obama administration has been relatively "controversy free" over the past few years. Not for lack of squawking.

Reminds me of that "TravelGate incident" which ended with an official apology from the staff working under Kenneth Starr because they found absolutely nothing.

One of these days, the Obama administration is going to do something really, really evil. Just wait...


Well gosh and gollies...I think Fast and Furious, then claiming Executive Privilege to quell the investigation is kinda...really...really...bad...

I also think...covering up the facts of the attack on our Libyan Embassy, and the deaths of 4 Americans...is kinda...really...really...really bad.

Do you ever get tired from sweeping everything you don't like to hear, under the carpet....

Des




edit on 10-10-2012 by Destinyone because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Destinyone
 


That explains so much.
It is like that tape that they found of Obama from 14 years ago to counter the one on Romney that Hannity said was way back in May a whole 4 months.

I am currently out of the country and people are always asking me if people actually believe Fox and I apologetically say unfortunately yes but at least half of the country know it’s more opinion than news.
edit on 10-10-2012 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)





new topics




 
74
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join