The Obama Administration MUST answer for Benghazi – Putting the Pieces together

So far no one I have seen has connected all the dots so I am going to try.

1. Whitehouse Press release Sept 12, 2012: President Obama issued a press statement 24 hours after the Benghazi attack saying the following “While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants.”

Question: Why would Obama qualify the heinousness of the attack on our consulate and the murder of four Americans by injecting language about the denigration of religious beliefs?

www.whitehouse.gov...

2. MEET THE PRESS Sept 16, 2012: The Obama Administration via Susan Rice claimed the attack was due to the video five days after the attack. “This is a response to a hateful and offensive video that was widely disseminated throughout the Arab and Muslim world.”

3. Sworn Testimony of State Department officials indicated requests for additional security were ignored

www.guardian.co.uk...

4. The CIA found militant links one day after Libya attack

apnews.myway.com...

Here are the only conclusions you can come to;

A. The Obama administration didn’t communicate well about one of the most tragic and important foreign policy events in the last 30 years and certainly the most defining of his Presidency which makes his administration inept and ineffective.
B. IF there were signs that the video was causing violence in the region then the Obama administration failed to recognize the signs leading up to the attack and adequately secure the Consulate. When they were asked for more security they ignored or refused the requests. When the people in charge of security advised AGAINST drawing down security the Obama administration ignored the advice of the experts. This makes the administration inept, ineffective and potentially negligent.
C. The Obama administration continually claimed they could not ascertain that the attack was a terrorist attack until a full investigation was completed, despite proven intelligence to the contrary, despite the fact that it occurred on the anniversary of 9/11 and was heavily armed and well organized. This makes the Obama administration inept and ineffective.
D. If there were NO signs of violence in the region related to the video then how did the Obama Administration determine, without investigation, that the cause was the video? If you perform a Google search for news regarding “Anti Islamic Video” between the dates of Sept 1st to Oct 1 then the earliest stories appear on the 18th. So how did the Obama administration know the video was a factor 24 hours after the event? They either knew about it and did nothing or didn’t know about it and somehow made the link in less than 24 hours without an investigation.
E. The conclusion to all of this is that;
a. Either the Obama Administration directly misled the public for political purposes
b. They irresponsibly went with unproven data in stating the cause was the video which makes them completely incompetent
c. OR they had the video story all prepared because they knew about the event in advance…..

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by beanandginger


This was a really major deal, they are either incompetent or they are liars,

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
reply to post by beanandginger

 

This was a really major deal, they are either incompetent or they AND are liars,

FTFY.

Seriously though, the whole thing smells.

~Tenth

And I am sure he will, on the same day Bush and Chaney answer for 9-11.

I go with B.

b. They irresponsibly went with unproven data in stating the cause was the video which makes them completely incompetent.

I think they are just following the new political ideology of our Government!
I am reminded of a past president who did the very same thing, the difference of course was that irresponsible and unproven data led us into two wars.

Once again, different faces, same people running the show.

reply to post by benrl


I hear you and I have my doubts about the official party line on 9/11 as well.

If your thought process goes along those lines then it also makes for a pretty scary further conclusion - namely that the CIA, DOD, Homeland Security usually doesn't hang the sitting President out like this on one of their ops, so either Obama pissed them off or they didn't coordinate the spin.

Yet a new report by Hannah Allam and Jonathan S. Landay of McClatchy Newspapers suggests that the Obama administration changed its story about the Benghazi attack after the first 48 hours, moving away from suggestions of terrorism and embracing the idea that the deadly assault was a response to an anti-Islam video made in the U.S.

www.mcclatchydc.com...

To Save Obama, Democrats Renew Criticism of Intelligence Communit
www.breitbart.com...
moving away from suggestions of terrorism
It makes me wonder why it is so difficult for this administration to say the words act of terrorism,

I think this is pertinent to the topic,

Former Obama advisor: Our foreign policy is a mess — especially in the Middle East

In foreign policy as in life, stuff happens — including bad stuff no one could have predicted. Nonetheless, to a significant extent, President Obama is the author of his own lackluster foreign policy. He was a visionary candidate, but as president, he has presided over an exceptionally dysfunctional and un-visionary national security architecture — one that appears to drift from crisis to crisis, with little ability to look beyond the next few weeks. His national security staff is squabbling and demoralized, and though senior White House officials are good at making policy announcements, mechanisms to actually implement policies are sadly inadequate.
hotair.com...
It doesn’t have to be this way. If Obama wants to fix his broken foreign policy machine, he can do it — but conversations with numerous insiders, as well as my own government experiences, suggest that he needs to focus on strategy, structure, process, management, and personnel as much as on new policy initiatives.

I just listened to a speech Obama was giving, he doesn't sound right, something is wrong with him,

Originally posted by benrl
And I am sure he will, on the same day Bush and Chaney answer for 9-11.

I was thinking the exact same thing, benrl. Just who the hell is supposed to make them answer for this? The people? Yeah, right.

Hillary Clinton Flew off to Peru and *took* responsibility.. She did not take blame for not
securing the embassy better just responsibility..

I doubt we get a right answer and they find a fall out guy to/scape goat to pin this
on...

They have answered with bull you know what... They don't give two flips
about Mr. ambassador Stevens.

Apparently the intelligence agencies have just released a new set of documents regarding the pleas for help made by Stevens, and how he was denied the help.

Waiting for them to be accessible online.

In the meantime,

A new video from an Obama event at Ohio University showcases many people who have not heard of the '9/11 Benghazi' attacks or the murder of Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans.
While they all proudly and definitively proclaimed that they intended to vote for President Obama, they were shamelessly ignorant of the recent events in Libya. Not only does this video say a lot about Obama supporters, it is also says a lot about the quality of education that college students are receiving today.

Read more: www.digitaljournal.com...

On September 11 – the day Stevens and three other Americans were killed – the ambassador signed a three-page cable, labeled “sensitive,” in which he noted “growing problems with security” in Benghazi and “growing frustration” on the part of local residents with Libyan police and security forces. These forces the ambassador characterized as “too weak to keep the country secure.”

“Islamist extremists are able to attack the Red Cross with relative impunity,”

“Benghazi has moved from trepidation to euphoria and back as a series of violent incidents has dominated the political landscape…The individual incidents have been organized,” he added, a function of “the security vacuum that a diverse group of independent actors are exploiting for their own purposes.”

After the U.S. consulate in Benghazi had been damaged by an improvised explosive device, earlier that month, Stevens had reported to his superiors that an Islamist group had claimed credit for the attack, and in so doing, had “described the attack as ‘targeting the Christians supervising the management of the consulate.”
“Multiple warnings about security threats were contained in Ambassador Stevens’ own words in multiple cables sent to Washington, D.C., and were manifested by two prior bombings of the Benghazi compound and an assassination attempt on the British ambassador,” the congressmen wrote. “For this administration to assume that terrorists were not involved in the 9/11 anniversary attack would have required a willing suspension of disbelief.”

Read more: www.foxnews.com... lrwS6O4

Take a look at the documents
www.scribd.com...

Here they are

Option c. in my humble opinion -
Wasn't the mission to deal with weapons the U.S. had given to rebels/militia?
Wasn't Stevens a CIA operative or "former" operative?
Wasn't the offensive/sacreligious film trailer already out on youtube?
OR was the video just a convenient excuse?

ganjoa