White House e-mails told of militant claim two hours after Libya attack

reply to post by Agit8dChop

What did you expect Obama to do when he received that email? order a nuclear strike? outlaw terrorists?

I expected Obama and his administration to tell the truth, not make up a story to divert attention away from their disgraceful conduct, and NOT spread an excuse about a video that had no basis in fact.

Also how did they know the attack wasnt in relation to the video?

The only information coming out of Benghazi spoke of terrorists, Al Qaeda affiliates and a coordinated attack. No one in Libya, including the Libyan gov't, related the attack to a video or a demonstration.
Obama and his adminstration made the video/demonstration excuse up, and stuck with the lie for weeks, repeating it to the US, to the UNGA, and to the MSM.

just because a group who declares themselves terrorists admitted to an attack on a consulate doesnt mean their motives werent related to the video.

Intelligence sources from around the region identified the group as terrorists; they didn't call themselves terrorists --that is pathetic.

None of the terrorists thus far identified with the attack have used the video as an excuse, except Barack Hussein Obama.
His MSM friends at the NYT and others are doing their best to find some anonymous "source" to claim otherwise and support their trusted friend, and the Salafist's and Muslim Brotherhood's lunch-mate at the White House, Barack Obama..

reply to post by Agit8dChop

1-2hrs, let alone 1-2 days after the attack you want him to take some random email claiming responsibility as gospel?

This wasn't "some random email," but a series of them from U.S. intelligence and State Dept. officialspresent at the scene, confirmed by video drone transmissions, and the Ambassador's own pleas earlier that day.

and like i said whats the difference between a group of angry Muslim youth compared to a group of angry Muslim youth who give themselves a collective name?

How about prior attacks against the consulate and other diplomats, threats and warnings, shoulder-fired rockets, accurate mortar fire, coordination on three areas of attack in multiple waves, and the use of grenades and automatic weapons?

add to the mix that large protests were going on at other embassies because of the video at the same time gives me credence to the video motive.

Real-time surveillance and airborne drones confirm there was NO PROTEST in Benghazi prior to the attack.These give you NO credence, whatwsoever.

reply to post by campanionator

John Bolton was one of the dick heads who maneuvered us into Iraq - his outrage is laughable,
seriously.
He should have been hung for treason long ago

Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton voted to engage Iraq; John Bolton did not.
Colin Powell maneuvered the entire Congress and Executive. Is he a traitor, too?

reply to post by milominderbinder

If the White House gets an email identifying a "bad guy"...let's just take it at face value and not even allow that it might be faulty intel and that perhaps we should rely upon more than just hearsay.

A first-hand account is not "hearsay."
A first-hand account, repeated and confirmed over three hours, and by drone surveillance, from U.S. intelligence and State Dept. on-site witnesses is not "faulty intel."

If you believe Obama's claim at debate2, he knew as much at dawn in the Rose Garden on the 12th; just ask Candy Crowley!

It is amazing how these politicians and the CIA continue to get away with this kind of corruption.Obvious that all the guns we gave the so called rebels where going to fall into al-qeada hands and be used agianst.Anyone with half a brain knows this stuff is going on.They covered it up to protect their agenda with the so called Arab spring.

Originally posted by tkwasny

Originally posted by milominderbinder

Originally posted by 3chainz
And? You need to fact check before you declare something as 100% reality. Anyone can send an email.

It is a good thing they actually waited and gathered all the information........

edit on 24-10-2012 by 3chainz because: (no reason given)

Well...at least one of my fellow Americans has learned SOMETHING from the "faulty intel" fiasco in Iraq that cost us 10 years, a trillion dollars, and 800,000 dead Iraqi civilians.

I'm amazed there are so many people that still don't know Iraq was all about the Russians and their WMDs they spirited out to Syria ahead of the 93 invasion to try and secure them. The "faulty Intel" was the hit Bush decided to take so the Russians didn't get directly into the conflict which would have ended in a thermonuclear war. Everyone lose/lose.

Yeah...keep telling yourself that.

Don't you remember the "incubator lies" in the Gulf War 1.0? Remember Pappy Bush pawning off the Kuwaiti Ambassadors daughter as "nurse" and coaching her to lie in front of Congress? I sure as hell do.

Here is your link.

Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton voted to engage Iraq; John Bolton did not.
Colin Powell maneuvered the entire Congress and Executive. Is he a traitor, too?

Yes to all the above and Colin Powell MOST of all. He was the pitch-man after all...and if I could tell from those grainy satellite photos that they had no evidence of WMD...then Powell SURE AS HELL COULD.

In my opinion, it's a psy-op. It made news around the world that angry muslims attacked a US embassy in response to that video. Clearly they are trying to make the general muslim population look a bit more extremist than they really are.

Originally posted by curiouscanadian777

Really?! Reminds me of a joke-
"How did Bush know Iraq had WMD's?"
"Because he kept the receipts."

Gotta love Bill Hicks.

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by milominderbinder

 

If the White House gets an email identifying a "bad guy"...let's just take it at face value and not even allow that it might be faulty intel and that perhaps we should rely upon more than just hearsay.

A first-hand account is not "hearsay."
A first-hand account, repeated and confirmed over three hours, and by drone surveillance, from U.S. intelligence and State Dept. on-site witnesses is not "faulty intel."

If you believe Obama's claim at debate2, he knew as much at dawn in the Rose Garden on the 12th; just ask Candy Crowley!

Yeah...you're point? Everybody knew it was SOME SORT of a terrorist attack pretty much right away. That's why Obama clearly and plainly said as much the very next day in the Rose Garden.

Then...during the next couple of weeks they investigated thoroughly to ensure that they knew the full story before making any more statements.

So...what's the problem?

This whole "Benghazi!!" thing is just pure hype and is indicative of how weak Romney is as a candidate.

Originally posted by Puzzuzu
In my opinion, it's a psy-op. It made news around the world that angry muslims attacked a US embassy in response to that video. Clearly they are trying to make the general muslim population look a bit more extremist than they really are.

My gut tells me you are right and I sort of suspect the Israeli's. Mind you...it's a gut feeling. I'm not claiming it WAS the Israeli's or even that there is any evidence of such yet.

It's just a hunch and hunches are fine...so long as you don't take your hunches to the polls and leave all the facts at home.

I'm just not seeing the "gotcha".

The Administration has always said it was an act of terror. These emails are based off of claims on twitter and facebook and while it is true those cites are used for such things, it doesn't make them true... there's probably other extremist groups claiming credit too. There's probably other emails stating that other groups claimed responsibility too. That's why there is an investigation that is on-going.

Imagine the horror of being in a converted building housing the ambassador. There is a safe room and there is also a safe house about 1 mile away. Gunshots, rockets going off, ...

Do we not think that the staff tried contacting the State Dept? We now know they did try and did contact them.

E-mails and info surfacing this afternoon show that the State Dept were watching via a drone.

This was on the anniversary of 9/11... our people are under attack, and we know they are under attack... You have to believe they woke up the President. Remember that commercial last election... the one about that important call at 3am?

What was Pres. Obama's response?

Nothing.

We had ships off the coast, choppers, carriers in the area with fighters that could have run interference and air support,... this thing went on for several hours. We had troops and assets in Sicily only an hour away.

What was Pres. Obama's response?

Nothing.... Nada... Zip...

Nothing but a lie... a LIE... knowing all they knew, they say they didn't want to be to hasty...BUT, they did not hesitate to blame a video...an obscure video... and this charade was maintained and reasserted over two weeks?

This is nothing short of either incompetence or criminal negligence... and then to lie about it.

Let's recap, shall we?

They still won't let go.

They still won't come clean

Now the White House needs to come clean on when Obama Knew..

(CNSNews.com) - The White House is declining to say when President Barack Obama first learned of three e-mails that the State Department sent to the White House on Sept. 11, 2012, directly notifying the Executive Office of the President that the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi was under attack, that U.S. Amb. Chris Stevens was at the Benghazi mission at the time of the attack, and that the group Ansar al-Sharia had taken credit for the attack.

The White House also declined to say when the president first met with the National Security Council after the Benghazi attack.......

WH: ‘We Decline to Comment’ on When Obama Learned of E-Mails, Met With NSC on Benghazi

Always "No Comment"

Always a "diversion"

reply to post by milominderbinder
How sad for you to live in such a little shell.

Everybody knew it was SOME SORT of a terrorist attack pretty much right away. That's why Obama clearly and plainly said as much the very next day in the Rose Garden.

He didn't "clearly and plainly" attribute Benghazi to terrorists. He spoke of heroes buried at Arlington, 9/11/2001, and promulgated lies and misdirection.

Lies 1&2:

"I have directed my Administration to provide all necessary resources to support the security of our personnel in Libya, and to increase security at our diplomatic posts around the globe. 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.

Already, a reference to the horrinle video! "All necessary resources," after repeatedky denying additional security to Stae and Stevens?
This was not "senseless violence," but a premeditated attack.
Full Transcript of Obama's Speech

Lie3:

"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. "

None of the fallen in Benghazi were at Arlington yet, or at Walter Reed. clearly, he is referring to the past and ongoing loss of lives he's contributed to; not Benghazi.

Lie 4:

"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."

"No acts of terror," does not refer to Benghazi; it follows in context the discussion of past attacks. Nothing here speaks of Benghazi "clearly and plainly."
"We will not waiver?" "Our commitment?"
What about a commitment to security and safety before our Ambassador is murdered?
But what about the changing explanations?
What about the lack of security, such that reporters could stroll the crime scene and pick up evidence un-challenged?

Then...during the next couple of weeks they investigated thoroughly to ensure that they knew the full story before making any more statements.

Pure B.S.
This doesn't explain Carney, Rice and Obama going worldwide espousing a "spontaneous" protest about some obscure video untill they could no longer deny the fact that there was no protest, the attack was coordinated, and it was directed against the Ambassador and U.S. property..

So...what's the problem?

Ignorance and denial.

This whole "Benghazi!!" thing is just pure hype and is indicative of how weak Romney is as a candidate.

Mitt Romney did not lie to the world about this. Mitt Romney did not report the dozen or so email messages on September 11, 2012, or the drone video or the Libtan gov't confirmation that this was a premeditated terrorist attack and NOT a "spontaneous" protest that goy out of hand.

Try harder.

deny ignorants

jw

reply to post by Kali74

There's probably other emails stating that other groups claimed responsibility too.

Name 1.

Fail!

Pathetic.

If you knew what the attack was, then why do you need the White House to tell you anything?


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by AlreadyGone
Imagine the horror of being in a converted building housing the ambassador. There is a safe room and there is also a safe house about 1 mile away. Gunshots, rockets going off, ...

Do we not think that the staff tried contacting the State Dept? We now know they did try and did contact them.

E-mails and info surfacing this afternoon show that the State Dept were watching via a drone.

This was on the anniversary of 9/11... our people are under attack, and we know they are under attack... You have to believe they woke up the President. Remember that commercial last election... the one about that important call at 3am?

What was Pres. Obama's response?

Nothing.

We had ships off the coast, choppers, carriers in the area with fighters that could have run interference and air support,... this thing went on for several hours. We had troops and assets in Sicily only an hour away.

What was Pres. Obama's response?

Nothing.... Nada... Zip...

Nothing but a lie... a LIE... knowing all they knew, they say they didn't want to be to hasty...BUT, they did not hesitate to blame a video...an obscure video... and this charade was maintained and reasserted over two weeks?

This is nothing short of either incompetence or criminal negligence... and then to lie about it.

S & F.

This was nothing less than criminal negligence and abandonment of our diplomats in favor of political expedience.
Obama is a Muslim sympathizer (hence his "offense" at Romney's quick, and accurate, call on the sympathy/apology), traitor and a coward.

jw

reply to post by xuenchen

They still won't let go. They still won't come clean

I dunno whats worse, the fact that they wont come clean..........

or the fact that his supporters wont hold him accountable.........THIS is how we get 4 more years of Obama.....
This is how the downfall of the US comes, our military gets destroyed, and how America becomes even more hated across the globe....

They refuse to hold this president responsible for any of his foriegn policies.......or treasonous acts that led to the death of this ambassador and these men..........

This isnt just negligence.........this is criminal.....

Keep supporting him...........after all he is your messiah