Obama Knew Benghazi Was a Terrorist Attack Within Three Days, But Continued to Cover Up

page: 1
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 01:48 AM
link   
Perhaps this is old news to you, but I thought the President was denying he was told it was a terrorist attack, and was waiting for more informtion on the attack. They sent Rice out with a false story five days after the attack, and the President kept it up longer.

Perhaps this should be a rant because I am really disturbed with the President misleading us. Anyway here's the story:


U.S. intelligence told President Barack Obama and senior administration officials within 72 hours of the Benghazi tragedy that the attack was likely carried out by local militia and other armed extremists sympathetic to al-Qaida in the region, officials directly familiar with the information told the Washington Guardian on Friday.

Based on electronic intercepts and human intelligence on the ground, the early briefings after the deadly Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya identified possible organizers and participants. Most were believed to be from a local Libyan militia group called Ansar al-Sharia that is sympathetic to al-Qaida, the official said, while a handful of others was linked to a direct al-Qaida affiliate in North Africa known as AQIM.
Obama has defended Rice, and he and his top aides have insisted politics was not involved. They argue the administration's shifting story was the result of changing intelligence.

U.S. intelligence officials said Friday, however, the assessment that the tragedy was an attack by extremists with al-Qaida links was well defined within 48 to 72 hours.

The president and other officials were also told during the early briefings about other attempted acts of violence that had occurred in Benghazi and around the consulate before the deadly attack. They were also told that there was at least some intelligence indicating some efforts to surveil U.S. assets in Benghazi had occurred in the days and weeks before.

www.washingtonguardian.com...

I can't see any justification for telling us that it was caused by the video when they knew perfectly well it was terrorists. It wouldn't have jeopardized our security to say that we knew that.

I hate to think Obama did that just to avoid looking bad, but what other excuse can you suggest?

With respect,
Charles1952




posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 01:54 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Cui bono.
(Who benefits)

Who benefitted from the lie?

Did Obama benefit?

Did aspects within our government benefit?

What long-term goals were acheived by the lie?

These are the questions I'm asking.



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 02:04 AM
link   
::applause:: S and F for you. Seriously finally someone putting something up that isn't political left vs right nonsense.

But anyways, the truth is out, we know something smells really fishy. I hope all news channels and evening, afternoon, morning news shows show the information. We should all be aware of what is really going on. The MSM should step up and stop doing all this yellow journalism stuff. People need to know the truth, even if they aren't actively seeking it, citizens need a big reality slap.



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 02:04 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 

Dear beezzer,

Thanks for asking, of course you hit me with my problem in the very first post, shame on you.
Normally I have an idea, a path which I think the thread should take, and I try to steer for it. This time, I'm 90% upset and 10% confused.

The only thing that I can see is that the admission of a terrorist attack with less than a month until the election would ramp up the "war party," and create the impression that Obama's foreign policy wasn't working out. He had spent a lot of time saying that Al-Qaeda was on the run, and this attack might have made him look silly.

But I really don't know.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 02:07 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


But a decisive response would have helped his election.

Instead, the initial blame was placed on an anti-islam video onyoutube.

So an element of Islam certainly benefitted.

But which element?



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 02:10 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Washington knew about past terrorist attacks on the compound. They knew about the threats the terrorist made on their Facebook page. They knew about the pictures the terrorist took of Stevens during his morning jogs. They knew more attacks were coming, 9/11/2012 was coming, and they denied the much needed security the consulate requested to help thwart an attack. They knew it was a terrorist attack when the compound called & said they were being attacked by terrorists. They knew it was a terrorist attack when CIA reported the attacks. And they definitely knew it was a terrorist attack when the surveillance drones over head were filming the 7 hour long terrorist attack. Sources

edit on 17-11-2012 by Swills because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 02:11 AM
link   
Meanwhile on the Twiright zone......


*plays twilight zone music*



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 02:17 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 

Dear beezzer,

Thanks again, I'm perfectly prepared and willing to accept your gentle nudging.

I agree that a decisive response would have been good for him, but is he capable of such a response? I'm thinking of Osama bin Ladin, and even the Sandy storm. He has a reputation for "leading from behind."

As far as an Islamic benefit, my simple mind tends to think of Muslims in two groups, active jihadists and their supporters, and the apathetic who want to be left alone. Blaming the video tells the world that there is an element in America that insults their religion. This would increase the level of anger and move some of the apathetic into the jihadist category.

It would also reduce America's position with Muslims and non-involved people throughout the world. So, active jihadists are the beneficiaries.

Did I do good for 2 a.m.?

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 02:26 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Ahhh Charles, we're just "table-topping" here. And you're doing great for 2am (it's 9am here).

If a faction of Islam benefitted, then was it active or passive support by the president?

I'd say active, because they didn't just obfuscate, they actively lied.

But another question.

How does enabling an islamic faction benefit the president?



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 02:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

How does enabling an islamic faction benefit the president?



This administration is either clueless, or cold calculating.




edit on 17-11-2012 by sonnny1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 02:35 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Interesting enough I have some ideas of why he might of covered it up. First there is the weapons they supplied to the extremist militant group which left unchecked could have been used in a terrorist plot " Funny thing is it did". #2 Romney didn't get security meetings till 2 weeks after the attack " most nominees get briefings in the beginning of September not the end so yeah they knew about it. #3 fast and furious scandal had a spot light on his administration about running guns to Mexican cartels last thing Obama's admin needed was another spotlight into arming of extremist.

So lets put this into perspective Obama has been running guns to Mexican cartels who supply the illegal drug trade to the USA. He uses that leverage to bust a few high end dealers in the us and collects an untaxed source of income which cannot be traced. He uses that source of income to supply extremist militant groups with weapons to over throw their government. This destabilizes the region and allows oil companies to increase profits while pretending to be at a loss. The destabilization helps Israel keep Muslim countries from ganging up with full military might and with a few propaganda pieces they can wage war on who ever they like. The banks pay for his election and campaign fund. Guess who owns the banks? Not all jew's or Israelis but a small group of people who want Jerusalem back "think biblical Jerusalem" Wonder why Romney had so many banks backing him lol because he was supposed to lose to obama! They wanted Romney to look like the puppet while the real one could go undetected.

Where is my tinfoil hat? Ok checks outside sees a van hides in bathroom. 10 minutes goes by checks outside again vans gone hits reply



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 02:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swills
reply to post by charles1952
 


Washington knew about past terrorist attacks on the compound. They knew about the threats the terrorist made on their Facebook page. They knew about the pictures the terrorist took of Stevens during his morning jogs. They knew more attacks were coming, 9/11/2012 was coming, and they denied the much needed security the consulate requested to help thwart an attack. They knew it was a terrorist attack when the compound called & said they were being attacked by terrorists. They knew it was a terrorist attack when CIA reported the attacks. And they definitely knew it was a terrorist attack when the surveillance drones over head were filming the 7 hour long terrorist attack. Sources

edit on 17-11-2012 by Swills because: (no reason given)


That's some pretty funny stuff right there now.
Terrorist made threats on their Facebook pages?

What flavor Kool-Aid are you drinking?
I think this post more than any I have ever read on this topic points out the complete crock of #tery
the whole entire incident really is.



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 02:40 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 

Dear beezzer,

I think I'm going to waffle a little bit here.

I agree that the President intentionally put out the false story, but I'm really hoping that his only thought was to save his political campaign. If his intention was to help the jihadists, I would have a difficult time keeping from wanting to charge him with four negligent homicides. Treason itself seems a possibility. (But I don't remember if you have to be in a declared war for that.)

And, if we're being entirely speculative, there are people who believe he would like to turn the US into a "Muslim-friendly" country. That might be considered as a small step in that direction. The prosecutor handling the case of the filmmaker wanted two years in jail for a probation violation. That is extraordinary, and sends a message to the world that the US will go after "Muslim haters."

Oh, one other way his campaign might have been helped was through financial arrangements from an Arab group, but that is 99% speculation.

With respect,
Charles1952

P.s. My posting history clearly labels me as an infidel. You don't happen to know the patron saint for martyrs, do you?
P.p.s. I don't know about the homicide charges, maybe accessory after the fact? I'd have to think about it for a minute but the brain is slowing down. May we continue this later? I think I'll take a nap. - C -

edit on 17-11-2012 by charles1952 because: add P.p.s.



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by PaperbackWriter
 


Instead of running your mouth maybe you should have looked it up yourself or perhaps checked the one link I provided.

Talk about Ignorance.



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Swills
 


I concur with your assessment and deplore the ad-hominem, but you have to give him credit for his last sentence.

The entire situation is a crock of something vile and smelly and we really need to have it aired out completely.

My opinion is that the spin masters have been hard at work manufacturing smoke screens, but I'm not certain if the Benghazi-affair is the "smoke" or the "screen". After reading accounts of Petreus' testimony yesterday, it's pretty clear that "somebody" changed the talking points for Rice to go before the MSM on 5 news shows and present a less than credible story in the face of currently revealed facts.

ganjoa



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by ganjoa
 


I concur. And now with Israel and Gaza in the lime light and Petraeus testifying behind closed doors (much like Bush/Cheney) the entire thing is a crock and clearly they are and have been covering this whole thing up. And, obviously, this isn't the first time these vile politicians and Gov't workers have done this. This won't be the last time they do it either. History repeating itself yet again.



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 11:48 AM
link   
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I have posted much information here, if you want to use it.



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 11:50 AM
link   
This is the stupidest "scandal" in the history of humanity. Why the hell does it matter what you call an attack?

Only hyper-partisan retarded morons would be up in arms about this.



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 11:51 AM
link   
Aren't all "radical islamists" sympathetic to Al-Qaeda and therefore Terrorist/Communists/Boogeyman?

Obviously I am encouraging some thought here; however the current foreign policies of America claim this is true in order to justify occupation and mass murders by drone.

So how is anything a cover-up? It is all clearly stated by the 4th branch, our media.

Why are people constantly looking for answers they already have?



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by sonnny1

Originally posted by beezzer

How does enabling an islamic faction benefit the president?



This administration is either clueless, or cold calculating.




edit on 17-11-2012 by sonnny1 because: (no reason given)


I am going to say cold and calculating with a bunch of clueless useful idiots working for them.





top topics
 
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join