White House Knew Libya Was a Terrorist Attack Within 2 Hours

[Michael Corleone]

White House told of militant claim two hours after Libya attack: emails | Reuters

 

Looks like they knew from the very beginning it was about a video.

[Randy Parker]

The President pulled all the right strings with the bin Laden situation & has pulled all the wrong ones with this one.

[Michael Corleone]

The President pulled all the right strings with the bin Laden situation & has pulled all the wrong ones with this one.

 

I don't hold Obama accountable for the attacks but I do the cover up.

[jericho]

It doesnt make sense to even try to cover it up. Everyone knows the terrorist are out there and plotting and planning attacks. we will never be rid of them. Whynot say yes a terror attack killed 4 great men of the United States adn it allows us to continue the war on terror.

 

But no, Obama wants to blame a video.

 

Talk about trying to get the freedom of speech taken away, maybe that is his goal.

[UKMustangFan]

The President has a lot of explaining to do if this is true.

 

Like Corleone said, I don't blame him for the attacks, but the lies and cover up are incredibly damaging IMO.

[Randy Parker]

It doesnt make sense to even try to cover it up.

 

:thumb:

[capt278]

It doesnt make sense to even try to cover it up. Everyone knows the terrorist are out there and plotting and planning attacks. we will never be rid of them. Whynot say yes a terror attack killed 4 great men of the United States adn it allows us to continue the war on terror.

 

But no, Obama wants to blame a video.

 

Talk about trying to get the freedom of speech taken away, maybe that is his goal.

 

Politically, I guess in their minds, it makes sense to cover it up. Obama had talked so much about al Qaeda being a non-factor now, he would think it would make him look bad to admit this was al Qaeda linked. Getting re-elected is more important than than telling the truth.

 

Of course he will deny, deny, deny. The truth will eventually come out, it usually does. Wonder if he'll join the likes of Nixon and Clinton?

[Habib]

The problem with the "gotchya" nature of the argument is that it's controversy for the sake of controversy. The article reads that an email was sent to high level officials saying that a particular group in Libya was taking credit for the attack, yet it's being reported that Obama knew exactly what happened. There are a couple of problems with that. 1.) This doesn't mean he knew anything other than that a group was claiming credit for it. 2.) Groups like this do take credit for attacks and events they didn't do simply because it enhances their image. Considering the article notes two different groups were claiming credit, it stands to reason that one of them was doing this or they coordinated it, which is unlikely. 3.) That an organization conducted the attack and a protest occurred is not mutually exclusive. I believe the reporting in the days after this happened held this view. Considering there were protests occurring in other Arab countries, particularly in neighboring Egypt, this was fairly believable. It's also, of course, not unreasonable to assume in these conditions that the group of jihadists was motivated to violence by such a video.

 

So, I'm still left wondering what I'm supposed to be angry about. That the administration didn't say it was terrorism quickly enough (though they did call it that)? That they jumped too quickly on the wrong explanation or didn't amend the explanation in real-time? If the criticism is that the US shouldn't have been involved in Libya in the first place and that this is a result of that involvement, it would make sense. I would disagree with that argument, but I would understand it.

[Michael Corleone]

Habib, it was a cover up from the very beginning. The administration didn't want a terrorist attack in the middle of the election.

[Habib]

Oh yes, I forgot the "coverup" argument. Can you point to which legal or illegal actions the administration took to ensure knowledge of this international event documented by the international press and the Libyan government didn't become available to the public?

[75center]

Here's a good timeline of the situation. Don't see how the administration can be defended.

 

Timeline of Libya Consulate attack reveals administration contradictions - The Hill's Global Affairs

[jericho]

I dont like the 7 hours that went by during the attack that we didnt do anything to help our people.

 

Terrorism I expect, we will never get rid of them, but not giving our people support when they need it is unforgivable.

 

Just think how much Obamas rating would have went up if the American people thought he was sendiing troops in to help our wounded and people under attack and we were doing all we could do. Talk about PATRIOTIC and AWESOME, but NO, WE (HE) (THEY) DID NOT DO IT.

[Habib]

Here's a good timeline of the situation. Don't see how the administration can be defended.

 

Timeline of Libya Consulate attack reveals administration contradictions - The Hill's Global Affairs

 

They can't be defended for their fumbled public response to it, I agree. But, I think critics have failed to connect that to a larger significance. The obvious one is the Libyan intervention in the first place, but I don't hear anyone saying that. The rest are alleging conspiracy or claiming Obama is weak on terror, both of which I don't get.

[PurplePride92]

I just want to be clear....I'm supposed to be mad that Obama didn't call this a terrorist attack immediately? Is that what I am supposed to be upset about?

[Hearsay]

Oh yes, I forgot the "coverup" argument. Can you point to which legal or illegal actions the administration took to ensure knowledge of this international event documented by the international press and the Libyan government didn't become available to the public?

 

I agree with you that perhaps "coverup" is not the right term, because 1) the administration would only really be involved in a "coverup" of something patently illegal, which does not appear to be the case here; and 2) if there was a "coverup" the administration would have been successful until after 11/6.

 

However, I don't think it would be unfiar to use the term "coverup" to describe 1) the negligence in State Department, and potentially administraion officials, failing to respond to the blatant requests for increased security, made by even the Ambassador himself; 2) when Obama himself became aware of those requests; and 3) whether documents, e-mails or other items exist directing personnel to provide the "violent response to movie" explanation that has now been conceded. If those documents surface, and I don't expect them to untilafter 11/6, it will look very bad for the administration.

 

Habib, the question could also be asked in reverse; what evidence, documentary or otherwise, exists that CONNECTED the attacks in Benghazi to the making of the movie? The administration and Hillary Clinton keep saying "intelligence," but have provided absolutely nothing. If it turns out there was absolutely nothing, and that we were, and are being strung along, I think this goes from being a diversion to a coverup.