White House Knew Libya Was a Terrorist Attack Within 2 Hours

[Bluegrasscard]

Its difficult to say this was a simple terror attack. Terror attacks are in it for the splash. Bombs, big bombs, mass casualties, etc. This was 'hit'. Targeted. It was not done for grabbing headlines. It was done by forces that had experienced military backgrounds. Remember the accounts the days after it happened. Well aimed mortars to fend off the rescue mission that came from Tripoli.

 

So it was somewhat worse than a simple terror attack. It was a targeted attack on a very small number of US staff in a relatively unsecure compound. Remember 'security' was provided by a British company who agreed to do it without being armed. See how well that worked out. Two of the FORMER SEALS killed were not with a State Department security contingent. They were on assignment but reacted to the attack.

 

Even 'two hours' after is not quite true. This attack was monitored in real time. From within the compound and from a drone.

 

Not sure what happened but it was not the supposed video. And yet days later Susan Rice went on talk show after talk show with a well rehearsed statement to that effect.

[Bluegrasscard]

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?

 

The blaming of the video would be more on target. That story, perpetuated over and over and especially by Susan Rice on the Sunday circuit, was a complete fabrication. A lie.

[PurplePride92]

The blaming of the video would be more on target. That story, perpetuated over and over and especially by Susan Rice on the Sunday circuit, was a complete fabrication. A lie.

 

Okay. So I am supposed to be upset about that? Because they didn't tell the truth about an incident involving national security? Isn't it status quo to not give up too much info publicly in these situations? I'm really supposed to be mad because they didn't tell me a secret?

[75center]

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.

 

 

I would use the word deceiving and the delay in getting the truth out combined with multiple administration officials involved would lend itself to a conspiracy to me.

[UKMustangFan]

Okay. So I am supposed to be upset about that? Because they didn't tell the truth about an incident involving national security? Isn't it status quo to not give up too much info publicly in these situations? I'm really supposed to be mad because they didn't tell me a secret?

 

You're supposed to be mad because they lied to the American people about the attack for 2 weeks straight. Even the (few) staunch liberals I know are P.O.'ed about it.

 

You would 1000% be upset if it weren't President Obama, that I know without question.

[PurplePride92]

You're supposed to be mad because they lied to the American people about the attack for 2 weeks straight. Even the (few) staunch liberals I know are P.O.'ed about it.

 

You would 1000% be upset if it weren't President Obama, that I know without question.

 

Wrong. This just doesn't move me emotionally. It'd be different if they broke some laws or killed Americans themselves. All I see in this is that they didn't tell the American people what they knew. What presidents had ever told the American people everything they know about every incident? I'm sure there is tons of stuff about 9/11 and other American travesties that invoved innocent Americans dying that we don't know about because those in charge chose not to inform us of all of the truth. I'm more concerned with retribution than I am on being told the secret.

[truthbtold]

:thumb:

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.

[truthbtold]

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.

 

Do you know for a fact that nothing was done to help our people?

[Michael Corleone]

Do you know for a fact that nothing was done to help our people?

 

Nobody knows anything for a fact because we have been mislead from the very beginning. That we know as a fact.

[Michael Corleone]

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?

 

So you don't think the administration covered the truth on this incident? Why is the maker of the "video" still in jail as of today?

[Habib]

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.

 

I appreciate the intelligent response. I was hoping to find something like this. I agree with your later points and have no issue with the pursuit of that information. I'm probably being too kind to the administration regarding the protests over the video, though it did appear to be the conventional wisdom at the time considering the widespread nature of the backlash. Even this "bombshell" article indicated that intelligence analysts weren't able to put together any less of a muddy picture. So, I struggle to buy the coverup argument without evidence. At the very least, the administration rushed an explanation then became reluctant to shift course as new information came to light. That's a bang-up job, but not evidence of a coverup. If my newsfeed is any indication many conservatives have been triumphant about this article, likening it to the release of the Nixon tapes. I thought it was worth putting it into context.

[Michael Corleone]

I appreciate the intelligent response. I was hoping to find something like this. I agree with your later points and have no issue with the pursuit of that information. I'm probably being too kind to the administration regarding the protests over the video, though it did appear to be the conventional wisdom at the time considering the widespread nature of the backlash. Even this "bombshell" article indicated that intelligence analysts weren't able to put together any less of a muddy picture. So, I struggle to buy the coverup argument without evidence. At the very least, the administration rushed an explanation then became reluctant to shift course as new information came to light. That's a bang-up job, but not evidence of a coverup. If my newsfeed is any indication many conservatives have been triumphant about this article, likening it to the release of the Nixon tapes. I thought it was worth putting it into context.

 

Not at any moment did I think it was conventional wisdom to believe a well planned attack on an embassy was in response to a YouTube video, convenient wisdom but not conventional.

[stickymitts]

IF this is the case, I have more of a problem with them not beefing up security in a place like Libya on 9/11 than I do of them not telling us it was a terrorist attack. Honestly, I think anyone with half a brain knew it was a terrorist attack and not a protest. Which then leads me to my next problem......

[Bluegrasscard]

Okay. So I am supposed to be upset about that? Because they didn't tell the truth about an incident involving national security? Isn't it status quo to not give up too much info publicly in these situations? I'm really supposed to be mad because they didn't tell me a secret?

 

The attack was monitored by the entire State Department network in real time. It was not a secret.

 

The part to be mad about is that a lie about a video was used to literally give cover to the attackers. Obama and his agents blamed the video and then all but apologized on behalf of the US. They even arrested the maker of the ORIGINAL VIDEO - that was different than the dubbed version - on shaddy charges.

 

This was created and manufactured lying and faux reaction to an situation they KNEW was not true Obama, acting as a CiC, should have came out very forcefully and said: "Those responsible for this attack on our citizens and my personal representative to the newly formed Libya government will be brought to justice swiftly."

 

Or say very little until your ready to say the above. Our representatives put on an embarrassing display of lies to avoid holding someone accountable and to avoid offending the radicals of Islam. As Americans we should be outraged by their reaction it was demeaning to our nation.

[SSC]

The attack was monitored by the entire State Department network in real time. It was not a secret.

 

The part to be mad about is that a lie about a video was used to literally give cover to the attackers. Obama and his agents blamed the video and then all but apologized on behalf of the US. They even arrested the maker of the ORIGINAL VIDEO - that was different than the dubbed version - on shaddy charges.

 

This was created and manufactured lying and faux reaction to an situation they KNEW was not true Obama, acting as a CiC, should have came out very forcefully and said: "Those responsible for this attack on our citizens and my personal representative to the newly formed Libya government will be brought to justice swiftly."

 

Or say very little until your ready to say the above. Our representatives put on an embarrassing display of lies to avoid holding someone accountable and to avoid offending the radicals of Islam. As Americans we should be outraged by their reaction it was demeaning to our nation.

 

The last part is the part I agree with the most. Why blame it on the video 5 days after the fact when you know it isn't the video? Say we're still investigating. Don't say anything at all. Why keep blaming a video when that was going to be proven wrong very easily?