White House Knew Libya Was a Terrorist Attack Within 2 Hours

[Michael Corleone]

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.

 

Very well said. The whole situation was a cover up for political gains and not to offend the Islamic religion.

 

I would like to know why the maker of the film is still in jail?

[Michael Corleone]

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?

 

It reminds me of the baseball players who test positive for PED's and still deny it.

[capt278]

Let's face it, most on the Left will never criticize Obama & Co. no matter what they do, or don't do.

 

I just don't understand the continued defense of this administration on this attack when info is released daily that contradicts what they say. I watched the entire Congressional hearing and the State Dept. knew that night that it was not due to the video and stated they had passed it up the chain of command.

 

My bet is Obama will keep dodging until after the election. After the election, maybe he will find his, well you know, and man up and address the American people on this situation, including the lies.

[Clyde]

The Islamist group immediately disavowed their involvement in the attack according to NBC News.

[PurplePride92]

Let's face it, most on the Left will never criticize Obama & Co. no matter what they do, or don't do.

 

I just don't understand the continued defense of this administration on this attack when info is released daily that contradicts what they say. I watched the entire Congressional hearing and the State Dept. knew that night that it was not due to the video and stated they had passed it up the chain of command.

 

My bet is Obama will keep dodging until after the election. After the election, maybe he will find his, well you know, and man up and address the American people on this situation, including the lies.

 

And let's face it no one on the right will acknowledge anything good Obama has done. Shoot, even when bin Laden was found and murdered the cry from the right was the Seals killed him not you. :lol:

 

I'm not going to criticize anyone or anything before true FACTS come out. I like how I am supposed to be mad at Obama because he didn't label it a terrorist attack immediately. That's rich. We don't know what they were thinking at that time when they watched it in real time on their 1080p 55" Sharp Aquos in surround sound. I bet the terrorists are over there laughing at us arguing over what Obama said since we seem to be more concerned about that than retribution. None of us know exactly how that time played out for any of our leaders. You only know what the liberal media has been able to find out and tell you. Incidents like this are incidents of national security. Do you really believe that we know all of the facts regarding that incident? That damn liberal media running their mouth. Oops......

 

 

With your last paragraph are you predicting an Obama victory? Why would he address the nation?

[Habib]

The Islamist group immediately disavowed their involvement in the attack according to NBC News.

 

Their leader did an interview with the BBC a few days after the attack declining responsibility, but it appears most observers believe they were responsible.

 

Here's some of what the leader said: "Do you think that the killing of the US ambassador is more heinous than the several insults made about the Prophet, peace be upon him?[...]I swear by God that we can tolerate the killing of all people and wiping all countries off the map but we cannot tolerate a single swear word that could hurt our prophet[...]They are weeping buckets on this ambassador but they won't shed any tears when dozens of Muslims are injured in these protests against the blasphemous film."

 

If you paid attention to the protests across the Muslim world over the video (which, yes, actually happened) you would notice they 1) don't understand free speech and thus 2) assume the video is a product of the US government. It's not surprising then that a fundamentalist group would react against the US over insults to their prophet and helps explain Ansar al-Sharia's leader's comments above. Even liberal Muslims in Libya were speaking out against the video.

 

From a report last week, which is pretty thorough, and notes that Ansar al-Sharia was the likely culprit, and, again, likely upset over the video: "To Libyans who witnessed the assault and know the attackers, there is little doubt what occurred: a well-known group of local Islamist militants struck the United States Mission without any warning or protest, and they did it in retaliation for the video. That is what the fighters said at the time, speaking emotionally of their anger at the video without mentioning Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or the terrorist strikes of 11 years earlier. And it is an explanation that tracks with their history as members of a local militant group determined to protect Libya from Western influence."

 

So, yes, even today the video plays a role in the explanation of what happened, even if there are still many loose ends and information is still incomplete (Ansar al-Sharia denies ties to al-Qaida but it seems they are connected, for instance). I don't think this was handled well publicly by the administration, but I don't think this story today is the bombshell many hoped it was.

[PurplePride92]

Habib dropping knowledge once again!!!!!

 

 

I'm out. On to the next thread.

[Clyde]

While Habib brought a lot more info to the discussion my point regarding NBC is that it might be unfair to expect the WH to immediately come out and say it was terrorist related when all they have is a)a Facebook post and b)a denial from said terrorist group.

[Bluegrasscard]

While Habib brought a lot more info to the discussion my point regarding NBC is that it might be unfair to expect the WH to immediately come out and say it was terrorist related when all they have is a)a Facebook post and b)a denial from said terrorist group.

 

They knew what was going on in real time. An attack on an official state department location is not some event that waits for a report or follow up emails.

 

Its not what they said that night or the next day or the day after. But after multiple days the representative to the Uniited Nations when on the news show Sunday circuit and lied and lied and lied. She knew she was lying and no seems to care. Our government officials kept apologizing for a modified video that hand absolutely zero to do with the attack.

 

State Department: We Monitored Libya Attack 'in Almost Real Time' | Danger Room | Wired.com

 

"Charlene Lamb, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Programs, said in her prepared testimony (.pdf) that she had a firm grasp on what happened in Benghazi, starting mere moments after the mission came under assault. ”When the attack began, a Diplomatic Security agent working in the tactical operations center immediately… alerted the annex U.S. quick reaction security team stationed nearby … and the Diplomatic Security Command Center in Washington. From that point on, I could follow what was happening in almost real-time,” Lamb explained."

 

There was no protest. That was known - immediately.

 

"State Department officials were finally forced to concede on Wednesday there was no protest. "

 

They knew this was an attack from the outset.

 

So you can say we were attacked and those responsible will pay for this action. Without having details. But after days they had the details in crystal clear manner. Yet continued to lie and lie and lie. Repeatedly and constantly.

[capt278]

And let's face it no one on the right will acknowledge anything good Obama has done. Shoot, even when bin Laden was found and murdered the cry from the right was the Seals killed him not you. :lol:

 

I'm not going to criticize anyone or anything before true FACTS come out. I like how I am supposed to be mad at Obama because he didn't label it a terrorist attack immediately. That's rich. We don't know what they were thinking at that time when they watched it in real time on their 1080p 55" Sharp Aquos in surround sound. I bet the terrorists are over there laughing at us arguing over what Obama said since we seem to be more concerned about that than retribution. None of us know exactly how that time played out for any of our leaders. You only know what the liberal media has been able to find out and tell you. Incidents like this are incidents of national security. Do you really believe that we know all of the facts regarding that incident? That damn liberal media running their mouth. Oops......

 

 

With your last paragraph are you predicting an Obama victory? Why would he address the nation?

 

FACTS have come out. I guess they just don't fit your agenda.

 

I complained about Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr. when they screwed up. I'm just not blinded by partisanship.

 

Not predicting an Obama victory. He is still POTUS until Jan. 2013 if he loses. He just will continue to dodge and duck like he always does. Arrogance personified.

[Clyde]

They knew what was going on in real time. An attack on an official state department location is not some event that waits for a report or follow up emails.

 

Its not what they said that night or the next day or the day after. But after multiple days the representative to the Uniited Nations when on the news show Sunday circuit and lied and lied and lied. She knew she was lying and no seems to care. Our government officials kept apologizing for a modified video that hand absolutely zero to do with the attack.

 

State Department: We Monitored Libya Attack 'in Almost Real Time' | Danger Room | Wired.com

 

"Charlene Lamb, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Programs, said in her prepared testimony (.pdf) that she had a firm grasp on what happened in Benghazi, starting mere moments after the mission came under assault. ”When the attack began, a Diplomatic Security agent working in the tactical operations center immediately… alerted the annex U.S. quick reaction security team stationed nearby … and the Diplomatic Security Command Center in Washington. From that point on, I could follow what was happening in almost real-time,” Lamb explained."

 

There was no protest. That was known - immediately.

 

"State Department officials were finally forced to concede on Wednesday there was no protest. "

 

They knew this was an attack from the outset.

 

So you can say we were attacked and those responsible will pay for this action. Without having details. But after days they had the details in crystal clear manner. Yet continued to lie and lie and lie. Repeatedly and constantly.

 

Seems like a lot of speculation on your part.

 

Did Rice say she knew she was wrong? Did she say she was in fact lying?

 

Lamb says she was watching it real-time. OK. What does that tell us in regards to what was actually known? I read the PDF and she doesn't say it was a terrorist attack. As a matter of fact Rep Issa later grilled her on why she wouldn't label it as such.

 

It's not out of line to think that the situation was fluid and info was changing. The intelligence notes given to the WH said for about a week that the video was a possibility . The "left-leaning" WSJ even came out with a report verifying that.

[Bluegrasscard]

Seems like a lot of speculation on your part.

 

Did Rice say she knew she was wrong? Did she say she was in fact lying?

 

Lamb says she was watching it real-time. OK. What does that tell us in regards to what was actually known? I read the PDF and she doesn't say it was a terrorist attack. As a matter of fact Rep Issa later grilled her on why she wouldn't label it as such.

 

They KNEW it was an attack/assault from the start. Not a 'protest' that got out of hand.

 

A direct attack on an American faculty on the anniversary of 9/11.

 

Going back through the September 12 Rose Garden speech Obama does say attack various times.

 

"...outrageous and shocking attack. .... and this attack will not break the bonds ... their attackers."

 

Actually without the following this was not too bad a speech:

 

"Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts."

 

Why the need for an apology in this is confounding. There just was no reason to add this. And the Rice keeps repeating what they know is not true days later. As does Carney and others. Notice it was Rice who got the tap to do the Sunday circuit. Why the UN Secretary is the spokes person for a State Department issue on talk shows is confusing.

[capt278]

Seems like a lot of speculation on your part.

 

Did Rice say she knew she was wrong? Did she say she was in fact lying?

 

Lamb says she was watching it real-time. OK. What does that tell us in regards to what was actually known? I read the PDF and she doesn't say it was a terrorist attack. As a matter of fact Rep Issa later grilled her on why she wouldn't label it as such.

 

It's not out of line to think that the situation was fluid and info was changing. The intelligence notes given to the WH said for about a week that the video was a possibility . The "left-leaning" WSJ even came out with a report verifying that.

 

OK, they said it was ONE possibility. Why did they latch on to that and nothing else?

 

Terror attack at this late stage of the campaign doesn't look good?

 

Let's face it. If this was GWB, the Left would be calling for his head on a platter!!

[Clyde]

 

And the Rice keeps repeating what they know is not true days later.

 

Again, the WSJ says your conclusion is incorrect.

 

Unfortunately, it requires a subscription to read the entire story.

[capt278]

Again, the WSJ says your conclusion is incorrect.

 

Unfortunately, it requires a subscription to read the entire story.

 

So the State Dept. lied?

 

According to former WH officials, no one goes out on Sunday talk shows without the message being approved by the WH.

 

Again, if it was only ONE of many possibilities, why did they hone in on that one?