Felony in Florida

jerry7 said:

News just out that the Obama administration admits that al-Quaeda was behind the consulate attack in Benghazi. The administration has been caught in another lie.

Click to expand...

So ... when did the Obama administration definitively deny that AQ was behind it, or definitively state that it was solely or partly the result of the film? Oh yeah, they didn't. Unlike Mittens, they thought it might be a good idea to know the facts before drawing firm conclusions.

AdamT said:

So ... when did the Obama administration definitively deny that AQ was behind it, or definitively state that it was solely or partly the result of the film? Oh yeah, they didn't. Unlike Mittens, they thought it might be a good idea to know the facts before drawing firm conclusions.

Click to expand...

I guess you missed Susan rice on the Sunday political shows.

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice said the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi last week was not premeditated, directly contradicting top Libyan officials who say the attack was planned in advance.

“Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous – not a premeditated – response to what had transpired in Cairo,” Rice told me this morning on “This Week
Ambassador Susan Rice: Libya Attack Not Premeditated - ABC News

jerry7 said:

I guess you missed Susan rice on the Sunday political shows.

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice said the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi last week was not premeditated, directly contradicting top Libyan officials who say the attack was planned in advance.

“Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous – not a premeditated – response to what had transpired in Cairo,” Rice told me this morning on “This Week
Ambassador Susan Rice: Libya Attack Not Premeditated - ABC News

Click to expand...

I guess you don't know what "current best assessment" means? Hint: it means that they are still gathering and analyzing information and haven't reached a definitive conclusion.

AdamT said:

I guess you don't know what "current best assessment" means? Hint: it means that they are still gathering and analyzing information and haven't reached a definitive conclusion.

Click to expand...

"current best assessment" in this case meant we will stonewall this as long as possible and hope we can divert responsibility from the administration's failure onto a spontaneous uprising over an obscure video. Unfortunately for Obama the Libyan government came forward to the international press with the information they had supplied days before the attack to the administration. Otherwise we would have never known.Maybe Obama will start to attend his security briefings now.

AdamT said:

I guess you don't know what "current best assessment" means? Hint: it means that they are still gathering and analyzing information and haven't reached a definitive conclusion.

Click to expand...

The delay in annoucing Alqeada involvment may have something to do with the efforts to catch the perps. It might have been advantageous to make them think they were not being pursued. Of course the Right wing would not let them get away with it for long . That's all they need is for Obama to get the bastards.

Libya announced days ago they had the perps in custody. The administration had no choice but to come clean. What's your opinion....will Obama start to attend his briefings or not?

Romney himself said he hoped they would release the whole thing so people could see for themselves, so I don't think rightees are wetting their pants; the reasonable expectation of privacy as has been noted is the bright-line rule in privacy cases though the courts really really stretched it to the extreme when it comes to criminal cases and warrants; and "current best assessment" is "As far as we know but you bootyholes ain't nailing me to the cross if that's wrong cause it ain't like I am on the ground in Libya with those pretty blue flashlight they use on CSI trying to start a fire to conjure up that dude from the Harry Potter movies".

jerry7 said:

Libya announced days ago they had the perps in custody. The administration had no choice but to come clean. What's your opinion....will Obama start to attend his briefings or not?

Click to expand...

What did the administration have to gain by suggesting it was linked to protests, as opposed to AQ? Sorry, but I don't even get your conspiracy theory.

AdamT said:

What did the administration have to gain by suggesting it was linked to protests, as opposed to AQ? Sorry, but I don't even get your conspiracy theory.

Click to expand...

No conspiracy theories. Just another attempt to avoid responsibility. If it's a spontaneous uprising it couldn't be forseen. No one can be held accountable for dropping the ball. If it's al-Quaeda and the attacks were planned for 9/11 while Beavis and Butthead were beating their chests at the convention about killing bin Laden it makes them look like reckless, incompetent idiots. Also shortly before the attacks it was revealed that Obama very rarely attended his intelligence briefings and of course we were told it was because he was so intelligent he didn't need them.
Obama has attempted to campaign on "successes" in the Middle East. Leading from behind is proving to be a disaster. The area has never been as unstable as it is now and it is a direct result of his policies. As always he is attempting to distract from his failures and shift responsibility onto someone else.

jerry7 said:

No conspiracy theories. Just another attempt to avoid responsibility. If it's a spontaneous uprising it couldn't be forseen. No one can be held accountable for dropping the ball. If it's al-Quaeda and the attacks were planned for 9/11 while Beavis and Butthead were beating their chests at the convention about killing bin Laden it makes them look like reckless, incompetent idiots. Also shortly before the attacks it was revealed that Obama very rarely attended his intelligence briefings and of course we were told it was because he was so intelligent he didn't need them.
Obama has attempted to campaign on "successes" in the Middle East. Leading from behind is proving to be a disaster. The area has never been as unstable as it is now and it is a direct result of his policies. As always he is attempting to distract from his failures and shift responsibility onto someone else.

Click to expand...

I actually think it's just the other way around. If it was a well planned, well executed strike by trained commandos, it's certainly less damning of security arrangements than it would have been if it was just a bunch of yahoos wound up over a Youtube video. There is no way to 100% guarantee security in our far-flung embassies and consulates. The last three presidents have taken the calculated risk of placing state department offices in volatile regions.

Obama did not "rarely attend" his intelligence briefings. In fact he was attending them about every other day, and no doubt reviewing the reports on off days. Do you think this attack was planned in a day or two? I mean, it's not like he waited nine months to meet with his anti-terror task force....

It would be an even bigger gaffe for Romney to press charges over this... It's not going to happen.

AdamT said:

I actually think it's just the other way around. If it was a well planned, well executed strike by trained commandos, it's certainly less damning of security arrangements than it would have been if it was just a bunch of yahoos wound up over a Youtube video. There is no way to 100% guarantee security in our far-flung embassies and consulates. The last three presidents have taken the calculated risk of placing state department offices in volatile regions.

Obama did not "rarely attend" his intelligence briefings. In fact he was attending them about every other day, and no doubt reviewing the reports on off days. Do you think this attack was planned in a day or two? I mean, it's not like he waited nine months to meet with his anti-terror task force....

Click to expand...

It is common sense to heighten security on 9/11. Why was the ambassador in the Benghazi consulate on 9/11 instead of in a much more secure embassy in Tripoli? It is common knowledge that Obama had not attended a single intelligence briefing in the week before the attack. In fact he again skipped the briefing the day after the murders although he had time to attend a fund raiser. And remember it was Obama that issued an Executive Order declaring Libya an unusual enemy of the US and engaged in an illegal war in support of a UN resolution without obtaining permission from Congress in violation of the War Powers Act. Ghadafi was supporting the US with intelligence info and if you remember warned Obama that those trying to topple him were al-Quaeda. Ghadafi was not a threat to the US and helped to keep the area stable. Obama broke Libya and as General Colin Powell once said if you break it you own it.

jerry7 said:

It is common sense to heighten security on 9/11. Why was the ambassador in the Benghazi consulate on 9/11 instead of in a much more secure embassy in Tripoli? It is common knowledge that Obama had not attended a single intelligence briefing in the week before the attack. In fact he again skipped the briefing the day after the murders although he had time to attend a fund raiser. And remember it was Obama that issued an Executive Order declaring Libya an unusual enemy of the US and engaged in an illegal war in support of a UN resolution without obtaining permission from Congress in violation of the War Powers Act. Ghadafi was supporting the US with intelligence info and if you remember warned Obama that those trying to topple him were al-Quaeda. Ghadafi was not a threat to the US and helped to keep the area stable. Obama broke Libya and as General Colin Powell once said if you break it you own it.

Click to expand...

Obama's foreign policy has been a complete failure. That's why I'm voting for Gary Johnson (libertarian party). He's actually advocating pulling all personnel out of these hellholes (including Afghanistan), which is way more than either of the two major party candidates are saying.

And I live in a solid blue state so my vote won't be a decision breaker regardless.

jerry7 said:

It is common sense to heighten security on 9/11. Why was the ambassador in the Benghazi consulate on 9/11 instead of in a much more secure embassy in Tripoli? It is common knowledge that Obama had not attended a single intelligence briefing in the week before the attack. In fact he again skipped the briefing the day after the murders although he had time to attend a fund raiser. And remember it was Obama that issued an Executive Order declaring Libya an unusual enemy of the US and engaged in an illegal war in support of a UN resolution without obtaining permission from Congress in violation of the War Powers Act. Ghadafi was supporting the US with intelligence info and if you remember warned Obama that those trying to topple him were al-Quaeda. Ghadafi was not a threat to the US and helped to keep the area stable. Obama broke Libya and as General Colin Powell once said if you break it you own it.

Click to expand...

I'm sure the ambassador was privy to security reports coming out of Libya, and he chose to be where he was.

Ghadafi was a direct sponsor of terrorist attacks against US citizens, including the Lockerbie bombing. The new Libyan government was not behind the Benghazi attack. They have apologized for it. They are also secular and not affiliated with al Qaeda, though it's obviously still in a formative stage and it's certainly possible that hostile elements are involved. Perhaps you recall the citizens of Libya hoisting a gigantic banner thanking Obama and the other leaders who supported the deposing of the nutjob dictator Ghadafi?

jerry7 said:

Well then why don't you tell me. What is the difference?

Click to expand...

Well one is chopped up into numerous little segments and one is a nearly hour long video with only a single two minute segment missing.

Along with that, if you care to actually notice, all of the employees at acorn said that the tapes were edited with the intent of making them seem guilty of a crime, which they all said was false. Mitt Romney himself came out and said he doesn't back away from any of the statements in his video, although it was worded poorly. So we have one tape, that was severely chopped up, and everyone in the video claims the video was misleadingly edited (and it turns out it completely was), and we have one video, nearly an hour long that is almost completely undisturbed and unedited, where the speaker in the video does not claim at all that anything was edited poorly, and in fact still claims that he agrees with what he said in the video.

Oh yea, barely any difference at all, like comparing an apple with a turd. Practically the same thing, lol.