Why the Obama admin changed story on Benghazi to blame video 3 days after attack

The dots were BIG, they were bright RED and they failed to connect them, even though everyone knew the problems long beforehand. Hence the changing of the story to coverup Obama and his administration's incompetence.

Americans died, Obama lied.

Allam and Landy hit the nail on the head in their connection of this to Obama’s intervention to decapitate the Qaddafi regime. The rise of radical Islamist terrorist groups in eastern Libya, including al-Qaeda, comes as a direct result of that intervention. The central government in Tripoli has no control now over the Benghazi region. Furthermore, everyone knew before the intervention that AQ and other radicals operated in the eastern part of the country, and a regime decapitation would set those elements free.


The cover story was designed to mislead the American public so that they would not connect those dots.


By the way, as a measure of how little control Tripoli now has over AQ’s new stomping grounds in the east, the New York Times reports that the prime “suspect” in the Benghazi terrorist attack doesn’t even plan to go into hiding. In fact, he’s doing media sessions...

McClatchy: Obama admin changed story on Benghazi to blame video 3 days after attack « Hot Air

Click to expand...

Bwaahaahaa!

Not as bad as the Bush WMD lies that got us stuck in Iraq and many Americans killed.

Yeah. I dont care who lied.. they both lie.. The fact of the matter is the right doesnt want to take credit for the bush lies.. which were numerous... and only wants to blame everything on obama... grow up a little...

zimmer said:

The dots were BIG, they were bright RED and they failed to connect them, even though everyone knew the problems long beforehand. Hence the changing of the story to coverup Obama and his administration's incompetence.

Americans died, Obama lied.

Click to expand...

I don't think the time frame is all that egregious, and I think it's a shame that some are so anxious to make political hay out of an attack on our ambassador.

And then there's this, from the source your source used: "Paul Pillar, a former top U.S. intelligence analyst on the Middle East, said that it’s natural with such incidents for accounts to change as new information is gathered. “You have not only a fog of war situation, but fragmentary, incomplete information, and as the responsible agencies develop and acquire better information, the explanations are naturally going to evolve,” he said.

I think you're confused about who the bad guys are.

GhostlyJoe said:

I don't think the time frame is all that egregious, and I think it's a shame that some are so anxious to make political hay out of an attack on our ambassador.

And then there's this, from the source your source used: "Paul Pillar, a former top U.S. intelligence analyst on the Middle East, said that it’s natural with such incidents for accounts to change as new information is gathered. “You have not only a fog of war situation, but fragmentary, incomplete information, and as the responsible agencies develop and acquire better information, the explanations are naturally going to evolve,” he said.

I think you're confused about who the bad guys are.

Click to expand...

It's not just the time frame... it is what was known beforehand, and the changing stories.

Let's see...
1. They knew the region was an uncontrolled hotbed for terrorists, yet did not ensure the Embassy had the protection they needed and asked for.
2. The Obama administration was changing stories as often as a stage act changes their costumes.
3. There is no record of Obama having intel briefings for a week before the terror attack.

Yes there is fog of war; but we are talking as much about the administration's behavior post terror attack.
There were clear dots to connect. They knew the region was a terror hotbed. There was no fog about this. The only fog is what Obama and his cohorts have done after the fact.

SMTA said:

Bwaahaahaa!

Not as bad as the Bush WMD lies that got us stuck in Iraq and many Americans killed.

Click to expand...

Another ignorant Lib under the "Undisclosed" column.
You will recall Libs asked for and got a second vote to send troops to war?
You will recall all the Lib leadership... including Pres. Clinton and VP Gore stating saddam posed a serious threat with his WMD?
You do recall Clinton sent Sec. Def. Cohen around with small white bags of powder to warn America about the lethality of ANTHRAX?
You do recall Sen. Hillary Clinton addresing CODE PINK and saying she had insight from her years at Bills side?
You do recall CIA Director Tenet stating this was a "slam dunnk" and Bush pressed him hard? (Bob Woodward was there).
You do recall Bush 43 gave Saddam one last chance to come clean... after 911 and all the kooks of the world watching?
You do recall Saddam had 12-years and 16 UN Resolutions... and signed a contract to disarm after losing Gulf War 1?
You do recall Hans Blix saying Saddam was uncooperative?

Of course you don't.
Why?
Because you're a Lib-Socialist who has nary a clue.
Ignorance at your level is dangerous to our nation.

Be sure you get up early on Nov 7 to pull the lever for The Empty Chair.

zimmer said:

It's not just the time frame... it is what was known beforehand, and the changing stories.

Let's see...
1. They knew the region was an uncontrolled hotbed for terrorists, yet did not ensure the Embassy had the protection they needed and asked for.
2. The Obama administration was changing stories as often as a stage act changes their costumes.
3. There is no record of Obama having intel briefings for a week before the terror attack.

Yes there is fog of war; but we are talking as much about the administration's behavior post terror attack.
There were clear dots to connect. They knew the region was a terror hotbed. There was no fog about this. The only fog is what Obama and his cohorts have done after the fact.

Click to expand...

The story certainly changed over time. How the intelligence developed isn't clear, but you seem to blithely leap to the most sinister possible interpretations. I think the attack was a tragedy. It's a dangerous time in a dangerous part of the world. But for some on the right, every story is about Obama. The narratives painted in this thread are symptomatic of that conservative contagion.

Let me add that an ideal administration would have ample security for any potential threat in any part of the world at any time, would have accurate and timely intelligence, and would communicate to the public openly as security allowed. This administration falls short of that ideal, as have all before it, to varying degrees. I can guarantee that a Romney administration will face similar crises, will not be able to prevent every tragedy and will have times when intelligence is murky and it's difficult to communicate with the public about complex political realities. And that administration -- should it come to pass -- will have gleeful detractors ready to pounce for every political advantage at each misstep, real or perceived. The Bush administration certainly faced such times.

GhostlyJoe said:

The story certainly changed over time. How the intelligence developed isn't clear, but you seem to blithely leap to the most sinister possible interpretations. I think the attack was a tragedy. It's a dangerous time in a dangerous part of the world. But for some on the right, every story is about Obama. The narratives painted in this thread are symptomatic of that conservative contagion.

Click to expand...

You bet this story is about Obama.
He is the one who said he had superior judgment.

Obama is the one who has been changing the story.
Obama should have known how dangerous that specific part of Libya was and would be after Khadaffi Duck was ousted.
Perhaps he missed those intel briefings?

Yes... this matters. Why the world was misled, why they threw fuel onto a Mid East fire by claiming it was a video... why the story kept changing???

Americans died. Watergate was a 3rd rate break-in and the president lost his job due to trying to cover it up after learning about it. Watergate is a fart in a hurricane compared to this debacle.

zimmer said:

Another ignorant Lib under the "Undisclosed" column.
You will recall Libs asked for and got a second vote to send troops to war?
You will recall all the Lib leadership... including Pres. Clinton and VP Gore stating saddam posed a serious threat with his WMD?
You do recall Clinton sent Sec. Def. Cohen around with small white bags of powder to warn America about the lethality of ANTHRAX?
You do recall Sen. Hillary Clinton addresing CODE PINK and saying she had insight from her years at Bills side?
You do recall CIA Director Tenet stating this was a "slam dunnk" and Bush pressed him hard? (Bob Woodward was there).
You do recall Bush 43 gave Saddam one last chance to come clean... after 911 and all the kooks of the world watching?
You do recall Saddam had 12-years and 16 UN Resolutions... and signed a contract to disarm after losing Gulf War 1?
You do recall Hans Blix saying Saddam was uncooperative?

Of course you don't.
Why?
Because you're a Lib-Socialist who has nary a clue.
Ignorance at your level is dangerous to our nation.

Be sure you get up early on Nov 7 to pull the lever for The Empty Chair.

Click to expand...

Bwaahaahaa! Wrong brush, wrong logic. You lose!

zimmer said:

You bet this story is about Obama.
He is the one who said he had superior judgment.

Obama is the one who has been changing the story.
Obama should have known how dangerous that specific part of Libya was and would be after Khadaffi Duck was ousted.
Perhaps he missed those intel briefings?

Yes... this matters. Why the world was misled, why they threw fuel onto a Mid East fire by claiming it was a video... why the story kept changing???

Americans died. Watergate was a 3rd rate break-in and the president lost his job due to trying to cover it up after learning about it. Watergate is a fart in a hurricane compared to this debacle.

Click to expand...

Americans have died in attacks -- domestic, foreign, terrorist and military -- routinely for decades. It has happened under every administration. Impeach them all.

The source used is full of ****. They claim Crowley has recanted and she clearly has not. This is all misinformation campaign by some right wing nuts.

If he gets re-elected, the Republican House will likely investigate and you may hear rumors of impeachment. Benghazi was a galactic ****up. They had boatloads of requests for increased security, they'd been attacked more than once. The British pulled as well as the Red Cross. It appears we were the last ones left in town. They saw it coming, and stood there like deer in the headlights.

GhostlyJoe said:

Americans have died in attacks -- domestic, foreign, terrorist and military -- routinely for decades. It has happened under every administration. Impeach them all.

Click to expand...

They could have done something about this. They should have brought those people home. It's criminal. I hope Romney kicks Obama's ass all over the set on this.

BayToBay said:

The source used is full of ****. They claim Crowley has recanted and she clearly has not. This is all misinformation campaign by some right wing nuts.

Click to expand...

You're wrong, and this is not going away. There will be congressional hearings.

zimmer said:

Another ignorant Lib under the "Undisclosed" column.
You will recall Libs asked for and got a second vote to send troops to war?
You will recall all the Lib leadership... including Pres. Clinton and VP Gore stating saddam posed a serious threat with his WMD?
You do recall Clinton sent Sec. Def. Cohen around with small white bags of powder to warn America about the lethality of ANTHRAX?
You do recall Sen. Hillary Clinton addresing CODE PINK and saying she had insight from her years at Bills side?
You do recall CIA Director Tenet stating this was a "slam dunnk" and Bush pressed him hard? (Bob Woodward was there).
You do recall Bush 43 gave Saddam one last chance to come clean... after 911 and all the kooks of the world watching?
You do recall Saddam had 12-years and 16 UN Resolutions... and signed a contract to disarm after losing Gulf War 1?
You do recall Hans Blix saying Saddam was uncooperative?

Of course you don't.
Why?
Because you're a Lib-Socialist who has nary a clue.
Ignorance at your level is dangerous to our nation.

Be sure you get up early on Nov 7 to pull the lever for The Empty Chair.

Click to expand...

I have grown tired of all these "centrists" and "independents" who vomit the DNC talking points - even the ones from '04 and '08.

When on of these 'independents' resort to the old "Bush lied" lines you know they are desperate. It is meant only for the mouth breathers who make up the apathetic DEM voter bloc - trying to revive some sort of distorted memory to get them excited enough to vote one more time.

Why anyone would bother to bring such nonsense onto a political discussion board is beyond me - unless they themselves are a part of the mouth-breather group given access to a computer.

BayToBay said:

This is all misinformation campaign by some right wing nuts.

Click to expand...

Oh the irony - a DEM wailing about a disinformation campaign. This is priceless.

Especially when the thing they are complaining about is absolutely true. What universe do you inhabit where up is down and white is black and lies are truth?

DEMs have not run a direct campaign in my memory - and I remember Truman. I remember FDR, but only when he died. Too young for his last campaign.

most likely, they reported the info that they had, and the resolution of that info increased as time passed. in an attack like that, there is a lot of chaos, and there are conflicting reports. I don't buy the nefarious conspiracy thing.

GhostlyJoe said:

I don't think the time frame is all that egregious, and I think it's a shame that some are so anxious to make political hay out of an attack on our ambassador.

And then there's this, from the source your source used: "Paul Pillar, a former top U.S. intelligence analyst on the Middle East, said that it’s natural with such incidents for accounts to change as new information is gathered. “You have not only a fog of war situation, but fragmentary, incomplete information, and as the responsible agencies develop and acquire better information, the explanations are naturally going to evolve,” he said.

I think you're confused about who the bad guys are.

Click to expand...

I agree.. The rumors are still flying.. That Ambassador Stevens was into gun running to Syria.. that Iraq is behind it all.

What a mess. .. Americans should sit tight .. we don't know if any of it is true.

Rokkitsci said:

Oh the irony - a DEM wailing about a disinformation campaign. This is priceless.

Especially when the thing they are complaining about is absolutely true. What universe do you inhabit where up is down and white is black and lies are truth?

DEMs have not run a direct campaign in my memory - and I remember Truman. I remember FDR, but only when he died. Too young for his last campaign.

Click to expand...

Partisan politics on the grave of the Ambassador?

The whole situation in North Africa is much trickier than that.

zimmer said:

It's not just the time frame... it is what was known beforehand, and the changing stories.

Let's see...
1. They knew the region was an uncontrolled hotbed for terrorists, yet did not ensure the Embassy had the protection they needed and asked for.
2. The Obama administration was changing stories as often as a stage act changes their costumes.
3. There is no record of Obama having intel briefings for a week before the terror attack.

Yes there is fog of war; but we are talking as much about the administration's behavior post terror attack.
There were clear dots to connect. They knew the region was a terror hotbed. There was no fog about this. The only fog is what Obama and his cohorts have done after the fact.

Click to expand...

TRUE DAT!!!!

The 'fog of war' description applies to being a unsure of exactly what your enemy is doing in the real time action of fighting what is in your face. You have to defend against the guy charging at you with a bayonet and that leaves little time to figure out what else is going on in another arena.

In this case the administration had almost prefect information on what what happening in the arena prior to the action. This was no ambush out of the blue. This was something that our people on the ground in the place saw coming and repeatedly asked for some sort of added protection. They were either ignored or refused - and all to support a political stance the POTUS thinks would enhance some sort of image he would like to portray in the weeks before an election. This is either incompetence or malfeasance writ large.

THEN - to cover up their incompetence/malfeasance they CREATED a 'fog of war' to hide their OWN involvement. 'Fog of war' does NOT apply when it is YOURSELF who is purposefully creating the fog. The cover up of this incompetence/malfeasance is criminal. This is not a mistake. This is not a normal 'things go wrong under the best of intentions' situation. This is calculated and executed to cover up incompetence/malfeasance for two months - just long enough to get past the next election. They know they will face impeachment even if elected, but that (as damaging as that is to the country) is not as bad to them as losing an election.

Obama is the WORST president in American history. There have been other bad presidents. There have been other dumb presidents. There have been other misguided presidents.

But Obama is the ONLY president who has calculated to REDUCE the influence and power and prosperity of the US.

Obama fits the "Manchurian Candidate" image in this regard.

Helix said:

most likely, they reported the info that they had, and the resolution of that info increased as time passed. in an attack like that, there is a lot of chaos, and there are conflicting reports. I don't buy the nefarious conspiracy thing.

Click to expand...

Where did the info about a movie come from? Intle knew it was a terrorist attack 24 hours after it happened and Obama is going on TV shows talking about a movie being the cause. Either Obama is incompetenet or he is a liar.

Dusty Rhodes said:

Where did the info about a movie come from? Intle knew it was a terrorist attack 24 hours after it happened and Obama is going on TV shows talking about a movie being the cause. Either Obama is incompetenet or he is a liar.

Click to expand...

because there was a riot at the US embassy in Egypt the same day, and the movie was the reason.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/12/w...tirs-protest-at-us-embassy-in-cairo.html?_r=0

Dusty Rhodes said:

Where did the info about a movie come from? Intle knew it was a terrorist attack 24 hours after it happened and Obama is going on TV shows talking about a movie being the cause. Either Obama is incompetenet or he is a liar.

Click to expand...

The movie had been sent to the ME about the first week in September.. It was a stink before the attack on the Consulate.

Helix said:

because there was a riot at the US embassy in Egypt the same day, and the movie was the reason.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/12/w...tirs-protest-at-us-embassy-in-cairo.html?_r=0

Click to expand...

Intel knew 24 hours after the attack that it was not because of the movie and Obama is still saying it's because of a movie 3 days later on TV. Why?

Dusty Rhodes said:

Intel knew 24 hours after the attack that it was not because of the movie and Obama is still saying it's because of a movie 3 days later on TV. Why?

Click to expand...

The 14 minute video clips were initially uploaded to YouTube in July 2012, under the titles The Real Life of Muhammad and Muhammad Movie Trailer.

Videos dubbed in the Arabic language were uploaded during early September 2012, and were promoted by Morris Sadek by email and on the blog of the National American Coptic Assembly.

On September 9, 2012, an excerpt of the YouTube video was broadcast on Al-Nas TV, an Egyptian Islamist television station.

Wiki

The objective was to demonize Muslims, blame the Israelis and incite the Egyptians.