• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Mycroft

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
101,915
Reaction score
45,450
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.

The emails, obtained by Reuters from government sources not connected with U.S. spy agencies or the State Department and who requested anonymity, specifically mention that the Libyan group called Ansar al-Sharia had asserted responsibility for the attacks.

The brief emails also show how U.S. diplomats described the attack, even as it was still under way, to Washington.

U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the Benghazi assault, which President Barack Obama and other U.S. officials ultimately acknowledged was a "terrorist" attack carried out by militants with suspected links to al Qaeda affiliates or sympathizers.

Administration spokesmen, including White House spokesman Jay Carney, citing an unclassified assessment prepared by the CIA, maintained for days that the attacks likely were a spontaneous protest against an anti-Muslim film.

While officials did mention the possible involvement of "extremists," they did not lay blame on any specific militant groups or possible links to al Qaeda or its affiliates until intelligence officials publicly alleged that on September 28.

read more at: White House told of militant claim two hours after Libya attack: emails | Reuters
Click to expand...

And Obama has the balls to say this:

'You can choose the foreign policy that's reckless and wrong, or you can choose one that is steady and strong,' the president said, before heading to Ohio, the perennial swing state that may decide the election.

'This is about trust. There is no more serious issue in a presidential campaign than trust. The person who leads this country, you have got to have some confidence that he or she means what he or she says.'

'You know me, you can trust that I say what I mean and I mean what I say.
Sky News: Obama says it's about trust
Click to expand...
 
Mycroft said:
And Obama has the balls to say this:
Click to expand...
This situation disgusts me!

How can we give someone so inept at the job another chance? This man has no interest in protecting our people; all he cares about is protecting his job.
 
He's a flim flam man, and that's all there is to it.

Tim-
 
Mycroft said:
And Obama has the balls to say this:
Click to expand...


Three problems:

Groups can claim credit for things they haven't actually done.

It is possible for a militant group to launch a spontanteous attack.

It takes time to process information and collect the information that is important.

The White House and Obama in my opinion didn't wait long enough for all the information to come in before making a statement, however just because a militant groups claims they performed an attack doesn't neccesarily mean it was preplanned or was not in reaction to a video.
 
This is the perfect example of starting at the conclusion and working backwards.

We don't know what other information the White House received. We are given one email that says a group claimed responsibility on facebook and twitter (b/c that's trustworthy intel), and somehow that is supposed to show that it was entirely obvious what happened two hours after the event and the Obama administration is completely incompetent. People should settle down and try not to act like complete hacks for at least two minutes after reading articles like this.

I also take issue with this quote:

Administration spokesmen, including White House spokesman Jay Carney, citing an unclassified assessment prepared by the CIA, maintained for days that the attacks likely were a spontaneous protest against an anti-Muslim film.
Click to expand...

The administration did not "maintain for days" that attacks were a protest against the film. If anything, officials hinted or suggested that it was the most likely explanation, while caveating that investigations were under way. When asked by reporters in press briefings, the State Department actually refused to link the attack to the video.

The press has not helped this issue at all. Their articles are just as convoluted and fumbled as the White House has been.
 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
Meh, Bush got two terms too.
Click to expand...

Wrong is wrong! It does not become right because the other guy did it too.
I was not watching politics during most of bush (I had better things like drinking and trying to get laid to do). I am a man that is looking to the future of my family. The man that holds the highest responsibility in the world (the American president) needs to be able to act when those that rely on his decisions are in peril, and he needs to act like a leader and not lie about some video or let his underlings (Hillary) take the blame to save him from having to do his job.
 
Wiseone said:
Three problems:

Groups can claim credit for things they haven't actually done.

It is possible for a militant group to launch a spontanteous attack.

It takes time to process information and collect the information that is important.

The White House and Obama in my opinion didn't wait long enough for all the information to come in before making a statement, however just because a militant groups claims they performed an attack doesn't neccesarily mean it was preplanned or was not in reaction to a video.
Click to expand...
One maybe two days is the limit of how long I can believe that he did not know that this was an attack. If he did not know that they were being attacked in time to send reinforcements than someone needs to be fired, not resign; FIRED! And after finding out the truth he should not have gone on for 2 weeks telling people (and the U.N.) what he knew to be untrue.
All he would have needed to say was;

“We have further information that shows that this was a deliberate attack on our people, we will find the men responsible and hold them to account for their actions!”

If he had done that he would have proven that he is the man that we need in office.
He decided that it would be better for him to keep spreading an untruth than to act as a responsible president would.

As for “It is possible for a militant group to launch a spontaneous attack”; they were attacked at around four in the afternoon, than they were attacked hours later at night. They had hours that could have been used to send in reinforcements.
This was not a protest that got out of control, this was a deliberate attack!
 
Obama lied, people died!

... sound familiar?
 
The White House has dissembled. What matters is why, and that's the puzzle for me.
 
Krhazy said:
This is the perfect example of starting at the conclusion and working backwards.

We don't know what other information the White House received. We are given one email that says a group claimed responsibility on facebook and twitter (b/c that's trustworthy intel), and somehow that is supposed to show that it was entirely obvious what happened two hours after the event and the Obama administration is completely incompetent. People should settle down and try not to act like complete hacks for at least two minutes after reading articles like this.

I also take issue with this quote:



The administration did not "maintain for days" that attacks were a protest against the film. If anything, officials hinted or suggested that it was the most likely explanation, while caveating that investigations were under way. When asked by reporters in press briefings, the State Department actually refused to link the attack to the video.

The press has not helped this issue at all. Their articles are just as convoluted and fumbled as the White House has been.
Click to expand...

The problem with this explanation is that if the White House was receiving contradictory intelligence then why did they go all out to sell only one theory about what was going on? Why didn't they admit that the situation wasn't clear?

Wait! I think I know. They, certain elements of the administration, wanted to sell a particular narrative for political reasons.
 
nota bene said:
The White House has dissembled. What matters is why, and that's the puzzle for me.
Click to expand...

I suspect it is because Obama has been trumpeting for months that "al Qaeda is on the run" (part of his stump speech), and his political handlers thought it too embarassing to admit that the cancer of al Qaeda has metastasized under his apologetic administration.
 
Ikari said:
Sure didn't. But we're also all still here, so he didn't quite kill us all either.
Click to expand...

So, then it's OK for Obama to do it because.....?
 
LowDown said:
So, then it's OK for Obama to do it because.....?
Click to expand...

Nope. It's just that we don't have to freak out and pretend that it's the end of the world. It's not like Romney is going to be different anyway.

Did you read the question I was responding to before you started quoting me? Go back, read, and figure out why you're barking up the wrong tree here.
 
comedy4all said:
One maybe two days is the limit of how long I can believe that he did not know that this was an attack. If he did not know that they were being attacked in time to send reinforcements than someone needs to be fired, not resign; FIRED! And after finding out the truth he should not have gone on for 2 weeks telling people (and the U.N.) what he knew to be untrue.
All he would have needed to say was;

“We have further information that shows that this was a deliberate attack on our people, we will find the men responsible and hold them to account for their actions!”

If he had done that he would have proven that he is the man that we need in office.
He decided that it would be better for him to keep spreading an untruth than to act as a responsible president would.

As for “It is possible for a militant group to launch a spontaneous attack”; they were attacked at around four in the afternoon, than they were attacked hours later at night. They had hours that could have been used to send in reinforcements.
This was not a protest that got out of control, this was a deliberate attack!
Click to expand...

I agree with what you're saying, it was a mistake for Obama to come out with the answers before all the information was in, but people do demand answers immediately and it wouldn't look good to many people to delay those answers. Many people have an unrealistic expectation for how fast these processes are, of course each one is unique in itself. For example you have a completely unrealistic understanding of how fast reinforcements can move around the world, a few hours is not enough time unless something is already in the nearby area and is already equipped for quick reaction and small team operations.
 
Wiseone said:
I agree with what you're saying, it was a mistake for Obama to come out with the answers before all the information was in, but people do demand answers immediately and it wouldn't look good to many people to delay those answers. Many people have an unrealistic expectation for how fast these processes are, of course each one is unique in itself. For example you have a completely unrealistic understanding of how fast reinforcements can move around the world, a few hours is not enough time unless something is already in the nearby area and is already equipped for quick reaction and small team operations.
Click to expand...
As I understand it we have ships in the reign. From those ships they can send helicopters with men or air support that would have made anyone that was expecting to attack a wall and a few armed me scared enough to stay away.
The situation was a breakdown of communication and action. Someone was responsible for situations like this (the military always has people planning for contingencies like this) that person ether did not act or did not get the information and orders to act.
That part may be beyond the control of the president. What I hold him accountable for is; his job is to make shore that he knows all the information about the situation, direct those under him to find out how this could happen in the first place, make sure that this does not happen again, and assure the American people of the facts and that all the things I mentioned are being done.
When things like this come out (that the situation room in the white house received communication from the place being attacked) after the president and all of his administration were going on about a video and a protest for 2 WEEKS, it makes it hard to believe that the president was not lying to the American people for political gain.
 
All politicians lie, all the time.

Party affiliation is irrelevant.
 
comedy4all said:
As I understand it we have ships in the reign. From those ships they can send helicopters with men or air support that would have made anyone that was expecting to attack a wall and a few armed me scared enough to stay away.
The situation was a breakdown of communication and action. Someone was responsible for situations like this (the military always has people planning for contingencies like this) that person ether did not act or did not get the information and orders to act.
That part may be beyond the control of the president. What I hold him accountable for is; his job is to make shore that he knows all the information about the situation, direct those under him to find out how this could happen in the first place, make sure that this does not happen again, and assure the American people of the facts and that all the things I mentioned are being done.
When things like this come out (that the situation room in the white house received communication from the place being attacked) after the president and all of his administration were going on about a video and a protest for 2 WEEKS, it makes it hard to believe that the president was not lying to the American people for political gain.
Click to expand...

Do you have a source that a ship was in the region, and had the assets you describe? Also I thought we were talking about sending help after the attack occurred? Now we are talking about sending people before it even happens?
 
Wiseone said:
Do you have a source that a ship was in the region, and had the assets you describe? Also I thought we were talking about sending help after the attack occurred? Now we are talking about sending people before it even happens?
Click to expand...
There were two attacks; one happened at around four in the afternoon the other happened later that night. The first one they breached the walls and had a fire fight. The communication from the consulate was speaking of this attack. Later that night they attacked again surrounding the building that the ambassador was in. he and others were in a “safe room” built to hold out until help could come. The attackers could not get to them so they set the whole building on fire. The ambassador died of smoke inhalation from the fire. A separate installation was also attacked a few blocks away. That is where the survivors fell back to. The other three died there from mortar attacks on the buildings.
 
People realize Obama called it an act of terror the next day, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom