Page 13 of 17 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 164

Thread: Republicans raising money off Benghazi effort

  1. #121
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Behind the Orange Curtain
    Last Seen
    01-30-15 @ 01:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    15,633

    Re: Republicans raising money off Benghazi effort

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Is it possible that the attack on Benghazi was BOTH an attack by Islamic extremists AND motivated by the video?
    No. There were prior attacks on the consulate before there was a video.

    That's one of the questions the Obama administration is having problems answering, why wasn't security beefed up after the first attacks ? Diverting funds from security for green electric cars and green recharging stations doesn't fly. But then again Obama has no problem paying $57 per gallon for GP-8 jet fuel.

  2. #122
    Sidewalk Inspector
    Utility Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,098

    Re: Republicans raising money off Benghazi effort

    Quote Originally Posted by MMC View Post
    That was Debunked......by the Fact Checkers. Which we did so in 3 other threads. Try again!
    Just pointing out that the Republican there says "Absolutely"(affirmative)when asked whether it was true that he voted to cut embassy security.

    Sorry, cant say much about the debunking you mention, just what I heard from the horses mouth there.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    There were, by most estimates, 500 Nazis in Charlottesville. One of them went homicidal. Not all Nazis are violent extremists. You are trying to rationalize your hatred and it's simply not rational.
    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    as I noted, its better that 10 nutjobs get guns than one good person be wrongly disarmed.

  3. #123
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: Republicans raising money off Benghazi effort

    Quote Originally Posted by APACHERAT View Post
    No. There were prior attacks on the consulate before there was a video.

    That's one of the questions the Obama administration is having problems answering, why wasn't security beefed up after the first attacks ? Diverting funds from security for green electric cars and green recharging stations doesn't fly. But then again Obama has no problem paying $57 per gallon for GP-8 jet fuel.
    Well that will fall on Hillary and her people.....especially Charlene Lamb. Remember how Team Obama was saying that Nordstrom had not told them about the Security on the ground Prior to the attack. That Lamb and Nuland stated that there were none others in the Loop?

    Well that's a lie by Team Obama.....evidenced.



    Do you think the Nay-sayers and those on the Left can dispute the source? Do you think team Obama can?

    Who's name is Blacked out? Yet we are allowed to see who the others this was sent to.

    BTW note how Norstrom points out they couldn't move for 10 day periods. Do you think that affects all operations? Yet Team Obama will have you believe they were doing all they could.....Right?
    Last edited by MMC; 05-12-13 at 05:09 AM.

  4. #124
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:43 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,460

    Re: Republicans raising money off Benghazi effort

    Quote Originally Posted by MMC View Post
    Hiya Moot. No.....there were prior attacks on the Consulate. They Attempted to assassinate the Brits Ambassador and the Italians. They Attacked the Red Cross Offices.

    There was No Protestors or demonstration in Benghazi.....that is the whole point. It was a Pre-Planned attack, Organized, and for Over a Month Team Obama denied it saying all was connected to the Video.....until finally admitting to it after others had already told the media it was an Attack.

    Course now we know they knew all along.
    Hi MMC

    Suppose the attack was the protest? Since none of the attackers have been arrested then how do they know they weren't motivated by the protests in Cairo to attack the compound and the CIA annex in Benghazi?

    Yes, there were previous attacks in Benghazi and each of those attacks were from different groups with different motivations. For instance, the attack on June 8, 2012 was carried out by individuals affiliated with Ansar Al-Sharia Libyain in protest of Tunisian artists against Islam. Other attacks were by other groups in retaliation for drone assassinations. The point is they were different groups with different motivations attacking different sites all over Benghazi.

    This webpage lists the attacks in 2012 in Bengazi and the groups and their motivations....
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Benghazi_attack

    The attack on 9/11 happened on the same day as the protest in Cairo and it was being broadcast all over the Middle East. Gregory Hicks was watching it on TV when Stevens called him to tell him that the compound was under attack. I find it very difficult to believe that the Islamic extremists and militant factions in Benghazi weren't watching it as well.

    The FBI isn't having much luck with it's investigation. The Libyan government is reluctant to help and witnesses on the street are reluctant to talk to the FBI for fear of retaliation. Imo, the Libyan president was a little too quick to come out and say it was a terrorist attack and had nothing to do with the Cairo protests against the video. Obviously it was an "act of terror" but how would he know who or what the motivation was?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/11/wo...tion.html?_r=0

    ADMIRAL MULLEN who co-authored the ARB report says there were gaps in intelligence and there wasn't any warning of the attack. That would suggest it could have been a spontaneous act of terror....

    "...We found that there was no immediate tactical warning of the September 11th attacks, but there was a knowledge gap in the intelligence community’s understanding of extremist militias in Libya and the potential threat they posed to U.S. interests, although some threats were known. In this context, increased violence and targeting of foreign diplomats and international organizations in Benghazi failed to come into clear relief against a backdrop of ineffective local governance, widespread political violence, and inter-militia fighting, as well as the growth of extremist camps and militias in eastern Libya...."
    Briefing on the Accountability Review Board Report

    The CIA doesn't seem to have any solid answers for motivation either. All they can surmise is that the attack was carried out by Islamic extremists and a few of the perps may have had sympathetic ties to Al Qaeda. In other words, they don't know who or what the actual motivation for the attack was.

    So whose to say it wasn't both...an act of terror in protest of the video AND carried out by terrorists?
    Last edited by Moot; 05-12-13 at 06:36 AM.

  5. #125
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,182

    Re: Republicans raising money off Benghazi effort

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Moderator's Warning:
    Republicans raising money off Benghazi effortCease the baiting.
    How was my response baiting? Are you serious??

    By that measure, every single thread this poster initiates is a violation because it twists the truth in order to bait responses.
    "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley Jr.

  6. #126
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: Republicans raising money off Benghazi effort

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Hi MMC

    Suppose the attack was the protest? Since none of the attackers have been arrested then how do they know they weren't motivated by the protests in Cairo to attack the compound and the CIA annex in Benghazi?

    Yes, there were previous attacks in Benghazi and each of those attacks were from different groups with different motivations. For instance, the attack on June 8, 2012 was carried out by individuals affiliated with Ansar Al-Sharia Libyain in protest of Tunisian artists against Islam. Other attacks were by other groups in retaliation for drone assassinations. The point is they were different groups with different motivations attacking different sites all over Benghazi.

    The attack on 9/11 happened on the same day as the protest in Cairo and it was being broadcast all over the Middle East. Gregory Hicks was watching it on TV when Stevens called him to tell him that the compound was under attack. I find it very difficult to believe that the Islamic extremists and militant factions in Benghazi weren't watching it as well.

    The FBI isn't having much luck with it's investigation. The Libyan government is reluctant to help and witnesses on the street are reluctant to talk to the FBI for fear of retaliation. Imo, the Libyan president was a little too quick to come out and say it was a terrorist attack and had nothing to do with the Cairo protests against the video. Obviously it was an "act of terror" but how would he know who or what the motivation was?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/11/wo...tion.html?_r=0

    ADMIRAL MULLEN who co-authored the ARB report says there were gaps in intelligence and there wasn't any warning of the attack. That would suggest it could have been a spontaneous act of terror....

    "...We found that there was no immediate tactical warning of the September 11th attacks, but there was a knowledge gap in the intelligence community’s understanding of extremist militias in Libya and the potential threat they posed to U.S. interests, although some threats were known. In this context, increased violence and targeting of foreign diplomats and international organizations in Benghazi failed to come into clear relief against a backdrop of ineffective local governance, widespread political violence, and inter-militia fighting, as well as the growth of extremist camps and militias in eastern Libya...."
    Briefing on the Accountability Review Board Report

    The CIA doesn't seem to have any solid answers for motivation either. All they can surmise is that the attack was carried out by Islamic extremists and a few of the perps may have had sympathetic ties to Al Qaeda. In other words, they don't know who or what the actual motivation for the attack was.

    So whose to say it wasn't both...an act of terror in protest of the video AND carried out by terrorists?
    Because, we have Petraeus saying that he knew it was an Planned attack all along. That the CIA knew it was a Planned by Terrorists in the first place.

    Also those that attacked the Consulate the first two times are the same ones that went after the Brit's Ambassador in Libya.....as well as attacked the Red Cross Offices. Here is another clue.....the second time when they attacked the Consulate they blew a hole thru the Iron gates that use to be close off the entrance to the Embassy. They also left a Note on paper saying they would be back.

    BBC News - David Petraeus: Benghazi attack 'was terror strike'

    Gen Petraeus told the committee the CIA was aware the attack was planned by terrorists from an early stage, New York Congressman Peter King said after the first session.

    Gen Petraeus told the lawmakers that references to terror groups were removed from the final version of the administration's "talking points" on Benghazi, although he was not sure which federal agency deleted it.....snip~

    Alright Moot.....here is what I got. Now here is an interesting point, they blew a hole in the Iron gates. We in return took the Iron Gates Down. Do you think there is an actual excuse by Hillary and her team, for not putting up a new set of iron gates? Just to at least be able to close off the Entrance.

    Also Hicks and Nordstrom confirm that there was no protest or demonstration out in front of the Consulate. Now while the attack took place......that is not to say that some in Libya may have decided to join in.

    Also we know Stevens was out on the street an Hour before the attack with the Turks Envoy.
    We also were warned by the Libyans 3 days ahead of time that they thought Benghazi was to dangerous to conduct any kind of business.

  7. #127
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: Republicans raising money off Benghazi effort

    Quote Originally Posted by Utility Man View Post
    Just pointing out that the Republican there says "Absolutely"(affirmative)when asked whether it was true that he voted to cut embassy security.

    Sorry, cant say much about the debunking you mention, just what I heard from the horses mouth there.

    Well, you were in the other thread and bringing up this very subject about Embassy Funding. Wherein the Links from Fact Check.Org, Politi-Fact and the UK Daily Mail were put up and shown that they debunked that issue.

    Also he told the truth as Any on the Appropriations Bill that came out of the House had voted to Cut Embassy Security. Which did you think that let the Democrats off the Hook? Considering they Voted to Cut the Embassy Security as well. Also did you want to Count what the Fact Checkers said about Obama having partial Blame due to his Budget and due to the very fact.....that he Signed the Bill that was Cutting Embassy Security. Do you think he read the Bill before he signed it or just did the Photo OP for signing?

    CNN.....
    The facts:

    According to Democratic House Oversight Committee staff, the amount that the GOP-led House passed for two accounts that pay for embassy security in fiscal 2012 ($2.311 billion) was $330 million less than the Obama administration had requested ($2.641 billion).

    A GOP House Appropriations Committee aide confirmed the House bill had less in these accounts than what the administration requested.

    However, the final bill, after being worked on by the Democratic-led Senate, put in more money than what had passed in the House. The final bill, which passed with bipartisan support, gave a total of $2.37 billion to these accounts for fiscal 2012 -- about $270 million less than what the administration had requested.

    Conclusion: The GOP-led House did initially approve about $330 million less than what the administration requested, but in the final bill, passed with bipartisan support after adjustments by the Senate, put the amount a little closer to the administration's target.....snip~

    http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/12/politi...hazi-security/

    Fact Check.Org......
    Veep Debate Violations

    Biden exaggerated when he said House Republicans cut funding for embassy security by $300 million. The amount approved for fiscal year 2012 was $264 million less than requested, and covers construction and maintenance, not just security.

    Biden’s Libya Claims

    Biden claimed that Ryan “cut embassy security in his budget $300 million below what we asked for.” That’s an exaggeration. The fiscal year 2012 funding was $264 million less than the administration had requested, and the funding isn’t only for security. It covers construction and maintenance as well.

    Biden: Number one, the — this lecture on embassy security — the congressman here cut embassy security in his budget by $300 million below what we asked for, number one.

    The Obama administration requested $1.801 billion for embassy security, construction and maintenance for the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, according to The Hill newspaper. And House Republicans came back with a proposal to cut spending to $1.425 billion. Ultimately, the Republican-controlled House agreed to increase funding to $1.537 billion after negotiations with the Senate.

    Biden also claimed that the administration wasn’t aware of security concerns among U.S. officials in Libya before the attack on the consulate in Benghazi that killed four Americans. The vice president said: “[W]e weren’t told they wanted more security there. We did not know they wanted more security again.”

    We can’t say whether requests for more security — which were denied — reached the top. But American officials who worked in Libya over the summer placed the blame on a deputy assistant secretary of state — not top administration officials — when testifying before Congress this week.

    Eric Nordstrom, the top regional security officer in Libya over the summer, said: “All of us at post were in sync that we wanted these resources.”

    Andrew Wood, a Utah National Guardsman who was leading a security team, testified: ”We felt great frustration that those requests were ignored or just never met.”

    They placed the blame squarely on Charlene Lamb, deputy assistant secretary of state for international programs, according to Foreign Policy magazine.....snip~

    http://factcheck.org/2012/10/veep-debate-violations/

    Well, there it is in Black and White and up in the 4th thread about the Embassy Security Argument. Like I said.....Try again!

    Oh BTW.....How did you like that Part with Biden On National Television Stating that "WE".....meaning Team Obama. Were not aware they wanted ANY security for Benghazi?

    Do you mean to tell me that Biden isn't saying that they did not know?
    Last edited by MMC; 05-12-13 at 07:19 AM.

  8. #128
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: Republicans raising money off Benghazi effort

    Btw here is Politifact on that funding too......

    When we checked with the Obama campaign, a spokeswoman said that the claim of a $300 million cut can be supported in either of two ways.

    One -- which was noted by several fact-checkers in the aftermath of the debate -- is that Ryan, as the chairman of the House Budget Committee, put forward such severe cuts in his budget proposal that, running the numbers, embassy security funding would suffer a cut of $300 million.

    The second was was to compare the relevant budget lines in the president’s proposed fiscal year 2012 budget to the amount passed by the House of Representatives last year.

    We’ll look at both of these justifications, but first, let’s outline what Obama proposed for fiscal year 2012 (figures are rounded):

    Worldwide Security Protection (ongoing operations): $1.45 billion
    Worldwide Security Protection (overseas contingency operations): $247 million
    Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance -- Worldwide Security Upgrades: $938 million

    Total: $2.64 billion

    Cuts from Ryan’s proposed budget

    The Obama administration’s Office of Management and Budget has run the numbers in the Ryan budget and argues that it will cut non-defense discretionary spending as a whole by 19 percent between 2013 and 2014. A 19 percent cut to a $2.64 billion line item works out to just over $500 million -- even more than the number Biden cited.

    Leaving aside whether this percentage is accurate, using it in this context is problematic. First, it’s not an immediate cut -- according to OMB, the 19 percent cut would happen in the second year of Ryan’s budget, with the first year representing a 5 percent cut.

    More importantly, as the Romney-Ryan campaign noted in an interview -- and as we have written in the past -- all of this is a speculative proposition. Ryan’s budget did not reduce federal expenditures across the board, and assuming that every item under Ryan’s budget would be cut equally isn’t the most accurate way to look at it. (That said, the lack of detail in Ryan’s plan has left the Romney-Ryan ticket open to such attacks.)

    Cuts in spending already passed by Congress

    Using the second justification -- comparing Obama’s request to what the GOP-controlled House voted to spend for fiscal year 2012 -- has the advantage of not being speculative. Here’s the amount passed by the House for fiscal 2012 (figures also rounded):

    Worldwide Security Protection (ongoing operations): $1.31 billion
    Worldwide Security Protection (overseas contigency operations): $247 million
    Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance -- Worldwide Security Upgrades: $755 million

    Total: $2.31 billion

    Ultimately, a final bill with slightly higher amounts than the House’s initial bill -- about $60 million more -- was passed by both chambers and signed by the president.

    But this approach has problems as well. For starters, Biden glosses over the fact that the president did ultimately sign the bill with the new lower funding amount, meaning he shares some responsibility for the lower level. (All presidential budget requests are opening offers that inevitably become subject to negotiation.)

    The main problem with Biden’s claim, however, is that it’s not really what he was referring to in his claim from the debate. Biden said Ryan "cut embassy security in his budget by $300 million below what we asked for," but what passed the House wasn’t Ryan’s budget blueprint -- it was an actual spending bill that emerged from the House Appropriations Committee......snip~

    PolitiFact | Joe Biden says Paul Ryan cut embassy security by $300 million

    "Oh Yeah".....Next!
    Last edited by MMC; 05-12-13 at 07:37 AM.

  9. #129
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:43 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,460

    Re: Republicans raising money off Benghazi effort

    Quote Originally Posted by MMC View Post
    Because, we have Petraeus saying that he knew it was an Planned attack all along. That the CIA knew it was a Planned by Terrorists in the first place.
    No, what you have is Patraeus giving conflicting stories.....during his first testimony he said the attack grew out of spontaneous protests over an anti-Islamic film. Just like Rice said.

    From your link....

    "...Gen Petraeus told the committee the CIA was aware the attack was planned by terrorists from an early stage, New York Congressman Peter King said after the first session.

    But Mr King said the general's evidence on Friday conflicted with what he said at a hearing on 14 September.

    Mr King said he had a "very different recollection" of the earlier hearing, at which lawmakers had been told the attack grew out of spontaneous protests over an anti-Islamic film....."

    BBC News - David Petraeus: Benghazi attack 'was terror strike'



    Also those that attacked the Consulate the first two times are the same ones that went after the Brit's Ambassador in Libya.....as well as attacked the Red Cross Offices. Here is another clue.....the second time when they attacked the Consulate they blew a hole thru the Iron gates that use to be close off the entrance to the Embassy. They also left a Note on paper saying they would be back.

    BBC News - David Petraeus: Benghazi attack 'was terror strike'
    I'm more interested in the terrorists motive for the attack than iron gates and holes. More specifically what was the extremist militants motive for the attack on the Special Mission Compound and the CIA annex? Do you know? If you do, then you know more than the FBI or the CIA.


    Gen Petraeus told the committee the CIA was aware the attack was planned by terrorists from an early stage, New York Congressman Peter King said after the first session.

    Gen Petraeus told the lawmakers that references to terror groups were removed from the final version of the administration's "talking points" on Benghazi, although he was not sure which federal agency deleted it.....snip~
    See above.


    Alright Moot.....here is what I got. Now here is an interesting point, they blew a hole in the Iron gates. We in return took the Iron Gates Down. Do you think there is an actual excuse by Hillary and her team, for not putting up a new set of iron gates? Just to at least be able to close off the Entrance.
    I think the security of the embassies was and is the responsibility of the security team and not the diplomats or the bureaucrats in DC. The Secretary of State's job is to meet with foreign dignitaries and carry out the administrations foreign policy through diplomacy. It is not their job to micro-manage security details at 237 embassies all over the world or how thick walls should be or whether or not a gate was installed. There are professionals trained in security that hired to do that job.


    Also Hicks and Nordstrom confirm that there was no protest or demonstration out in front of the Consulate. Now while the attack took place......that is not to say that some in Libya may have decided to join in.
    I never said or suggested there were protests or demonstrations out front of the compound. Didn't you understand a word I said?

    It is my understanding that it was not a consulate or an embassy...instead it was a temporary outpost called a Special Mission Compound and thats why it didn't meet the security specifications for a permanent embassy location and why it was more vulnerable to attacks than a regular embassy.


    Also we know Stevens was out on the street an Hour before the attack with the Turks Envoy.
    We also were warned by the Libyans 3 days ahead of time that they thought Benghazi was to dangerous to conduct any kind of business.
    Stevens arrived the day before the attack and yes, it was dangerous in Benghazi and so thats why he didn't leave the compound. The day after he arrived he held several meetings inside the compound and then went outside to a restaurant for dinner with other foreign officials including some Libyans. His security may have been compromised at the restaurant. Then he came back and went to bed one hour before the attack. You really should read the ARB report or at least the link I provided.
    Last edited by Moot; 05-12-13 at 07:54 AM.

  10. #130
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: Republicans raising money off Benghazi effort

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    No, what you have is Patraeus giving conflicting stories.....during his first testimony he said the attack grew out of spontaneous protests over an anti-Islamic film. Just like Rice said.

    I'm more interested in the terrorists motive for the attack than iron gates and holes. More specifically what was the extremist militants motive for the attack on the Special Mission Compound and the CIA annex? Do you know? If you do, then you know more than the FBI or the CIA.
    Looks like I know What both the FBI and CIA know already and did know.....huh? Lets take a look at what you are being told.



    After initially saying the attack may have been spontaneous, US authorities now say it was a pre-planned strike. Libyan authorities have said militants probably used an anti-US protest as cover for the attack, and may have had help from inside the country's security services.

    Here is the timeline of events that US officials believe led to the death of US ambassador Christopher Stevens, his state department colleague Sean Smith and former Navy Seals Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.

    10pm: Attackers open fire at the consulate, which has a main building and a smaller annex.

    10.15pm: The assailants gain entry to the complex and the main building is engulfed in flames.

    Many of those trapped inside escape but Ambassador Stevens, Sean Smith and a regional security guard remain.

    The security guard manages to escape and returns shortly afterwards with others to try to rescue Mr Stevens and Mr Smith.

    They find Mr Smith dead and pull him from the building, but no sign of Mr Stevens. They are driven from the building by thick black smoke, fire and gunfire.

    10.45pm: Security staff try to retake the main building but come under heavy fire and retreat.

    11.20pm: A second attempt to retake the main building is successful. Fighting moves to the annexe.

    Midnight: Fighting at the annexe - reported to last about two hours - results in the deaths of two more Americans, later named by US authorities as former Navy Seals whose job was to protect the other staff.

    1.15am: Mr Stevens arrives at a nearby hospital - it is not known who took him. A doctor there has told the BBC that he spent an hour trying to revive him, but that Mr Stevens died from smoke inhalation.

    2.30am: Security forces regain control of the annexe.....snip~

    BBC UK Timeline Benghazi timeline - Bing

    Do you think the Libyans Government that really does not hold sway over Benghazi.....would know about the Attackers being part of the Security Forces to protect our people? Do you think in telling us what their Intel on it was that they would also address that fact?

    Do you think they those telling our people 3 days ahead of time that it was to dangerous to conduct business? So lets see.....we have Petraeus and because King said from the First time Petraues testifies he didn't come away with the thought of Petraues clearly defining it was an attack over protests. Then we have the Libyans - Telling us that the Attackers are part of the Security force. That AQ is involved and that it is a planned attack?

    Sept. 12: Libya’s deputy ambassador to London, Ahmad Jibril, tells the BBC that Ansar al-Sharia was behind the attack. The little-known militant group issues a statement that says it “didn’t participate as a sole entity,” neither confirming nor denying the report.

    Sept. 12: Citing unnamed “U.S. government officials,” Reuters reports that “the Benghazi attack may have been planned in advance” and that members of Ansar al-Sharia “may have been involved.” Reuters quotes one of the U.S. officials as saying: “It bears the hallmarks of an organized attack.”

    Sept. 13: Clinton meets with Ali Suleiman Aujali — the Libyan ambassador to the U.S. — at a State Department event to mark the end of Ramadan. Ambassador Aujali apologizes to Clinton for what he called “this terrorist attack which took place against the American consulate in Libya.” Clinton, in her remarks, does not refer to it as a terrorist attack. She condemns the anti-Muslim video, but adds that there is “never any justification for violent acts of this kind.”

    Sept. 13: CNN reports that unnamed “State Department officials” say the incident in Benghazi was a “clearly planned military-type attack” unrelated to the anti-Muslim movie.

    Sept. 14: White House Says No Evidence of Planned Attack
    Sept. 14: At a White House press briefing, Press Secretary Carney denies reports that it was a preplanned attack. “I have seen that report, and the story is absolutely wrong. We were not aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent. That report is false.” Later in that same briefing, Carney is told that Pentagon officials informed members of Congress at a closed-door meeting that the Benghazi attack was a planned terrorist attack. Carney said the matter is being investigated but White House officials “don’t have and did not have concrete evidence to suggest that this was not in reaction to the film.”

    Question: Jay, one last question — while we were sitting here — [Defense] Secretary [Leon] Panetta and the Vice Chair of the Joint Chiefs briefed the Senate Armed Services Committee. And the senators came out and said their indication was that this, or the attack on Benghazi was a terrorist attack organized and carried out by terrorists, that it was premeditated, a calculated act of terror. Levin said — Senator Levin — I think it was a planned, premeditated attack. The kind of equipment that they had used was evidence it was a planned, premeditated attack. Is there anything more you can — now that the administration is briefing senators on this, is there anything more you can tell us?

    Carney: Well, I think we wait to hear from administration officials. Again, it’s actively under investigation, both the Benghazi attack and incidents elsewhere. And my point was that we don’t have and did not have concrete evidence to suggest that this was not in reaction to the film. But we’re obviously investigating the matter, and I’ll certainly — I’m sure both the Department of Defense and the White House and other places will have more to say about that as more information becomes available.

    Sept. 16: Libya President Mohamed Magariaf says on CBS News’ “Face the Nation” that the attack on the U.S. consulate was planned months in advance. But Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, tells CBS News’ Bob Schieffer: “We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.” She says it began “spontaneously … as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo,” and “extremist elements” joined in the protest. (It was later learned that Rice received her information from the CIA.).

    Sept. 19: Olsen Calls It a ‘Terrorist Attack’

    Sept. 19: Matt Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, tells a Senate subcommittee (at 1:06:49 in the video) that the four State Department officials in Benghazi “were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy.” It is the first time an administration official labeled it a “terrorist attack.” But he also tells the senators that he has no “specific evidence of significant advanced planning.”

    Olsen: Yes, they were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy. … The best information we have now, the facts that we have now, indicate that this was an opportunist attack on our embassy. The attack began and evolved and escalated over several hours. … [I]t appears that individuals who were certainly well armed seized on the opportunity presented as the events unfolded. … What we don’t have, at this point, is specific intelligence that there was a significant advanced planning or coordination for this attack.

    Sept. 19: At a State Department briefing, the department spokeswoman is asked if she now believes that the attack was a “terrorist attack”? She says, “Well, I didn’t get a chance to see the whole testimony that was given by Matt Olsen of the NCTC, but obviously we stand by comments made by our intelligence community who has first responsibility for evaluating the intelligence and what they believe that we are seeing.”.....snip~

    Magariaf: It was planned — definitely, it was planned by foreigners, by people who — who entered the country a few months ago, and they were planning this criminal act since their — since their arrival. …

    Sept. 16: Magariaf says in an interview with NPR: “The idea that this criminal and cowardly act was a spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous. We firmly believe that this was a precalculated, preplanned attack that was carried out specifically to attack the U.S. consulate.”.....snip~

    Benghazi Timeline

    Seems even Yahoo and their time line has it down too. I think you should kind of read the whole time-line. See on the 19th Olsen also Admits they know. Different Dept than the CIA.

    DO you think it is okay to believe the Libyans for one thing and then dismiss them On what went down for another? Oh and as to your statement on Diplomats and what they handle. What do the diplomats do when their Security people bring the problem directly to them. Like I showed with the Doc from the US Gov. Overcite Committee?

    Oh and notice how Nuland said then it was okay to stand with what our Intelligence says. But now People want to question it.....huh?
    Last edited by MMC; 05-12-13 at 08:20 AM.

Page 13 of 17 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •