- Joined
- Feb 26, 2012
- Messages
- 56,981
- Reaction score
- 27,029
- Location
- Chicago Illinois
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Private
I think there is on aspect to this I can agree with. President Obama is super concerned over not "offending" Muslims. I do not think that same level of walking on egg shells applies to any other group. It might be due to feeling he needs to stay in perpetual damage control due to the military conflicts we're in. It might be due to understanding that unlike most other groups, there is a general feeling that America is at war with Islam that he's working to prove wrong. It might be due to having an upbringing where he was exposed to Islamic culture and sees them as misunderstood nice guys. It might be due to realizing if you offend Muslims often violent reactions occur. I do think he really did initially believed the youtube video triggered the Benghazi attack possibly intentionally exploited by extremists in Libya to instigate a mob attack only to learn afterwards he was wrong. I also think he handled the updated information dissemination sloppily possibly due to new details unfolding by the minute and people wanting answers now coupled with being in the closing weeks of his reelection campaign.
Free FYI. In case anyone finds this factoid interesting, the youtube video was not produced by an American back-woods type like Pastor Terry Jones of Gainesville, Fl. It was produced by an Egyptian who only relocated to the states.
Heya Sméagol. :2wave: Obama knew that it was a Pre planned attack by AQ after Hillary told him. Which Hillary testified that she talked to him One time. Yet on Sept 14th Obama gives a Speech over the Bodies of Stevens and the others and states this was an act of terror. Meaning this was random and not a Pre-planned terrorist attack.....evidenced.
There were no protesters at the Benghazi consulate prior to the attack, even though Obama and others repeatedly said the attackers joined an angry mob that had formed in opposition to the anti-Muslim film that had triggered protests in Egypt and elsewhere. The State Department disclosed this fact Oct. 9 — nearly a month after the attack.
Libya President Mohamed Magariaf insisted on Sept. 16 — five days after the attack — that it was a planned terrorist attack, but administration officials continued for days later to say there was no evidence of a planned attack.
Magariaf also said the idea that the attack was a “spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous.” This, too, was on Sept. 16. Yet, Obama and others continued to describe the incident in exactly those terms — including during the president’s Sept. 18 appearance on the “Late Show With David Letterman.”
Matt Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, was the first administration official to call it “a terrorist attack” during a Sept. 19 congressional hearing. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did the same on Sept. 20. Even so, Obama declined opportunities to call it a terrorist attack when asked at a town hall meeting on Sept. 20 and during a taping of “The View” on Sept. 24.
Sept.12: Obama Labels Attack ‘Act of Terror,’ Not ‘Terrorism’.
Sept. 14: White House Says No Evidence of Planned Attack
Clinton spoke at Andrews Air Force Base at a ceremony to receive the remains of those killed in Benghazi. She remarked that she received a letter from the president of the Palestinian Authority praising Stevens and “deploring — and I quote — ‘an act of ugly terror.’ ” She, however, did not call it an act of terror or a terrorist attack and neither did the president.
Sept. 14: At a State Department press briefing, spokeswoman Nuland says the department will no longer answer any questions about the Benghazi attack. “It is now something that you need to talk to the FBI about, not to us about, because it’s their investigation.”
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.”
Sept. 18: Obama Says ‘Extremists’ Used Video As ‘Excuse’
Sept. 20: W.H. Spokesman Calls It a ‘Terrorist Attack’ — Not Obama
Sept. 20: Carney calls it a “terrorist attack” after being asked how the White House now classifies the attack. But he says the White House has no evidence that it was “a significantly preplanned attack” and blames the video for igniting the incident in Benghazi.
Sept. 24-25: Obama Refuses to Call It a Terrorist Attack
Oct. 9: ’Everything Calm’ Prior to Benghazi Attack, No Protests
Oct. 10: Administration Says It Gave Public ‘Best Information’
Oct. 15: Clinton Blames ‘Fog of War’
Oct. 24: White House, State Department Emails on Ansar al-Sharia
Reuters reports the White House, Pentagon and other government agencies learned just two hours into the Benghazi attack that Ansar al-Sharia, an Islamic militant group, had “claimed credit” for it. The wire service report was based on three emails from the State Department’s Operations Center. One of the emails said, “Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripol.” The article also noted, “Intelligence experts caution that initial reports from the scene of any attack or disaster are often inaccurate.” (It should be noted that Reuters first reported on Sept. 12 that unnamed U.S. officials believed that Ansar al-Sharia may have been involved.).....snip~
FactCheck.org : Benghazi Timeline
Fact Check. Org.....Politi-Fact.....and the UK Daily Mail Time-Lines are all the Same.