Huckabee: Benghazi will drive Obama from office

Smeagol said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

MMC said:

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.

Click to expand...

Are you saying "act of terror" and "terrorist attack" are two different things where one is meticulously planned and the other is spontaneous and random?

Smeagol said:

Are you saying "act of terror" and "terrorist attack" are two different things where one is meticulously planned and the other is spontaneous and random?

Click to expand...

Yep.....you can check the DOD Classification or even DHS. An act of Terrorism is a Pre-planned and premeditated attack. Why would you think that Politi-Fact, Fact Check and others Fact Checkers are ALL pointing out the difference? Do you see the connection that they state when they show Obama saying it wasn't a Planned attack, while putting this statement with what he said?

About 80% here seem to be rational and sane....
This poll we need,IMO ...
"are there any honest men in America ?" ,, or who below is the most honest ?
Limbaugh
Beck
Hanratty(?)
Obama
Huckabee
as examples...

bubbabgone said:

... aaaaaand the little duckies continue to fall in line on Benghazi too

Click to expand...

Good morning, bubba. :2wave:

Another excellent post, but you have conditioned us to expect same! Thanks for your hard work! Kudos :2bow:

So has Obama been driven out of office yet?

:coffeepap

MMC said:

No it wasn't a hacked a Email.....it was a Copy of a Diplomatic Cable to the Libyan President. Now what will your Assuming Be?

Click to expand...

My assumption is that you've mixed up the timeline.

The CIA sent a cable of 9/12 saying that eyewitnesses described it as an attack by militants. It took until 9/15 for the CIA to put out a memo, which referenced both protests and extremists.

I realize this part is hard to accept. It's been 8 months. Now even Obama's Own Team has set him out. All that he and his team stated at the beginning. Has been proven to be a.....LIE!

Click to expand...

What are you, new?

Of all the things Presidential administrations have kept obscure or lied about in the past 20, 30, 50 years, this is the one that you find truly beyond the pale? Seriously?

Uhm your Right.....the US didn't declare War on Libya. We were put there with an EO. Which that falls on Obama and his team. Since they never had an End game for Libya in the First Place. But I am glad that you Finally realized this and can no longer Deny such.

Click to expand...

Well, that's a scrambled mess. And, unsurprisingly, you completely missed my point.

The level of US military involvement in overthrowing Qaddafi was quite small, and the US had no responsibility for an "end game." The alleged trigger was taking out a militant in Pakistan, not the minimal US role in the Libyan revolution. The US would have had diplomatic missions in Libya regardless of any level of US involvement. And pretty much anything flying a US flag is a potential target.

The US did not invade Libya (in fall 2012) because of Benghazi. The US was not going to invade Libya over Benghazi. The foreign policy consequences based on Rice or Clinton or anyone else saying the wrong things were negligible. At worst the administration stonewalled Congress over some details. Big deal.

Ultimately this barely about transparency, it's barely about separation of powers. It's mostly about Republicans finding any possible reason, yet again, to bash Obama.

MMC said:

Yep.....you can check the DOD Classification or even DHS. An act of Terrorism is a Pre-planned and premeditated attack. Why would you think that Politi-Fact, Fact Check and others Fact Checkers are ALL pointing out the difference? Do you see the connection that they state when they show Obama saying it wasn't a Planned attack, while putting this statement with what he said?

Click to expand...

Interesting. I honestly thought "act of terror" and "terrorist attack" were different ways of essentially saying the same thing. 9/11 was certainly planned but out of curiosity I googled "9/11 terrorist attacks" and according to google there are 10,700,000 pages online with those words in that exact sequence so apparently I'm not the only one. Nevertheless, despite a possible technical distinction (again, one I'd never heard of until now), I wonder if others in the administration also were interchanging the pharases making at least some of this controversy splitting hairs over semantics.

I also wonder if initial intelligence could have honestly thought there were in fact "extremists" planning and leading the attack but used the youtube video to instigate masses to join them; not an either or but a hybrid of both a planned assault but recruited a mob to join in using the youtube video to incite. I'm not saying that's what happened myself, but could the early intelligence that was later clarified given them that impression?

As a side, one interesting dynamic about Middle Eastern culture is many tend to be in awe of western technology especially from lesser developed regions. Because they have such a big impression of The Internet for example, merely by being on the Internet creates an impression in their minds that information and messages posted online carry an official and/or pervasive characteristic.

Visbek said:

My assumption is that you've mixed up the timeline.

The CIA sent a cable of 9/12 saying that eyewitnesses described it as an attack by militants. It took until 9/15 for the CIA to put out a memo, which referenced both protests and extremists.



What are you, new?

Of all the things Presidential administrations have kept obscure or lied about in the past 20, 30, 50 years, this is the one that you find truly beyond the pale? Seriously?



Well, that's a scrambled mess. And, unsurprisingly, you completely missed my point.

The level of US military involvement in overthrowing Qaddafi was quite small, and the US had no responsibility for an "end game." The alleged trigger was taking out a militant in Pakistan, not the minimal US role in the Libyan revolution. The US would have had diplomatic missions in Libya regardless of any level of US involvement. And pretty much anything flying a US flag is a potential target.

The US did not invade Libya (in fall 2012) because of Benghazi. The US was not going to invade Libya over Benghazi. The foreign policy consequences based on Rice or Clinton or anyone else saying the wrong things were negligible. At worst the administration stonewalled Congress over some details. Big deal.

Ultimately this barely about transparency, it's barely about separation of powers. It's mostly about Republicans finding any possible reason, yet again, to bash Obama.

Click to expand...

Looks like your assumption wasn't so accurate. The US and the West took out Gadhafi.....they had no End game. Plain and Simple. Moreover Fact checkers already understand that Obama Stated it wasn't a planned attack. But now we know it was and it was told to Clinton and That they even knew AQ was involved. As that is what the Libyan President reported and now the FBI validates. It's called accountability.

Sept.12: Obama Labels Attack ‘Act of Terror,’ Not ‘Terrorism’

Sept. 14: White House Says No Evidence of Planned Attack

Oct. 24: White House, State Department Emails on Ansar al-Sharia

Oct. 24: 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.)

FactCheck.org : Benghazi Timeline

Flashing red in Benghazi

For months, questions have piled up about how and why U.S. officials failed to protect a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans in a U.S. consulate in Benghazi last Sept. 11. We know the system was flashing red. We know there were warnings from security officers on the ground in that dangerous Libyan city and pleas for more security.

Now a blunt Senate committee report provides vital answers about why Washington failed to respond effectively.

The search for these answers is about much more than doling out bureaucratic blame or seeking political advantage. Knowing what went wrong is crucial if Washington is to protect U.S. diplomats around the globe, many of whom serve in hostile locales. The mistakes in Benghazi must never be repeated.

The report from the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs found that the State Department had "a clear and vivid picture of a rapidly deteriorating threat environment" in Benghazi, which should have jolted Washington to action.

Instead of closing the diplomatic post and relocating personnel to Tripoli, however, State Department officials batted away requests for more security and gambled that local guards and a skeleton crew of American security personnel would be enough to repel attacks. Officials compounded error with error: They didn't fortify the compound to repel attacks because the facility was considered temporary, Senate investigators found.

The report concluded that U.S. government officials may have been lulled into complacency because they focused almost exclusively on al-Qaida and had no "specific intelligence of an imminent attack" on the Benghazi consulate. That intelligence — that there was no elaborately planned attack — may have been correct. But U.S. officials apparently failed to account for a spontaneous and "opportunistic" assault by scores of terrorists with loose or ambiguous operational ties to al-Qaida.

In other words, by focusing single-mindedly on al-Qaida, American officials missed the larger terror threat that includes scores of nascent violent Islamist extremist groups shifting "focus from local grievances to foreign attacks against U.S. and other Western facilities overseas," investigators said.

That's a huge oversight. The U.S. needs to calibrate the threat to diplomats not only on what's known of the terrorists' plots and intentions to attack, but on their capabilities even in the absence of specific threats.

The report's devastating conclusion: "Despite the inability of the Libyan government to fulfill its duties to secure the facility, the increasingly dangerous threat assessments, and a particularly vulnerable facility, the Department of State officials did not conclude the facility in Benghazi should be closed or temporarily shut down. That was a grievous mistake.".....snip~

flashing red in benghazi - Chicago Tribune

Right.....its only about Republicans looking to bash Obama for whatever. :roll:

Smeagol said:

I'm of this opinion that if anyone tries to use the dead body of our ambassador for political gain, it will trigger outrage toward and backfire on the side that does it. I guess we'll see in 2016. The stuff that the right thinks should fire people up has proven to backfire on us consistently. This even if the ultimate GOP candidate distances himself and denounces it. People took what republicans said that offended people out on Mitt Romney on election day. With all due respect, even your post ends with :lamo and could sound like you're celebrating the murder of an American by Al Qaeda because it helps the GOP (or hurts the Democrats). That kind of stuff might excite people who have already made up their minds on with deep emotion on who they want to see elected, or don't want to see elected but IMHO will drive a lot of people away.

Click to expand...

Looks like Obama and Clinton already used the dead bodies of 3 people for political gain. It appears to be backfiring.

MMC said:

Yep.....you can check the DOD Classification or even DHS. An act of Terrorism is a Pre-planned and premeditated attack. Why would you think that Politi-Fact, Fact Check and others Fact Checkers are ALL pointing out the difference? Do you see the connection that they state when they show Obama saying it wasn't a Planned attack, while putting this statement with what he said?

Click to expand...

What do you call an attack that wasn't pre-planned like the attack on 9/11 was, but with a few Tweets brought a few Al Qaeda members to gather at one site to attack it? What would you call that?

American said:

Looks like Obama and Clinton already used the dead bodies of 3 people for political gain. It appears to be backfiring.

Click to expand...

Actually, it looks like conservatives are politicizing the dead bodies. After all, they're the ones conducting the witch hunt...and you're right it will backfire...just like it did in 1996.

Moot said:

Actually, it looks like conservatives are politicizing the dead bodies. After all, they're the ones conducting the witch hunt...and you're right it will backfire...just like it did in 1996.

Click to expand...

Yes, they are. They want to knock down Hillary a notch or two.

rocket88 said:

Do you ever have anything to add other than non sequitur memes?

What should be done? A mistake was made. Should Presidents be prosecuted for every decision you disagree with?

Click to expand...

polgara said:

Good morning, bubba. :2wave:

Another excellent post, but you have conditioned us to expect same! Thanks for your hard work! Kudos :2bow:

Click to expand...

Some folks don't understand 'em, Pol. What do you do with skulls full of mush like that?
(personally ... I think they're just making believe because to them appearing slow-witted is probably more appealing than abandoning the Obama battlements)

Moot said:

What do you call an attack that wasn't pre-planned like the attack on 9/11 was

Click to expand...

, but with a few Tweets brought a few Al Qaeda members to gather at one site to attack it? What would you call that?

Click to expand...

But this WAS an attack on 9/11

Moot said:

What do you call an attack that wasn't pre-planned like the attack on 9/11 was, but with a few Tweets brought a few Al Qaeda members to gather at one site to attack it? What would you call that?

Click to expand...

Uhm.....I think they proved the attack on 911 was pre-planned. Remember?

Do you think the several people denying it here in Benghazi that it wasn't pre-planned were wrong all along?

pbrauer said:

Yes, they are. They want to knock down Hillary a notch or two.

Click to expand...

I think Panetta and General Dempsey already knocked down Hillary a peg or two, then Hicks just Knocked her down the a couple more.....anything else is just icing on the Cake.

Do you think Hillary can explain away Not talking to Panetta and General Dempsey? How about the fact that the Only time she talked to anyone in Libya, was when she talked to Hicks. Which one would have thought if Hillary really cared for her people. She would have contacted them back sometime from 2 am until 8am the next morning. How come Hillary never called back? She was concerned Right?

Smeagol said:

Interesting.

I honestly thought "act of terror" and "terrorist attack" were different ways of essentially saying the same thing.

Click to expand...

9/11 was certainly planned but out of curiosity I googled "9/11 terrorist attacks" and according to google there are 10,700,000 pages online with those words in that exact sequence so apparently I'm not the only one. Nevertheless, despite a possible technical distinction (again, one I'd never heard of until now), I wonder if others in the administration also were interchanging the pharases making at least some of this controversy splitting hairs over semantics.

I also wonder if initial intelligence could have honestly thought there were in fact "extremists" planning and leading the attack but used the youtube video to instigate masses to join them; not an either or but a hybrid of both a planned assault but recruited a mob to join in using the youtube video to incite. I'm not saying that's what happened myself, but could the early intelligence that was later clarified given them that impression?

As a side, one interesting dynamic about Middle Eastern culture is many tend to be in awe of western technology especially from lesser developed regions. Because they have such a big impression of The Internet for example, merely by being on the Internet creates an impression in their minds that information and messages posted online carry an official and/or pervasive characteristic.

Click to expand...

They are not the same.
And for future reference, if anyone say they're terrified of spiders, that doesn't mean they think spiders are necessarily Al Queda.
It's that whole language and choice of words thing.

Like ... when you hear Obama say "...I will blah blah blah, but what I will NOT do is blah blah blah...", then you know he's just protected himself by taking both sides while giving his defenders something they can quote no matter how things turn out.

MMC said:

Uhm.....I think they proved the attack on 911 was pre-planned. Remember?

Do you think the several people denying it here in Benghazi that it wasn't pre-planned were wrong all along?

Click to expand...

I don't think it matters what you call it.. Hillary was correct when she said it.

pbrauer said:

I don't think it matters what you call it.. Hillary was correct when she said it.

Click to expand...

Which time was that?

Sept.12: Obama Labels Attack ‘Act of Terror,’ Not ‘Terrorism’


Sept. 12: Clinton issues a statement confirming that four U.S. officials, not one, had been killed. She called it a “violent attack.”


Clinton: All the Americans we lost in yesterday’s attacks made the ultimate sacrifice. We condemn this vicious and violent attack that took their lives, which they had committed to helping the Libyan people reach for a better future.

Sept. 12: Clinton delivers a speech at the State Department to condemn the attack in Benghazi and to praise the victims as “heroes.” She again makes reference to the anti-Muslim video in similar language.


Clinton: Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior, along with the protest that took place at our Embassy in Cairo yesterday, as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. America’s commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear — there is no justification for this, none.

Sept. 12: Obama delivers a morning speech in the Rose Garden to address the deaths of U.S. diplomats in Libya. He said, “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.” He also makes reference to the anti-Muslim video when he says: “Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None.” He uses the term “act of terror” later that night when talking about the attack at a campaign event in Las Vegas

Sept. 12: After his Rose Garden speech, Obama tapes an interview for “60 Minutes.” Obama says he didn’t use the word “terrorism” in his Rose Garden speech because “it’s too early to know exactly how this came about.” Steve Kroft, the show’s host, wonders how the attack could be described as a “mob action” since the attackers were “very heavily armed.” Obama says “we’re still investigating,” but he suspects “folks involved in this . . . were looking to target Americans from the start.”

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: ‘Clearly Planned’ or ‘Spontaneous’ 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.

CNN: “It was not an innocent mob,” one senior official said. “The video or 9/11 made a handy excuse and could be fortuitous from their perspective but this was a clearly planned military-type attack.”

Sept. 14: White House Says No Evidence of Planned Attack

Sept. 14: 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.”.....snip~

FactCheck.org : Benghazi Timeline

MMC said:

I think Panetta and General Dempsey already knocked down Hillary a peg or two, then Hicks just Knocked her down the a couple more.....anything else is just icing on the Cake.

Do you think Hillary can explain away Not talking to Panetta and General Dempsey? How about the fact that the Only time she talked to anyone in Libya, was when she talked to Hicks. Which one would have thought if Hillary really cared for her people. She would have contacted them back sometime from 2 am until 8am the next morning. How come Hillary never called back? She was concerned Right?

Click to expand...

How did Panetta, General Dempsey and Hicks knock Hillary down?

pbrauer said:

How did Panetta, General Dempsey and Hicks knock Hillary down?

Click to expand...

Didn't you watch the Video.....both stated they never talked to Hillary on the Night of the Attack. Then told Senator Cruz the same thing under testimony. Nor did they get a request to move assets from the State. Hicks stated she only talked to him at 2 am in Libya. No one else talked to her. Plus she testified she only talked to Obama once.

Do you have some sort of evidence that she contacted anyone else back? These were the people she said she cared for right? You would think there would have been more than one Phone call to people in Libya.....don't you?

MMC said:

Didn't you watch the Video.....both stated they never talked to Hillary on the Night of the Attack. Then told Senator Cruz the same thing under testimony. Nor did they get a request to move assets from the State. Hicks stated she only talked to him at 2 am in Libya. No one else talked to her. Plus she testified she only talked to Obama once.

Do you have some sort of evidence that she contacted anyone else back? These were the people she said she cared for right? You would think there would have been more than one Phone call to people in Libya.....don't you?

Click to expand...

What video and why was it important that she talked to them, I don't get it?

pbrauer said:

What video and why was it important that she talked to them, I don't get it?

Click to expand...

Oh, did you forget The one I put in the thread you had put up earlier.....also with Cruz questioning? U know the thread where you were asking about Who did people think Gave the Stand Down order. While asking the same pretty much the same thing about Hillary. Did you need the Material in each of the threads you go into when asking the same?



Panetta, Dempsey: No communication with Clinton

At a Thursday hearing in the Senate, Republican Ted Cruz asked both Leon Panetta and General Dempsey if they had been in contact with Hillary Clinton

CRUZ: In between 9:42 p.m., Benghazi time, when the first attacks started, and 5:15 am, when Mr. Doherty and Mr. Woods lost their lives, what conversations did either of you have with Secretary Clinton?

PANETTA: We did not have any conversations with Secretary Clinton

CRUZ: And General Dempsey, the same is true for you?

Dempsey confirmed.....snip~

2012 Benghazi Attack | Newslines

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls...forces-tripoli-stand-down.html#post1061787382

So you don't get Hillary Making one call to the people in Libya At 2 am......never contact General Dempsey or the SOD. Talk to Obama one time and out of 7hrs. She never called back on the people that she allegedly cared so much about. Yet you still don't get that part being strange or odd? :roll:

MMC said:

Oh, did you forget The one I put in the thread you had put up earlier.....also with Cruz questioning? U know the thread where you were asking about Who did people think Gave the Stand Down order. While asking the same pretty much the same thing about Hillary. Did you need the Material in each of the threads you go into when asking the same?



Panetta, Dempsey: No communication with Clinton

At a Thursday hearing in the Senate, Republican Ted Cruz asked both Leon Panetta and General Dempsey if they had been in contact with Hillary Clinton

CRUZ: In between 9:42 p.m., Benghazi time, when the first attacks started, and 5:15 am, when Mr. Doherty and Mr. Woods lost their lives, what conversations did either of you have with Secretary Clinton?

PANETTA: We did not have any conversations with Secretary Clinton

CRUZ: And General Dempsey, the same is true for you?

Dempsey confirmed.....snip~

2012 Benghazi Attack | Newslines

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls...forces-tripoli-stand-down.html#post1061787382

So you don't get Hillary Making one call to the people in Libya At 2 am......never contact General Dempsey or the SOD. Talk to Obama one time and out of 7hrs. She never called back on the people that she allegedly cared so much about. Yet you still don't get that part being strange or odd? :roll:

Click to expand...

Oh, that one, well, I was sitting in a noisy Starbucks drinking my cafe latte with my iPad mini and I couldn't hear the sound very well. Now would you please watch the first video clip in the following Media Matters post? I think it will serve t clear some things up.

Fox Ignores Benghazi Witness Testimony Proving Obama Did Not Order Troops To "Stand Down" | Blog | Media Matters for America