White House Finally Admits Libya Was A Terrorist Attack

last weekend, the white house trotted un ambassador susan rice on 3 sunday talk shows to get out the word, adamant, authoritative and unequivocal, that the attack on benghazi that resulted in the death of poor ambassador chris stevens was the action of a mob, spontaneous the buzz word, incited into violence by some sophomoric movie trailer no one's even seen and no one's talking about anymore

Rice dances around some Libya questions - POLITICO.com

Ambassador Susan Rice: Libya Attack Not Premeditated - ABC News

not only the uncomfortable un ambassador but everyone in the white house, from jay carney to ben labolt, all of em lockstep, all of em insistent and brooking no question: spontaneous, video inspired

Administration Insists Benghazi Attack Not Premeditated | Atlantic Sentinel

except already by then "senior officials" in the state dept, undersecretary patrick kennedy namely, as well as a bevy of democratic senators led by armed services chairman carl levin (after being briefed by defense secretary panetta), as well as intel sources from both sides in libya, were giving their reasons for concluding the attack on the consulate was NOT spontaneous, NOT video born, but rather a professionally armed, trained and executed terrorist operation by AQ apparatchiks, long premeditated (the counter buzz word) and actually in reaction to the drone assassination of the libyan AQ al libi in pakistan, the details of which were leaked by the white house to the nyt as eminently spike-worthy

Revealed: inside story of US envoy's assassination - World Politics - World - The Independent

Senators Question Leon Panetta About Syria, Libya : Roll Call News

yesterday, the white house finally, reluctantly succumbed to reality and acknowledged what everyone knew all along---the premeditated professionally conducted AQ operation against the consulate in benghazi was indication incontrovertible that obama's reachout to the middle east, his vision of transforming the region and remaking america's image is unadulterated failure

White House calls Libya assault "terrorist attack" - CBS News

in fact, the middle east in shambles, with political, economic and cultural chaos prevailing in the capitals and countrysides from tunis to islamabad, anti american animus aflame on every nitely news broadcast, it is impossible not to see that america's image abroad has indeed been remade: strength and foggy bottom acumen have been replaced by apology and deferment, with 100% predictable results

egypt is not an ally, he says

bibi, on the brink of launching armageddon, is snubbed while the brotherhood's morsi is courted

talks with iran remain obama's answer, while russian and china buy oil and sell arms

incoherence, equivocation and apology do not a sound foreign policy make

and the indecision and alternate realities are now reflected daily in every state dept statement

ambassador rice, on the sundays, falsely assured us that ambassador stevens, who had to be sneaked into the country mere hours before he was killed, who friends today say spoke openly of the danger he was in, was well protected

Report: Ambassador Stevens Said He Was on an Al-Qaeda Hit List - Yahoo! News

indeed, 2 of the 4 americans killed on 9-11 were a pair of retired navy seals who rice stated were part of the stevens' security detail

while the seals did die trying to save the ambassador, that's NOT why they were there

Former Navy SEALs identified as consulate attack victims | Fox News

even more troubling, we learned yesterday that the man responsible for plotting and carrying out the spontaneous demonstration against stevens was one mr qumu who was released from gitmo in 2007, later freed from a libyan jail and a leader in the fight against ghadafi

Al Qaeda, ex-Gitmo detainee involved in consulate attack, intelligence sources say | Fox News

as a matter of fact, according to the nyt, 4-24-11, in leading in libya from the front, was to obama in 2011 "an ally of sorts, a remarkable turnabout resulting from shifting american policies rather than any obvious change in mr qumu"

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/25/w...dxnnlx=1347728400-2My68hL/Qqy52SG0reimIg&_r=2

the white house is taking heat, tapper and todd are grilling carney in the brady briefing room

and where's obama?

he's on dave, having no idea that the natl debt is 16T

but don't worry, "we don't have to worry about it short term"

he's at jay-z's, under the floor-to-ceiling, $100,000 gold champagne bottle-statue

Obama Doesn't Remember How Big the Debt Is - YouTube

$105,000 champagne tower at Obama fundraiser with Jay-Z and Beyonce in Manhattan night club | Mail Online

are you sure this guy knows what he's doing?

The Prof said:

last weekend, the white house trotted un ambassador susan rice on 3 sunday talk shows to get out the word, adamant, authoritative and unequivocal, that the attack on benghazi that resulted in the death of poor ambassador chris stevens was the action of a mob, spontaneous the buzz word, incited into violence by some sophomoric movie trailer no one's even seen and no one's talking about anymore

Click to expand...

Could possibly be a bigger hyper-partisan political hack then you are right now?

Her name is Dr. Susan Rice. She is the United States Ambassador to the United Nations. It is part of her job description to go before the public (either directly, or through the media) and articulate the Administrations position on various matters that involve foreign policy, including issues related to our overseas embassies.

FYI - she does not trot, she walks. And, she clearly states that: "Our current best assessment, based on the information we have at the present...."




So, while you heroically shower us with a billion links of information that never does what you say it should do - one single video lasting no more than one minute and fifty two seconds, proves what you said to be untrue. She was clearly giving an assessment based on what they knew at the time on Sunday, September 16th, 2012. She was NOT making an absolute declaration of fact.

The is a clear difference between the declarative and the assumptive.

And, get off Faux Newz. That stuff will rot your brain at a minimum.

Of course, it might already be entirely too late in your case... :roll:

friday, sept 14:

Senior officials are increasingly convinced, however, that the ferocious nature of the Benghazi attack, in which rocket-propelled grenades were used, indicated it was not the result of spontaneous anger due to the video, called Innocence of Muslims. Patrick Kennedy, Under-Secretary at the State Department, said he was convinced the assault was planned due to its extensive nature and the proliferation of weapons.

Click to expand...

link above, the indy

friday, sept 14:

Senators spoke with Panetta about the response to the situation in Libya. Four Americans were killed in an attack Tuesday on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.

Senators said it has become clearer the attack was coordinated, although they would not say anything specific about any connection to the broader protests that came after an anti-Muslim video was released.

"I think it was a planned, premeditated attack," Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said. He added he did not know the specific group responsible for the assault on the complex.

Click to expand...

roll call, above, affiliated with cspan

The Prof said:

in fact, the middle east in shambles, with political, economic and cultural chaos prevailing in the capitals and countrysides from tunis to islamabad, anti american animus aflame on every nitely news broadcast, it is impossible not to see that america's image abroad has indeed been remade: strength and foggy bottom acumen have been replaced by apology and deferment, with 100% predictable result....

Click to expand...

Properly educating yourself, should be your primary goal at this point - because you are so backwards in your assumptions that I hardly know where to start.

The fact that you would take decades of broken U.S. foreign policy with respect to North Africa and the Middle East, and somehow double-down on that being Obama's fault, is even more beyond the pale than claiming that the 2007/2008 economic implosion is likewise, Obama's fault - forget the fact that George W. Bush, was in office when it all came crashing down. Your delusional hysteria with respect to North Africa is one thing, but to be so ignorant about the facts as to not have the ability to discern the difference and the distinction between the issues of North Africa, and the Middle East, is even more telling than you know.

The problem in the Middle East among Arab and Muslim nations with respect to the United States, that you see being made manifest right now and have seen since probably before you were even born, has everything to do with something called Project T/P Ajax. Every SINGLE problem the United States of America has EVER had with the Middle East, stems directly from our 1953/54 attempt to inject ourselves into the national affairs of the nation of Iran, by going after its elected Prime Minister, Mohammad Mosaddeq.

It was a joint effort planned and executed by U.S. CIA and British MI6, to take out the Iranian PM. Why? Because, he was gearing up to take back Iranian oil through the nationalization of its oil production facilities - thereby, removing control from the British, who owned AIOC at the time - what is now known as BP (British Petroleum). Every since we showed our willingness to intervene in the affairs of the Arab/Muslim world, including our willingness to establish for the Arab/Muslim People, what WE think their leadership should be (The Puppet Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Shaw Pahlavi, through 1979), there has been mistrust, distrust and outright hatred of U.S. Foreign Policy in the Middle Eastern region of the world.

This set the groundwork for ALL the 1960's, 1970's, 1980's, 1990's, and the 21st century U.S. flag burning and U.S. President hangings in effigy throughout the Arab and Muslim world that you have been witnessing since you were a little boy growing up watching Walter Cronkite, on your parents Black & White RCA vacuum tube television from 1962 through 1981, until those exact same flag burning and President hangings in effigy were transfered to 60 Minutes and your parents upgraded to the new Zenith color floor model television.

While the tube you watched those images on changed, the story behind WHY they were occurring has NEVER changed. Not since 1953/54 in Iran.

So, you can fake yourself out all you want my dear clueless friend, about WHY North Africa (Muslim) and the Middle East (Arab) are "falling apart," but you can rest assured that this nightmare on Elm Street did not begin in 2008, and it has nothing to do with the hallucinogenic reasons that you think are the cause.

If we had kept our U.S. and British collective nose out of their darn business to begin with and did not seek to make claims on their oil (sound familiar), then we would not have the issues that we have today, with major dictators running wild across the deserts seeking to secure their natural resources away from the "greedy Americans" and the "conquering English."

This whole darn thing has been about a three letter word from the word go: O I L.

You should learn how to spell that word and then go educate yourself on WHY this country has spent TRILLIONS of dollars trying to secure it!

Wake Up!!!

What I find amusing...and a bit pathetic...is that Obama STILL can't admit anything...not even his own position, without trying to qualify or spin it.

Asked why the United States was not better prepared, with better security at its embassies on the Sept. 11 anniversary, Obama responded by repeating the admonitions about not tolerating violence, but continued to discuss the incident in the context of the controversial video depicting scenes from the life of Mohammed.

“This is obviously something that is used as excuse by some to carry out inexcusable violent acts on westerners or Americans,” Obama said, “and my number one priority is to keep our diplomats safe and our embassies safe.”

The president did not go as far as had his press secretary, Jay Carney, who earlier in the day told reporters on the flight from Washington that the president considers the attacks last week in Benghazi terrorism.

“We’re still doing an investigation,” he said. “What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by the extremists to see if they could directly harm U.S. interests.”

Obama pressed on failures at Univision forum - Reid J. Epstein - POLITICO.com

Click to expand...

yes, obama makes sure that he does not tick off the already angry muslims by saying something completely stupid. Too bad mitt doesn't understand the diplomatic part of the presidency. He cannot even go into our allied countries without saying something completely spontaneous and pissing off a country of our allies. Even the people who identify as conservatives in England were ticked at him.

Sorry, but obama does not have the freedom to make really stupid comments to incite further violence like TV talking heads. The fact that romney mouthed off the night of and completely ****ed up verbally only makes me happy he had no military to command so he could walk us into another war because he is too stupid to shut up and listen.

if you guys think going to war with the entire middle east because you want Romney to mouth off like the obnoxious ass he is, then feel free to vote for your hero. It is not like he will ever have to see any of his grand children drafted into the wars he creates.

a billion links of information that never does (sic) what you say it should

Click to expand...

again, links is plural

links never do

4th grade

say hi to the folks

if you guys think going to war with the entire middle east because...

Click to expand...

Schumer: Obama more likely to attack Iran than Romney | The Daily Caller

The Prof said:

Schumer: Obama more likely to attack Iran than Romney | The Daily Caller

Click to expand...

First, poor source, and second it completely blows away the idea that Obama is weak on Iran which you and the republicans love to claim. Either obama is more likely to try to stop iran from getting nukes, or he is not going to attack Iran and let them have nukes.

that is the problem with you, you take both exclusive sides of an issue depending on what the argument is. It just makes you and Romney look like you are flip floppers.

But to go into your little scenario. i trust obama a lot more that he will handle military attacks in a less reactionary and far more productive way that Mitt who has a tendency to overreact to situations and can barely govern his own mouth properly. If obama were to go to war with iran i would feel much more like he considered all options and finally needed to take military action. After his handling of libya and keeping us out of a fulls scale war there while helping the rebels accomplish their goals i am confident that he doesn't just order a full scale assault with a couple of minutes of thought and not even enough time to brush his hair properly. Romney just has this tendency to react poorly and in a confused fashion, and that is not something i want in a president who has his finger on the button.

AFter his handling of LIbya and keeping us out of a fulls scale war while helping the rebels accomplish their goals

Click to expand...

like mr qumu?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/25/w...dxnnlx=1347728400-2My68hL/Qqy52SG0reimIg&_r=3

U.S. intel revises Libya attack assessment – The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer - CNN.com Blogs

wolf's situation room slams the white house over libya, yesterday:

suzanne kelly, cnn intel correspondent: the investigation turned into a political toy

wolf: why'd it take so long for this, a lot of folks assumed from the beginning, yet top officials in the white house repeatedly said it was spontaneous, it was in reaction to this 14:00 movie trailer, if you don't know say you don't know

kelly: that's right, the intel community is saying this was not all they had to go on, there was a difference between what they knew and what was coming from people speaking out on behalf of the administration, they knew something different

frances townsend, natl secty contributor: we knew within the first 24 hours, we knew it was a terrorism investigation, they didn't want to get caught up in the politics of a presidential election

wolf: republicans and some others are making the argument that for political reasons the obama administration downplayed this notion of this being an act of terrorism or any association with al qaeda, they can't be blamed for shoddy security at the consulate

wolf: the fbi still can't get to the scene

townsend: today is day 18, we may not even go now, what would be the point, what are we going to learn there, how tragic is that, the investigators who are responsible for drawing conclusions may never have gotten to the scene of this horrendous crime

wolf: so who messed up

townsend: that's the role of homeland secty adviser john brennan, it's really odd we have not seen him present publicly at all or speak publicly at all, and he's really the president's most senior substantive adviser on these issues

wolf: a lot of explaining is needed now

coverup, anyone?

state dept scrubs all clear memo from overseas security advisory council website:

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...covering-al-qaeda-was-behind-benghazi-attack/

it's not the first time

9-11, the day obama lost the middle east:

US Embassy In Cairo Deletes Controversial Tweets

coveup, anyone?

The conservatives are now doing their little "I told you so" dance because facts have been found that prove (not suggest as the administration might have thought) that it was a terror attack. Unlike political campaigns with no political responsibility, the US administration has to be careful what in what it says and what it does. In the world of diplomacy it is wiser to not go into overdrive on a story until you have the facts because that can bite you on the behind.

But just imagine the Obama administration had said it was a terror attack and not protesters going wild and it had turned out to be just idiot protestors, then the conservatives would have been doing their "I told you so" dance too, saying that Obama was trying to blame it on terrorists when it was just bad security or that he was blaming terrorism because Americans feel he is stronger on terror and that would help defeating Romney when it clearly wasn't terrorism.

The problem that it is election season and there are highly partisan opinions here and in real life. To be honest, I think that the president is damned no matter what he says, his opponents will always try and find the message that might hurt the president in order to further their own political goals (the democrats would to it too if the foot was on the other shoe as it has been several times when Romney gaffed).

They may have deleted the tweets because they were tired of people responding to them, but largely irrelevant. Of course this was a terrorist attack whether it was planned or spontaneous. Mortar fire leads me to believe they were planned as people don't just walk around the streets lugging the tubes and shells just in case something should come up generally. CNN has reported the FBI asked for military in the area and the military said no. The military reportedly had concerns about force protection and they could not have just placed heavy armor on the ground short notice and it was unclear if the Libyans would have let them per the reporting I saw on CNN. I think there are legitimate arguments to be made about how we have been working or not working on the ground in Libya, but the attack is symptomatic of the bigger issues not being discussed IMO because people cannot get over talking about this specific incident.

PW4000 said:

Could possibly be a bigger hyper-partisan political hack then you are right now?

Her name is Dr. Susan Rice. She is the United States Ambassador to the United Nations. It is part of her job description to go before the public (either directly, or through the media) and articulate the Administrations position on various matters that involve foreign policy, including issues related to our overseas embassies.

FYI - she does not trot, she walks. And, she clearly states that: "Our current best assessment, based on the information we have at the present...."




So, while you heroically shower us with a billion links of information that never does what you say it should do - one single video lasting no more than one minute and fifty two seconds, proves what you said to be untrue. She was clearly giving an assessment based on what they knew at the time on Sunday, September 16th, 2012. She was NOT making an absolute declaration of fact.

The is a clear difference between the declarative and the assumptive.

Click to expand...

And she is a lying piece of crap. How's that? Their current best assessment, was a flat out lie, they knew within 24 hours it was a terrorist attack. This is Obama's coverup for his failed foreign policies, and worse yet not protecting our embassy with Marines like other embassies that are under threat, is an utter failure. Further Rice should have gone on those Sunday shows and have said "We don't know and until we have completed our investigation I do not want to speculate at this time" but no she wanted us all to believer it was some video. What a dumb ass, she should be fired. Last I don't owe her an once of respect especially for lying. Screw her.

Peter King said:

The conservatives are now doing their little "I told you so" dance because facts have been found that prove (not suggest as the administration might have thought) that it was a terror attack. Unlike political campaigns with no political responsibility, the US administration has to be careful what in what it says and what it does. In the world of diplomacy it is wiser to not go into overdrive on a story until you have the facts because that can bite you on the behind.

But just imagine the Obama administration had said it was a terror attack and not protesters going wild and it had turned out to be just idiot protestors, then the conservatives would have been doing their "I told you so" dance too, saying that Obama was trying to blame it on terrorists when it was just bad security or that he was blaming terrorism because Americans feel he is stronger on terror and that would help defeating Romney when it clearly wasn't terrorism.

The problem that it is election season and there are highly partisan opinions here and in real life. To be honest, I think that the president is damned no matter what he says, his opponents will always try and find the message that might hurt the president in order to further their own political goals (the democrats would to it too if the foot was on the other shoe as it has been several times when Romney gaffed).

Click to expand...

How about Rice rather lying to the American people, just said, "we don't know" but she we under orders to lie and coverup a terrorist attack, that proves Obama's foreign policies are a failure.

they were not terrorist while killing their own leader kaddafi , but now they can be called terrorists.. if you help the islamists gain powerr for some springs ,they can carve your eyes..

Wait a second. The American Government decided to wait and investigate before the publicly declared who was responsible and what their motives were?

I am outraged at this.