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

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

Deuce said:
People realize Obama called it an act of terror the next day, right?
Click to expand...
Than why did he and every person in his administration keep talking about a video and a protest for two weeks after?
It’s not that he used the words “acts of terror” (in reference to the original 9/11 attacks), it’s that he kept pounding the story that it was a video and not that it could possibly have something to do with the fact that al-Qaida and their affiliated groups were not “on the run” as he has been saying to help his reelection.
 
comedy4all said:
There were two attacks; one happened at around four in the afternoon the other happened later that night. The first one they breached the walls and had a fire fight. The communication from the consulate was speaking of this attack. Later that night they attacked again surrounding the building that the ambassador was in. he and others were in a “safe room” built to hold out until help could come. The attackers could not get to them so they set the whole building on fire. The ambassador died of smoke inhalation from the fire. A separate installation was also attacked a few blocks away. That is where the survivors fell back to. The other three died there from mortar attacks on the buildings.
Click to expand...

How the Benghazi Attack Unfolded - Timeline - WSJ.com

The timeline is much shorter than that. It took a few hours for help to arrive from Tripoli, which I think its pretty damn fast anyway.
 
Wiseone said:
Obama Libya Rose Garden speech - YouTube

Jump to 4:15

LOL!!
Click to expand...

It is very questionable to what he was referring to. He wasn't clear. Just a few sentences before his statement, he had begun to speak of the original 9/11 and mourning those deaths. It doesn't matter though, he is responsible for what his administration says. And if the administration had been giving out false information, (they were blaming the video), it was his job to step up to the plate and set the record straight. He didn't. No matter what he thought personally, he failed at leading and allowed the country to being questioning the whole administration, himself included. That was poor leadership on his part. He should have nipped the whole thing in the bud.
 
As more emails are leaked it appears the president not only knew this was terrorism but was aware of it in real time and made no effort to send help. This attack went on for over seven hours and obama sat there twiddling his thumbs. What ever happened to "leave no man behind"? I don't know how he sleeps at night, what a cowardly little prick this guy is.
 
melons said:
It is very questionable to what he was referring to. He wasn't clear. Just a few sentences before his statement, he had begun to speak of the original 9/11 and mourning those deaths. It doesn't matter though, he is responsible for what his administration says. And if the administration had been giving out false information, (they were blaming the video), it was his job to step up to the plate and set the record straight. He didn't. No matter what he thought personally, he failed at leading and allowed the country to being questioning the whole administration, himself included. That was poor leadership on his part. He should have nipped the whole thing in the bud.
Click to expand...

He said "acts of terror" acts being plural. Also the day after the attack information was still coming in, I personally think he should have put out no specific information that wasn't confirmed and told people that information is still coming in regarding other details that weren't clear yet I agree with you there.
 
Wiseone said:
How the Benghazi Attack Unfolded - Timeline - WSJ.com

The timeline is much shorter than that. It took a few hours for help to arrive from Tripoli, which I think its pretty damn fast anyway.
Click to expand...
The emails in question show that at 4; 05 the embassy was attacked by 20 armed men explosions were heard and shots were fired. It was not until around 9:40 p.m. until the fatal attacks started.

Here is a link to a page where you can read see the email.

E-mails: White House knew of extremist claims in Benghazi attack - CNN.com121024050041-benghaziemail1-horizontal-gallery.jpg
 
Wiseone said:
I showed you a video of him calling it an act of terror the day after the attack, and you still believe he didn't do it?
Click to expand...

sigh...

Dude, I'm not going to entertain you while you try to derail this thread. Besides, there have already been a slew of threads on this topic. Go post there.
 
melons said:
It is very questionable to what he was referring to. He wasn't clear. Just a few sentences before his statement, he had begun to speak of the original 9/11 and mourning those deaths. It doesn't matter though, he is responsible for what his administration says. And if the administration had been giving out false information, (they were blaming the video), it was his job to step up to the plate and set the record straight. He didn't. No matter what he thought personally, he failed at leading and allowed the country to being questioning the whole administration, himself included. That was poor leadership on his part. He should have nipped the whole thing in the bud.
Click to expand...

It can be an act of terror AND be motivated by the video.
 
Deuce said:
It can be an act of terror AND be motivated by the video.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what it can or can't be. President Obama should have held a press conference and gotten in front of the American people and at least attempted to set the record straight, once he realized that there was so much confusion over the issue. That would have made sense. That is what other presidents have done in the past after terrorist attacks. Due to his own behavior and that of his administration, people who already lacked trust in him, just lost more trust. It doesn't matter what the man meant to say ...what matters is what the people heard.
 
Mycroft said:
sigh...

Dude, I'm not going to entertain you while you try to derail this thread. Besides, there have already been a slew of threads on this topic. Go post there.
Click to expand...

I'm trying to address a false claim you made. I assume by saying "Uh huh ya right" when someone says Obama called it an act of terror the day after, you're saying he didn't actually do that? Or am I wrong?

Just admit the mistake and move on.
 
Wiseone said:
I'm trying to address a false claim you made. I assume by saying "Uh huh ya right" when someone says Obama called it an act of terror the day after, you're saying he didn't actually do that? Or am I wrong?

Just admit the mistake and move on.
Click to expand...

You are wrong.

My response was intended to dismiss your "act of terror" remark for the deflection it was. But hey...go ahead and talk about it even though it has nothing to do with anything I've said in this thread.
 
Mycroft said:
You are wrong.

My response was intended to dismiss your "act of terror" remark for the deflection it was. But hey...go ahead and talk about it even though it has nothing to do with anything I've said in this thread.
Click to expand...

It has to do with what you said when you said it didn't happen.

:/
 
Wiseone said:
It has to do with what you said when you said it didn't happen.

:/
Click to expand...

Okay.

I've also said your deflection is generally off-topic to this thread and specifically off-topic to my remarks.

So...are you going to keep on pissing and moaning about this? Or are you going to move on to something on-topic?
 
Mycroft said:
And Obama has the balls to say this:
Click to expand...

All of this from the President who ran on transparency during his first election cycle. Funy how we haven't heard anything about transparency during this election cycle.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1061067426 said:
All of this from the President who ran on transparency during his first election cycle. Funy how we haven't heard anything about transparency during this election cycle.
Click to expand...

We haven't seen hide nor hair of transparency from Obama since the minute he got sworn into Office.
 
comedy4all said:
This situation disgusts me!

How can we give someone so inept at the job another chance? This man has no interest in protecting our people; all he cares about is protecting his job.
Click to expand...

What do you think a politician is dude?
 
Wiseone said:
Three problems:

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

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

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

The White House and Obama in my opinion didn't wait long enough for all the information to come in before making a statement, however just because a militant groups claims they performed an attack doesn't neccesarily mean it was preplanned or was not in reaction to a video.
Click to expand...

Tell the truth though.

Obama and his administration WERE making statements. Problem is, they were knowingly FALSE statements.

Jay Carney, and Susan Rice BOTH said, "There is NO EVIDENCE of a premeditated attack". That's different than saying, "There's a lot of intel coming in, and right now, we simply don't know". They didn't say that. They emphatically said there was NO EVIDENCE of a premeditated attack, and now we know that's not true. They were also quick to say it was about the video, and later had to back track that story, and tell the truth, that it was a terrorist attack.

So, just tell the truth here. It does take time to collect information, so they should of said that, instead of emphatically saying it was a spontaneous attack that stemmed from a demonstration over a video that got out of control. Instead, they chose to lie, and cover up all the intelligence that was coming in real time through the emails, and the live drone feed that they watched!

If this isn't a cover up, it's the worst example of incompetancy I've ever witnessed.
 
Wiseone said:
I agree with what you're saying, it was a mistake for Obama to come out with the answers before all the information was in, but people do demand answers immediately and it wouldn't look good to many people to delay those answers. Many people have an unrealistic expectation for how fast these processes are, of course each one is unique in itself. For example you have a completely unrealistic understanding of how fast reinforcements can move around the world, a few hours is not enough time unless something is already in the nearby area and is already equipped for quick reaction and small team operations.
Click to expand...

There were teams ready in Southern Italy, and could of been on site in Benghazi in less than one hour.

Here's the problem you are having. You assume the White House, the CIA, and the State Department had no idea what caused this attack, for at least 2 days.

We now know that is not true. There is quite a bit of intelligence that we now know came in real time, that pointed to Ansar al Sharia. From the beginning, the State Department reports all included language about a coordinated terrorist attack. None of the State Department reports mention a protest, or a video.

So, think about this. Try not to be partisan here. Intel was coming in real time that suggested terrorism. Within 2 hours, Ansar al Sharia is claiming responsibility. We know that the State Department took that claim seriously, because they issued a warning to "Embassy Tripoli". THERE'S your proof. They knew who was responsible, so they issued a warning to the embassy in Tripoli. That's simply a fact. We know this now.

It's not a mistake to give quick statements about the attacks. They simply could have said, "intel is coming in, and we don't know at this moment who exactly is responsible". That would have settled it. But that's not what the administration did. They emphatically stated that NO EVIDENCE was available that supported the idea of a premeditated attack. Jay Carney said it, and Susan Rice repeated it over and over again. They blamed the video. They claimed to have HAD the reason for the attacks, which was an out of control protest over the muhammed video. They gave a specific reason, and it turned out to be completely untrue.

So, you must conclude that either A) They are covering the whole thing up, or B) They are simply so incompetant, that they don't understand how to say "we don't know yet" as opposed to advancing a false narrative.

Either they are covering up, or they are completely incompetant on how to handle a crisis situation. I know what I believe, because I continue to research what happened. IMO, they lied their asses off, and hoped this would be a non story until after election.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom