• 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!

Official: We knew Benghazi was a terrorist attack "from the get-go"

Okay, let's say we
all agree that the attack on the U.S Embassy in Benghazi, Lybia was a cover-up, that the storyline given by the Obama Administration and repeated on the Sunday talk shows was indeed a cover-up orchestrated by CIA officials within the Obama Administration. Now what?

What's the end-game for Republicans on this issue?

I mean, yes, it's tragic that four Americans lost their lives, but what exactly do Republicans in Congress really hope to gain by getting their "gotcha" witnesses to say "Yes, officials within the White House knew this wasn't some random attack sparked by some anti-Islamic video"?

I've read a good portion of the emails and other details on the incident and I'm still trying to understand even after these new witnesses testify of what they saw or knew what folks like Rep. Issa hopes to gain here. A confession by the President himself?

How about we get the truth first, and then see where that takes us.

So far this administration has been doing their best to push this whole affair under the rug.

This President isn't going to confess as he "went to bed " when a terrorist attack was taking place on American soil.

If this doesn't bother you imagine this all happened under Bush.

That a cover up from the top down was ignored by the major media.
 
Obama watched the live feed from an UAV that was above Benghazi while our consulate was under attack.



... or he didn't. Not sure which would be worse.
 
Due to lax security and ignoring reports from his intelligence community GWB allowed the biggest US civilian death toll from a single attack on american soil on september 11th 2001. Of course, the right doesn't like blaming GWB for that but if Obama is this responsible for benghazi certainly GWB is that responsible for 9/11. Still benghazi didn't happen in the continental US, nor did we have control over the areas where it did happen like we did with 9/11, but that just makes 9/11 all the worse for george.


Never really did understand the liberal rationale here given that they stained their underpants after 9/11 when Bush enacted the laws and regulations that would have been needed to stop 9/11.

When liberals can't seem to grasp the necessity of these heightened security procedures AFTER 9/11 there is little hope that they would have supported them before 9/11.

Benghazi, on the other hand, is just common sense and required no extraordinary means to avoid. It simply required having a security force to protect a consulate in a war zone.

What Benghazi tells me is that the President and Secretary of State vastly under estimated the threat to the Consulate before the attack because they were under a self delusion that their activity in Libya had pacified the country. When it turned out that the threats against the consulate were real and that their negligence had lead to 4 deaths they immediately tried to paint the attack as unforeseeable and that they were the result of a video on the internet, rather than a plot that they had been warned about well in advance.

So, in part, the Benghazi cover up is about the scurrilous word games the president played with the Benghazi attack to cover up his Administrations incompetence, but the bigger part of the Benghazi cover up is about the atrocious mishandling of the crisis in real time and the detachment the president had with the entire 7 hour ordeal.
 
Never really did understand the liberal
rationale here given that they stained their underpants after 9/11 when Bush enacted the laws and regulations that would have been needed to stop 9/11.

When liberals can't seem to grasp the necessity of these heightened security procedures AFTER 9/11 there is little hope that they would have supported them before 9/11.

Benghazi, on the other hand, is just common sense and required no extraordinary means to avoid. It simply required having a security force to protect a consulate in a war zone.

What Benghazi tells me is that the President and Secretary of State vastly under estimated the threat to the Consulate before the attack because they were under a self delusion that their activity in Libya had pacified the country. When it turned out that the threats against the consulate were real and that their negligence had lead to 4 deaths they immediately tried to paint the attack as unforeseeable and the result of a video on the internet in order to save face leading into the election.

So, in part, the Benghazi cover up is about the scurrilous word games the president played with the Benghazi attack to mitigate his Administrations incompetence, but the bigger part of the Benghazi cover up is about the atrocious mishandling of the crisis in real time and the detachment the president had with the entire 7 hour ordeal.

Oh I think they knew how dangerous it was and just rolled the dice so to speak that nothing would happen prior to the election.

Hell the Consolate had already been attacked prior to 9/11.
 
Oh I think they knew how dangerous it was and just rolled the dice so to speak that nothing would happen prior to the election.

Hell the Consolate had already been attacked prior to 9/11.


Yeah, you are probably right. They also knew that the Al Qaeda flag was flying over government buildings in the vicinity. That alone would be reason for heightened security.

Or, if the Libyan Government was denying them the ability to put combat read troops in the US consulate as they claim, then they could have chosen to leave Libya. But, golly gee, they just couldn't leave Libya for security concerns after declaring the area pacified.... not with an election to win...
 
LIB NEWS ALERT... LIB NEWS ALERT... LIB NEWS ALERT...
For those who have been ODing on Koooool-Aidski...

First:
Bob Schieffer: Today only on Face the Nation, startling new details about the Benghazi attack from the number two American official in Libya...

We'll get new details today and more insight into the stunning contradictions between the president of Libya and Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice when they appeared after the attack on Face the Nation.

Libyan President Mohammed Magariaf: This was preplanned, predetermined.

Susan Rice: We did not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_16...i-and-gay-athletes-issa-rogers-ruppersberger/
WHERE WAS OBAMA, WHAT WAS HE DOING, AND WHY DON'T WE KNOW AFTER ALL THESE MONTHS?

Zimmer translation of LibSpEEk in red.

We have talked about Benghazi and it is about the amount we have talked about benghazi that matters, not that we have arrived at the truth. We have talked about it far more than we needed to because we know this is one HUGE skid mark in Obama's drawers and we will do our very best to rally around our boy wonder..

You have no new evidence in regards to it, the stuff that came out during the past does not count. Bob Schieffer using the word COVERUP on Face the Nation (CBS) does not count. It's not "new" unless we SUPER DRONES say it's new.

We know that the compound was not secure and damn I cannot believe I typed that. We know the people there wanted more security and damn I cannot believe I typed that. We even know it wasn't provided to them for budgetary reasons that is a load of BS, because even I know National Security and security of our diplomatic outposts is Job #1, but hey... Libs lie because we can... Oh!, and we are pretty sure Clinton would have seen the request for security even if she did not approve it and damn I cannot believe I typed that.

What more is there... besides the lies deceit and that whopper of a testimony from Hillary... Ugh Rice... Ugh Obama... ugh this sucks.

Do you have some new evidence of more wrongdoing or that it is something more than 4 people dying in hostile foreign land due to defensive weakness? Of course you don't, and this is why you resort to tinfoil hat conspiracy theories and try to make a story out of nothing. Man am I good at this ignorance thing... I'll just ignore what just came out from the whistleblower and CBS and is all over the internet and TV this weekend.

Benghazi... is that where they make Mercedes Benz's...?
 
Last edited:
WOW! that sounds serious, I guess old Bobby Schieffer has you hooked. :2razz:

Well... they can report it now, their stooge is in office.
 
What, you didn't say anything or rebutt anything, so I figured you had nothing to say to refute what i said. Feel free to actually refute my statements in the future instead of some lame ploy.


No, actually please do go through it for us. Explain how this person knows something that proves that this is more than just a state department screw up that killed a couple people in a violent foreign land. Because that has happened to every president in the past half century, and if obama has only lost 4 people to it he is doing pretty good compared to clinton, Buish Sr., Reagan, Carter, Ford, and many others. Explain to us how these 4 deaths even compare to 9/11 where bush jr. ignored reports that the attack was coming, and allowed for 3000 civilian deaths and a strike within america from america. Then explain to us why you were struck so silent when the information about his coverup came out. Because we would all love to hear why this is so much more important. Don't let me stop you from actually making your case.

If all you are going to do is lame word substitution don't get mad at me because you cannot even come up with a bad excuse for your hypocrisy.




Maybe if you weren't doing something similar to arguing with an empty chair and losing like your hero has been reduced to, you might have actually not wasted your time with a tactic that really wasn't very hard to counter.

The Reader's Digest version of that post:
Pffffffffffffffffffffffffftttt.... ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh... plop.... wsshhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
 
How about the fact that the USMedia was parroting, like a stenographer, the government's line when their responsibility is to report the news objectively. It's the Mass Media that has been trapped in its' own ineptitude. Everybody knew it was a terrorist attack and the Media was still braying "protestors." All those Intelligence Agency plants in newsrooms and at diplomatic posts telling stories as if they were still working for GWShiiteForBrains. That'd be the Bush whose conscience is full of dead Shiites. Obama has got a conscience full of dead Libyans. I can't believe what a bunch of dumbasses we are to put up with any of this crap. Get Congress to root the Intel agencies out of the Mass Media. Keerisst, get them out of our gov't.
 
Libya: We gave US three-day warning of Benghazi attack .....


American diplomats were warned of possible violent unrest in Benghazi three days before the killings of US Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three members of his team, Libyan security officials say.

The claim came as the country's interim President, Mohammed el-Megarif, said his government had information that the attack on the US consulate had been planned by an Islamist group with links to al-Qa'ida and with foreigners taking part.

However, the American ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, insisted that the killings had resulted from a demonstration against a film about the Prophet Mohamed, replicating protests in Cairo, which had been "hijacked" and got out of control.

The Independent has reported diplomatic sources who said that the threat of an attack against US interests in the region was known to the US administration 48 hours before it took place. The alert was issued by the State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security, but not made public. A State Department spokesman maintained: "We are not aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the US Mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent."

But President Megarif told the American station National Public Radio: "We firmly believe that this was a pre-calculated, pre-planned attack that was carried out specifically to attack the US Consulate. A few of those who joined in were foreigners who had entered Libya from different directions, some of them definitely from Mali and Algeria."

A senior official of the biggest militia in Benghazi, the February 17th Brigade, told CNN that he had warned US diplomats of a rapidly deteriorating security situation in Benghazi three days before the attack. "The situation is frightening, it scares us," he said he had stressed during the meeting.
The British consulate in the city was shut after an ambush of a convoy carrying Dominic Asquith, the UK ambassador, in which his bodyguard were injured. The UN and International Committee of the Red Cross offices had been bombed and there had been a spate of political assassinations.

However, Ms Rice denied the Benghazi attack was pre-planned. She said: "Our current best assessment... is that... it was a spontaneous – not a premeditated – response to what had transpired in Cairo. "A small number of people came to the consulate. It seems to have been hijacked by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons... And it then evolved from there."

Captain Fathi al-Obeidi, who had taken an eight-strong American rescue team which had arrived from Tripoli to the safe house, said "I don't know how they found the place to carry out the attack. It was planned, the accuracy with which the mortars hit us was too good for any ordinary revolutionaries." On Sunday, the head of Libya's national congress said about 50 people had been arrested in connection with the attack on the US consulate, though the interior ministry put the figure far lower.....snip~

Libya: We gave US three-day warning of Benghazi attack - Africa - World - The Independent
Tuesday 18 September 2012 <<<<<!!!!! ;)
 
Here Let that Be Rephrased again so that none In the Obama Administration can come back to deny it. It is a fact.....reported by the Libyans and the Brits.

The Independent has reported diplomatic sources who said that the threat of an attack against US interests in the region was known to the US administration 48 hours before it took place. The alert was issued by the State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security, but not made public. A State Department spokesman maintained: "We are not aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the US Mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent.".....snip~

That's Right 48 hrs Before the Attack took Place.....Repeat 48 hrs before the attack took place. Which means it was known by the US even before Al-Zawahri (sp) even released his 911 Video Tape!!!!!
 
... or he didn't. Not sure which would be worse.

That's one of the questions Congress and the "informed American voters" have been asking for the past eight months. Where was Obama from 5:00 P.M. EDST to the time he went to bed on 9-11-12 and what was he doing ?

What's the big secret ? Is Obama trying to hide something from Congress and the American people ?
 
That's one of the questions Congress and the "informed American voters" have been asking for the past eight months. Where was Obama from 5:00 P.M. EDST to the time he went to bed on 9-11-12 and what was he doing ?

What's the big secret ? Is Obama trying to hide something from Congress and the American people ?

Well we Know at the time that al- Zawahiri released the Video tape calling on those in Libya to revenge al-libi.....that Obama was speaking at a Florida university about Romney. Bashing Ryans Plan. We also know he was suppose to go out West Coast for a Fundraiser and then a Speech he was to give out there.

Now as to was he in flight on his way there and then was forced to fly back to DC. Or if he went Straight from Florida to DC. We do not know until those times are confirmed as to when Air Force one left Florida on the Sept 10th. Or if he was on Marine One. My thinking is.....if he was to go out West Coast. he would have had Air Force One and a Straight flight to Neveda then onto Candyland. (California)

What we do know is Panetta stated he had spoken to Obama at 5-30pm or thereabouts. Which was before the Attack for his briefing. But he didn't say where Obama was.
 
Now that's the thing, isn't it? We don't know EXACTLY what happened. What it appears so far is that a decision was made about allocating military and diplomatic forces. Was the wrong decision made? It would appear so, but then hindsight is 20/20.

Decisions about military deployments can be mistaken, but they are made. They will be second guessed sometimes, and that's a good thing. Unless there was INTENT to see them die, I can't imagine how that's an impeachable crime.

We know that security requests went out months ahead, and the British had moved out of town a long time for the 9/11 attack.
 
Yeah, you are probably right. They also
knew that the Al Qaeda flag was flying over government buildings in the
vicinity. That alone would be reason for heightened security.

Or, if the Libyan Government was denying them the ability to put combat read troops in the US consulate as they claim, then they could have chosen to leave Libya. But, golly gee, they just couldn't leave Libya for security concerns after declaring the area pacified.... not with an election to win...

I'm hearing reports that the whistle blower is going to testify that the Lybian Govt offered to fly in support on a C-130 but they were told to " stand down ".

" Fog of War " ? Nah, a big dust up prior to the election would have killed his " Arab Spring " narrative.

Let'em fend for theirselves. " How dare they get themselves killed this close to a election ".

Plus the administration hid the names of the survivors by changing their names on their medical records ?

I mean what low lifes, what a corrupt group of sub-human scum.
 
That's one of the questions Congress and the "informed American voters" have been asking for the past eight months. Where was Obama from 5:00 P.M. EDST to the time he went to bed on 9-11-12 and what was he doing ?

What's the big secret ? Is Obama trying to hide something from Congress and the American people ?

hmmmm ... you're onto something here ... I'm guessing he won't survive this ... in fact, I bet he's out of office by Jan. 2017.
 
Wait, is this what you people have been whining about all along? Whether or not it was labeled a terrorist attack?

Regardless of your thought on Benghazi or the amount of coverage it's generating right now, are you seriously playing dumb about the notion that one of the primary issues people had at the onset of it, and voiced routinely, was the fact that the Administration seemingly purposefully attempted to misrepresent it as a spur of the moment protest about a Youtube video gone arwy rather than a planned Al-Qaeda sponsored/linked terrorist attack?
 
Regardless of your thought on Benghazi or the amount of coverage it's generating right now, are you seriously playing dumb about the notion that one of the primary issues people had at the onset of it, and voiced routinely, was the fact that the Administration seemingly purposefully attempted to misrepresent it as a spur of the moment protest about a Youtube video gone arwy rather than a planned Al-Qaeda sponsored/linked terrorist attack?

Were there protests in Egypt around the same time over this issue? I think the attackers the use the protests in general as a cover to launch in the attack.
 
Were there protests in Egypt around the same time over this issue? I think the attackers the use the protests in general as a cover to launch in the attack.

Post 21 in this same thread.....

See at First Obama said there was no ties to AQ. But then his Own Team.....were the Ones that stated they thought AQ out of Iraq may have been responsible.

US Intel believes some Benghazi attackers tied to al Qaeda in Iraq.....

U.S. intelligence believes that assailants connected to al Qaeda in Iraq were among the core group that attacked the diplomatic mission in Benghazi, a U.S. government official told CNN.

That would represent the second al Qaeda affiliate associated with the deadly September 11 attack that killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.

Previously, intelligence officials said there were signs of connections to al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, the North African wing of the terror group.

The revelation that members of al Qaeda in Iraq are suspected of involvement in the Libya attack comes at a time when there is a growing number of fighters from that group also taking part in the Syrian civil war.

The weakened al Qaeda affiliate has had a resurgence in Iraq since U.S. forces left the country at the end of last year. The group had used Libya as a source for fighters. In a 2008 cable, Stevens described a nearby town of Derna as "a wellspring of Libyan foreign fighters" for al Qaeda in Iraq.

The latest intelligence suggests the core group of suspects from the first wave of the attack on the Benghazi mission numbered between 35 to 40. Around a dozen of the attackers are believed to be connected to either al Qaeda in Iraq or al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, the government official said.

According to the official, others in the core group are suspected of having ties to the Libyan group Ansar al-Sharia, and many of them are believed to be Egyptian jihadis.

And just two hours later, one of the e-mails indicated the Libyan extremist group Ansar al Sharia was claiming responsibility for the attack on social media websites. "Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli," the e-mail said.

Moreover, intelligence officials do not believe Ansar al-Sharia is solely responsible with indications now that some of the attackers were associated with al Qaeda in Iraq, al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and an Egyptian jihad network.....snip~

US Intel believes some Benghazi attackers tied to al Qaeda in Iraq - CNN.com


Which doesn't explain why Obama never took that Sunni Cleric in from Egypt for questioning since he used a social media site.....to call for rising up against the US.

On the 18th of Sept Hezbollah called for more. Also you forget.....al-Zawahiri already had released the Video calling on those in Libya to take revenge for al-libi.
 
Were there protests in Egypt around the same time over this issue? I think the attackers the use the protests in general as a cover to launch in the attack.

Then Post 24.....

Whats really funny is now.....they say(Team Obama) that it was AQ out of Yemen.

Sources: 3 al Qaeda operatives took part in Benghazi attack.....

Several Yemeni men belonging to al Qaeda took part in the terrorist attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi last September, according to several sources who have spoken with CNN.

One senior U.S. law enforcement official told CNN that "three or four members of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula," or AQAP, took part in the attack.

Another source briefed on the Benghazi investigation said Western intelligence services suspect the men may have been sent by the group specifically to carry out the attack. But it's not been ruled out that they were already in the city and participated as the opportunity arose.....snip~

Sources: 3 al Qaeda operatives took part in Benghazi attack – CNN Security Clearance - CNN.com Blogs

If the AQAP members were dispatched to Benghazi, it would be further evidence of a new level of co-operation among jihadist groups throughout the Middle East and North Africa, counterterrorism analysts say.

According to one source, counterterrorism officials learned the identity of the men and established they had spent two nights in Benghazi after the attack. Western intelligence agencies began trying to track the men in the aftermath of the terrorist attack, but were always behind in their manhunt.

They were later traced to northern Mali, where they are believed to have connected with a fighting group commanded by Moktar Belmoktar, a prominent jihadist leader, according to a senior law enforcement source.

The trail appears to have then gone cold. In early 2013, jihadists were driven out of many areas of northern Mali in a French-led offensive......snip~

So much for using the Protest out of Egypt.....which was used for the Anniversary of 911.
 
We know that security requests went out months ahead, and the British had moved out of town a long time for the 9/11 attack.
Well, we were already heavily involved in the War Against Women. We simply lacked the assets to mount much of anything else at the time of Benghazi.
 
Post 21 in this same thread.....

See at First Obama said there was no ties to AQ. But then his Own Team.....were the Ones that stated they thought AQ out of Iraq may have been responsible.

US Intel believes some Benghazi attackers tied to al Qaeda in Iraq.....

U.S. intelligence believes that assailants connected to al Qaeda in Iraq were among the core group that attacked the diplomatic mission in Benghazi, a U.S. government official told CNN.

That would represent the second al Qaeda affiliate associated with the deadly September 11 attack that killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.

Previously, intelligence officials said there were signs of connections to al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, the North African wing of the terror group.

The revelation that members of al Qaeda in Iraq are suspected of involvement in the Libya attack comes at a time when there is a growing number of fighters from that group also taking part in the Syrian civil war.

The weakened al Qaeda affiliate has had a resurgence in Iraq since U.S. forces left the country at the end of last year. The group had used Libya as a source for fighters. In a 2008 cable, Stevens described a nearby town of Derna as "a wellspring of Libyan foreign fighters" for al Qaeda in Iraq.

The latest intelligence suggests the core group of suspects from the first wave of the attack on the Benghazi mission numbered between 35 to 40. Around a dozen of the attackers are believed to be connected to either al Qaeda in Iraq or al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, the government official said.

According to the official, others in the core group are suspected of having ties to the Libyan group Ansar al-Sharia, and many of them are believed to be Egyptian jihadis.

And just two hours later, one of the e-mails indicated the Libyan extremist group Ansar al Sharia was claiming responsibility for the attack on social media websites. "Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli," the e-mail said.

Moreover, intelligence officials do not believe Ansar al-Sharia is solely responsible with indications now that some of the attackers were associated with al Qaeda in Iraq, al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and an Egyptian jihad network.....snip~

US Intel believes some Benghazi attackers tied to al Qaeda in Iraq - CNN.com


Which doesn't explain why Obama never took that Sunni Cleric in from Egypt for questioning since he used a social media site.....to call for rising up against the US.

On the 18th of Sept Hezbollah called for more. Also you forget.....al-Zawahiri already had released the Video calling on those in Libya to take revenge for al-libi.

Do we have to accept every video that al-zawahiri makes as truth. He and his ilk have made video threats before.
 
Were there protests in Egypt around
the same time over this issue? I think the attackers the use the protests in general as a cover to launch in the attack.

What you think is irrelevent considering we knew it was a terrorist attack and those on the ground knew it was a terrorist from the moment it started.
 
Do we have to accept every video
that al-zawahiri makes as truth. He and his ilk have made video threats before.

The only video given any legitimacy by the Obama administration was a You-tube video no one had ever seen.

What's worse is Hillary and Obama knew from the begining it was terrorist but allowed that video to get enough publicity to start NEW and REAL protest in other Islamic Nations.

Had they been honest from the start that video would have never seen the light of day.

Why not ? It strengthens their false narrative if more people die in protest that they publicized.
 
Do we have to accept every video that al-zawahiri makes as truth. He and his ilk have made video threats before.

How does that change up the fact that he released his video 18hrs before the attack at Benghazi? How does that change up the fact that everything that Team Obama had stated out of their mouth. Has not been the truth and that they have deflected and misinformed the people as to what took place at Benghazi. How does that change up what the Libyans stated?

Another one was General ham and Panetta stating that they could not use a Drone to attack with as it would have killed innocent people. Well here is one for you and those that Deny all was done that was possible.

See who said the drone had to be used to attack any People with.....they could have had the drone strike an area close to but not in the vicinity of the attackers. Just by firing and the explosion taking place. Would have caused some sort of distraction for the Armed Attackers.

There is no getting round this point tactically and General ham should have known better than to say there was nothing we could do!!!!!
 
Back
Top Bottom