I haven't followed this as much as some people, but since the debate last night, it seems to be boiling up again. If you believe Obama or members of his administration lied, what was the reason? I don't see any political gains that could come from a successful lie. Was it to protect the State dept from criticism? Come on. The State Dept gets criticized all the time. It seems to me there was uncertainty and conflicting reports initially and it took some time to sort things out and that is because there maybe was both an uprising and a terrorist (but probably not Al-Q) attack. Here's the latest reporting... I'm not sure what the Republican position on this is. Should Obama have yelled 'terrorist" louder? Should he have pressed for a more profound link between the Libyans and Al-Q even when the evidence is at best sketchy? Are they upset because the video really did play a role in the incident? You can tell Repubs are so wound up about this because they think it will diminish the OBL kill. It won't.
Unfortunately for the families on top of losing their loved ones this incident happened in an election year. This disgusting finger pointing would not occur if this was not a presidential election year.
What I don't understand is why folks are so worried about differentiating between a terrorist act conducted by a mob versus a terrorist act conducted by Al Qaeda at the end of day still a terrorist act right?
if it doesn't matter then why did the Obama administration lie for two weeks? You are doing exactly what the liars want.
What motivation does Obama have to flat out lie? Why can't you just leave this issue alone and just realize that the investigation was not finished especially with the delay since FBI agents were not immediately allowed in the scene of the incident.
cover up the fact he, or his admin (buck stops with me) denied additional security requests from Stephens, even though they had intel that attacks were coming.
Because if it is a protest that got out of hand then their is little action for the president to take. If it's a terrorist attack that happened on OBama's watch then a) he has some explaining to do b) would need to act (make tough choices). His goal is to the claim 'investigation ongoing' until after the election. Then he can act without consequences. Apparently you completely support this cowardice. He lied for political reasons and because hes lazy.
The DoS deserves criticism and should be held accountable. But I don't believe that needs to be played out in the public eye. I agree with valadez's assessment.
LOL what? So if a terrorist act is commited with no involvement from an organized group then you believe no actions are necessary? Sounds like you're looking for faults in anything Obama does.
if it was a protest that got out of hand then it wasn't a terrorist attack..... That's why Obama never called it one.
I don't recall him saying that that the attackers were just protesters who went overboard. The news reports just a few days after the attack told us there was more to it than that. He said that whoever did the attack was using the video as an excuse or pretext to commit violence. This seemed very plausible. And it didn't eliminate the possibility that it was the acts of terrorists or an Al Qaeda affiliated group. The impression I had within the first week or so of the attack was that the massive backlash in reaction to the video indirectly helped the attackers breach the embassy and commit their crimes. Do we now know that wasn't the case?
For two weeks the White House claimed it was a protest to a youtube video gone haywire. This turned out to be a lie since they had video footage showing no protest existed. There is no way it took them 2 weeks to watch the embassy surveillance video. <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/uFf0dUH3OtU?list=UU5bEfSFTYQVfLCwkhBt8NtQ&hl=en_US" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
I keep hearing this. Where did Obama or his spokesman make such a claim? Can you provide a quote that makes this clear, rather than some fragmented soundbites with ominous music in the background?
hillary clinton (secretary of state) is a spokesman for the white house. so is susan rice. As is Obama and Jay Carney. Watch the youtube clip i posted. Still have yet to hear an apology from Carl Herrera.....
I watched over half of that video, and I stopped after hearing nothing but fragmented sound bites that, for all I know, were taken out of context. I just need one quote from after the first few days where they say that the attackers were actually just overzealous protesters reacting to the video. You said this was their position for two weeks, so there must be something like that. Not saying such a quote doesn't exist, I just till now haven't come across it. Then again, I probably haven't been following the news as closely as you.
In your experience, do protesters frequently have RPG's and assault rifles? Apparently you completely support this inability to formulate a logical conclusion.
You could just google and find those speeches yourself. Oh wait you're a willfully ignorant Obama fan. Here are some of the speeches you bum: <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/0d__S8nEqW0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/b4rtIu0SRzI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/bxf77xQ_NLU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> In all of them they claim protests erupted at the embassy over a video which they knew was false. They have cameras at the embassy. No protests...
