****ty journalists recycling what the white house and other journalists report.... What's your point? http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/12/video-from-benghazi-consulate-shows-organized-attack.html So the videos at the embassy disprove the protests. How long do you think it took them to watch the videos from the embassy? 2 weeks? Sounds like a kickass investigation......
The reporters or their sources were there during the episode. They reported the news barely 24 hours after the fact. THEY HAVE NO REASON TO LIE. It is not yet a partisan issue at the time. Your video sources now? Video with MISSING footages. Coming out at this time when almost everybody involved are covering their backs. With partisanship all over the air. Unknown sources. NOBODY has seen the video except Mr. Unknown. I am not discounting the fact it maybe true, I just trust the earlier, unadulterated, non-partisan, first hand account for now. If you can't see the point, you never will.
I don't know. How much video footage was there? What is the extent of its coverage for the areas surrounding the consulate? Who had it access to it, and when? Too many unknowns there for me to agree that this was a blatant lie and not merely the sort of spin that is routine for politicians. And, again, who other than Susan Rice claimed there were protests at Benghazi?
Obama, Carney, Clinton.... <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/b4rtIu0SRzI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> 'What we do know is that the natural protests that erose because of the outrage over the video was used by extremists to see if they can also harm US interests'
Tallanvor, to prove to you that this backlash is all politically motivated, answer this question as truthfully as you possibly can with out your conservative shades. Would this level of scrutiny occur if this was not a presidential election year?
I will say this much. Terrorists love anniversaries. When I was in the military, based in Italy, whenever there was an anniversary of a terrorist attack, security was heightened well before and well after that day. Hell, does anyone remember 9/11 two years ago? Nothing happened, but....all you had to do was look in the sky. How many fighter jets were patrolling the city? My wife and I would walk at Memorial Park or go to Rice Village and, s**t, the jets were right over your head. Maybe there was a specific threat going on at the time, who knows. After killing OBL, security should have been beefed up again worldwide. The Joint Chiefs should have known this. They should have conveyed it to Obama and Clinton. I'm an Obama fan, and I can't stand Romney, but this was a screw-up (that Romney/Ryan wouldn't have ameliorated had they been in office), and they'd better fix it fast, even if it always takes a tragedy before people see the light.
He was asked about Libya..... Of course. The White House falsely accused a citizen of provoking a protest that led to 4 American deaths. They did this knowing it was false. This citizen was even taken in for questioning about the video by the police. The whole administration lied point blank to the American people about the deaths of American citizens. Let's say tomorrow the embassy in Cairo is blown up and Obama comes out and says it was the Egyptian government and America should retaliate. Should I believe him? He just lied about the cause of a previous attack. The fact that you let Weasel Obama coast with the 'investigation ongoing' until the election is over is pathetic. You should demand more from your leaders.
He was asked about the attack in Libya. That doesn't mean the protests he mentioned also occurred in Libya. The protest in Cairo isn't too far away, and news of it was spreading fast. One of the early pieces of intelligence was that the Cairo protests affected the terrorists decision to proceed with their attack.
A very good OpEd from Richard Clark this morning which re-enforces my opinion that this is nothing but political attacks during an election season. Romney on Libya: Just shameful Playing politics on national security The last of the presidential debates will focus on national security and will surely produce another round of sniping about what happened before, during and after the raid on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Voters, therefore, ought to think about this issue in context. Karl Rove, the Republican evil genius of campaign slurs, is famous for advising candidates to attack an opponent’s strong suit. If Sen. John Kerry is a decorated war hero and your guy avoided going to Vietnam, then attack Kerry’s service record. If Sen. Max Cleland lost limbs fighting for America, question his patriotism. The problem is that those two outrageous attacks worked, as have many others like them. Why is the attack on Bengahzi being talked about so much? It is not because the Republicans have a long record of caring about embassy security. House Republicans cut $128 million in fiscal year 2011 and an additional $331 million in fiscal year 2012 from what Secretary of State Clinton requested for embassy security. No, it’s because their polling and focus groups show that voters believe that President Obama has done a very good job fighting terrorists. Therefore, the Rove theory says, you attack Obama on terrorism. Every President since Ronald Reagan has suffered American casualties to terrorism on his watch. Obama has suffered far fewer than his predecessors, largely because he has kept the terrorist groups off balance by relentlessly attacking them. He has largely eliminated Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan as an effective fighting force. His use of drones and special forces has been aggressive and successful, including in Yemen and Somalia. Mitt Romney seems fixated on why Washington did not know with better clarity and sooner what went on during a terrorist attack. It is the kind of question that comes from someone who has no experience dealing with terrorism crisis management or, indeed, combat. I dealt with scores of incidents and military operations over 30 years in the Pentagon, State Department and White House. I never saw a case where there was initial and accurate clarity about what happened. In the case of TWA 800, the FBI thought for months that it had been shot down by a missile, only to learn much later that it was a maintenance problem that caused the fuel tank to explode. When the destroyer Cole was attacked in Yemen, it took the CIA director weeks to decide that the attackers were from Al Qaeda . The Iranian hand in the attack on the U.S. Air Force barracks at Khobar, Saudi Arabia, did not emerge for months. News media and members of Congress may want instant answers when something explodes, when Americans die, but national security professionals know that “first reports are always wrong.” That is why, when pressed by reporters to say what had happened, UN Ambassador Susan Rice qualified her response by saying that the investigation was ongoing. She then said what the intelligence community had reported to her at that time. For this, Republicans are suggesting that the administration was using a political filter on how it was characterizing the attack. To be clear, what Rice and other administration officials said then was, to the best of our knowledge, what they were told then by nonpartisan security and intelligence professionals who were still collecting reports and putting the pieces together. That is not politics. But it is politics to rush out with a press release critical of the President’s handling of a crisis while the crisis is still going on, while American diplomats are still under fire. The Romney campaign did just that and got many details wrong in so doing. If there were not a presidential campaign going on, a campaign in which the incumbent has a stellar record of fighting terrorism, I doubt Romney would care about the details of what happened in Benghazi. In 20 years of running for office, he has never demonstrated any expertise or even real interest in the details of national security. What happened in Benghazi will be reported in detail to the public by a team of highly respectable national security professionals with almost a century of combined service. The Accountability Review Board appointed by Clinton is led by Ambassador Tom Pickering, who served Republican and Democratic Presidents in a record eight ambassadorial jobs. He is aided by Adm. Mike Mullen, who was America’s top military commander. Anyone who really cares about what happened will await their report and will not interfere with their work by politicizing the issue. But expect Romney to raise it again in the next debate, because what he really cares about is trying to put a dent in Obama’s outstanding performance on terrorism. When he does, ask yourself which man would you want calling the shots against Al Qaeda. Clarke is a former counterterrorism adviser to Presidents George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. He was deputy assistant secretary of state for intelligence under President Ronald Reagan.
stunning, revealing, nauseating. <iframe width="853" height="480" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/A2EoZq2rXXI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> and sadly, not surprising.
Holy crap when you actually listen to the univision quote that the right wingers are touting; there is absolutely nothing in it that supports their accusations. Unless perhaps you put all his words in a blender and rearrange them to your own liking.
Unfortunately the people who need to read this (basso, bigtexx etc) will either tl;dr it or skim through it and throw it out the window. They will go to their grave thinking Obama is a liar who hates America.
agree with your post but i must point out that you are spelling your own moniker wrong. it is FchodeH311
The current administration (and surrogates like Clarke) are blaming Republicans for cutting that budget when it was an equal, bi-partisan vote that cut the funding. Is that a lie or not? My criticism is with the cover-up. I realize that no president anywhere can keep everyone safe all the time. The cover-up is also a politically motivated action; who are you trying to kid?
