zing! White House & State Dept it was Islamic Militants in Libya 2 hrs after attack.

[oldguy]

Re: zing! White House & State Dept it was Islamic Militants in Libya 2 hrs after att

If it weren't election season, this would be a total non-issue.

An American Ambassidor murdered in a foreign country? A non-issue? You've got to be kidding.

Maybe you forgot the green font.

Do you agree that they shouldn't have tried to save those American's lives? Who do you think should be held accountable for the lack of an attempt to do so?

 

[e_blazer]

Re: zing! White House & State Dept it was Islamic Militants in Libya 2 hrs after att

If it weren't election season, this would be a total non-issue.

Actually, I think it's exactly the opposite. If this weren't an election season, the media would be all over this story. I think they're backing off for fear of hurting Obama's chances.

If Bush had done something like this, tried to gloss over a terrorist attack that killed an American ambassador and three other citizens, there would have been a media frenzy and the liberal message boards would be going ballistic.

 

[Denny Crane]

Re: zing! White House & State Dept it was Islamic Militants in Libya 2 hrs after att

I think that's bullshit.

I don't need green font.

They did just let them die.

They didn't lift a finger to save them. They watched the whole thing on TV, video taken from a drone overhead.

How else would you describe it?

 

[noknobs]

Re: zing! White House & State Dept it was Islamic Militants in Libya 2 hrs after att

They did just let them die.

They didn't lift a finger to save them. They watched the whole thing on TV, video taken from a drone overhead.

How else would you describe it?

I didn't know a drone overhead = not doing anything.

A response team was there quickly from what I can tell, the 2nd email even said that. What evidence am I missing?

You really think the Secretary of State and the intelligence community were just chilling, watching the drone footage and eating popcorn? Give these people at least a little credit. They're pretty good at what they do.

 

[Eastoff]

Re: zing! White House & State Dept it was Islamic Militants in Libya 2 hrs after att

[video=youtube;2k_LMTNLZXc]

 

[noknobs]

Re: zing! White House & State Dept it was Islamic Militants in Libya 2 hrs after att

Adding to what Rice said, I think people need to remember that these emails were not an intelligence assessment. The email saying Ansar al-Sharia claimed responsibility was based on their Facebook page and on Twitter, which is not in itself evidence. And the same group denied its involvment the very next day. This was one of many reports the WH was getting, should they have believed them all, or just this one cherrypicked email? That's the very reason a thorough investigation is necessary. It's very common for more than one group to claim responsibility after something like this.

Anyway that's where I'm coming from. Hopefully the accountability review board will give us a clearer picture.

 

[bluefrog]

Re: zing! White House & State Dept it was Islamic Militants in Libya 2 hrs after att

Imagine if the Chinese had acted 2 hours after NATO bombed their embassy in Belgrade.

 

[PapaG]

Re: zing! White House & State Dept it was Islamic Militants in Libya 2 hrs after att

I think that's bullshit.

I don't need green font.

It's not. There was a live feed and a distress signal put out. The two SEALs who died were in a safe house 1 mile away and responded. Nobody else answered the distress call.

It's a complete failure, and we as Americans demand answers for it. Who made the decision to not send in support? We knew it was happening, and many people were watching it live.

So yes, he did "just let them die". Even worse, he then lied about some video for two weeks to try and cover his ass.

 

[e_blazer]

Re: zing! White House & State Dept it was Islamic Militants in Libya 2 hrs after att

Adding to what Rice said, I think people need to remember that these emails were not an intelligence assessment. The email saying Ansar al-Sharia claimed responsibility was based on their Facebook page and on Twitter, which is not in itself evidence. And the same group denied its involvment the very next day. This was one of many reports the WH was getting, should they have believed them all, or just this one cherrypicked email? That's the very reason a thorough investigation is necessary. It's very common for more than one group to claim responsibility after something like this.

Anyway that's where I'm coming from. Hopefully the accountability review board will give us a clearer picture.

I think that it's certainly a reasonable position to say that there's a need for a full review of all of the relevant information after the fact in order to determine exactly what happened and who's responsible. I don't fault the Obama Administration for what they're doing in that respect. Whether or not the US had sufficient assets close enough to have done something about it while the attack was underway is a question that needs closer examination. Similarly, the decisions made prior to the attack to reduce security despite repeated requests from Stevens for MORE security is something that needs to be investigated.

I think there's going to be a lot of blame to pass around once a thorough investigation is done, but what I think is really disturbing in terms of the election was the continued attempt for a week or two afterwards to cast the attack as having been a mob action in response to the anti-Muslim YouTube video. There never was any indication that there was something that supported that line of baloney. It seems to have been a deliberate attempt to keep a lid on this event until after the election. There's been a whole lot of lying going on from the Obama Adminstration about this and that's what I find most odd and most disturbing.

 

[DaLincolnJones]

Re: zing! White House & State Dept it was Islamic Militants in Libya 2 hrs after att

I think that it's certainly a reasonable position to say that there's a need for a full review of all of the relevant information after the fact in order to determine exactly what happened and who's responsible. I don't fault the Obama Administration for what they're doing in that respect. Whether or not the US had sufficient assets close enough to have done something about it while the attack was underway is a question that needs closer examination. Similarly, the decisions made prior to the attack to reduce security despite repeated requests from Stevens for MORE security is something that needs to be investigated.

I think there's going to be a lot of blame to pass around once a thorough investigation is done, but what I think is really disturbing in terms of the election was the continued attempt for a week or two afterwards to cast the attack as having been a mob action in response to the anti-Muslim YouTube video. There never was any indication that there was something that supported that line of baloney. It seems to have been a deliberate attempt to keep a lid on this event until after the election. There's been a whole lot of lying going on from the Obama Adminstration about this and that's what I find most odd and most disturbing.

repped

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Re: zing! White House & State Dept it was Islamic Militants in Libya 2 hrs after att

I think that it's certainly a reasonable position to say that there's a need for a full review of all of the relevant information after the fact in order to determine exactly what happened and who's responsible. I don't fault the Obama Administration for what they're doing in that respect. Whether or not the US had sufficient assets close enough to have done something about it while the attack was underway is a question that needs closer examination. Similarly, the decisions made prior to the attack to reduce security despite repeated requests from Stevens for MORE security is something that needs to be investigated.

I think there's going to be a lot of blame to pass around once a thorough investigation is done, but what I think is really disturbing in terms of the election was the continued attempt for a week or two afterwards to cast the attack as having been a mob action in response to the anti-Muslim YouTube video. There never was any indication that there was something that supported that line of baloney. It seems to have been a deliberate attempt to keep a lid on this event until after the election. There's been a whole lot of lying going on from the Obama Adminstration about this and that's what I find most odd and most disturbing.

Edit: If President Obama is intentionally lying to the public in an attempt to cover up the deaths of American ambassadors for election purposes, he should be impeached.

 

[e_blazer]

Re: zing! White House & State Dept it was Islamic Militants in Libya 2 hrs after att

Edit: If President Obama is intentionally lying to the public in an attempt to cover up the deaths of American ambassadors for election purposes, he should be impeached.

I don't think there was any intent to cover up the deaths of the ambassador and the other 3 Americans killed in Libya. I do think that there was a deliberate attempt to portray what happened as something it wasn't: a mob action rather than a terrorist attack. That's the only way I can read the continuing line of appearances and statements by the US ambassador to the UN, Jay Carney and others to that effect. There's now ample evidence that they knew full well that it was a terrorist attack and yet for two weeks they kept saying otherwise. Why would they do that? Because an unplanned mob attack in response to a anti-Muslim video would be something that the Administration couldn't be faulted for failing to plan for. It also fit with Obama's election campaign narrative that al qaeda is on the run as a result of his administration's aggressive attacks on its leaders.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Re: zing! White House & State Dept it was Islamic Militants in Libya 2 hrs after att

No, not the security failure and subsequent murder of American government employees in fucking Libya. Of course that's an issue.

OMFG DID OBAMA CALL IT A TERRORIST ATTACK OR NOT ON THIS SPECIFIC DATE? OR WAS IT TWO WEEKS LATER? I CANT BELIEVE HE DIDNT SAY THE EXACT CORRECT THING MERE HOURS AFTER SOMETHING VAGUELY MYSTERIOUS HAPPENED ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE PLANET.

That. That is a non-issue.

 

[e_blazer]

Re: zing! White House & State Dept it was Islamic Militants in Libya 2 hrs after att

No, not the security failure and subsequent murder of American government employees in fucking Libya. Of course that's an issue.

OMFG DID OBAMA CALL IT A TERRORIST ATTACK OR NOT ON THIS SPECIFIC DATE? OR WAS IT TWO WEEKS LATER? I CANT BELIEVE HE DIDNT SAY THE EXACT CORRECT THING MERE HOURS AFTER SOMETHING VAGUELY MYSTERIOUS HAPPENED ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE PLANET.

Actually, Obama did make a reference in passing about terrorism in his comments at the White House rose garden. He directly pointed to this at the second debate. If the narrative the next few weeks had been something to the effect that, 'We're still gathering facts, but the evidence so far points to this being a terrorist attack.', that would have been a responsible approach. Instead, for two weeks they specifically said that it wasn't a terrorist attack, but rather a mob incident in response to the YouTube video. This, despite the fact that we now know that they had real-time video on the attack from a drone and that there was an e-mail from Benghazi within the first two hours of the attack that said the compound was under attack by 20 well-armed men and that an al-Qaeda organization was claiming responsibility for the attack. There was never any evidence at all that this was the result of a mob action. I don't know how to read the response by the Obama administration during the first two weeks as anything other than a deliberate attempt to keep a lid on this by feeding us misinformation. If you can come up with another explanation, I'd love to hear it. In the meantime, this isn't going away:

http://thehill.com/blogs/global-aff...lls-for-answers-from-obama-on-benghazi-attack

 

[PapaG]

Re: zing! White House & State Dept it was Islamic Militants in Libya 2 hrs after att

What did the President know, and when did he know it? Subpeona their lying asses right now. Why did they lie TO THE FACE of the parents of these killed SEALS? Charles Woods, Tyrone's dad, finally went public because he believed the "video" lie that Obama and Hillary told him personally, when clearly they both knew it was an act of terror, and that his son had actually been part of the request.

This is the shit that takes down presidencies. The brazen lies by Obama on this are chilling.

Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that an urgent request from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. consulate and subsequent attack several hours later was denied by U.S. officials -- who also told the CIA operators twice to "stand down" rather than help the ambassador's team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11.
Former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods was part of a small team who was at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team came under attack. When he and others heard the shots fired, they informed their higher-ups at the annex to tell them what they were hearing and requested permission to go to the consulate and help out. They were told to "stand down," according to sources familiar with the exchange. Soon after, they were again told to "stand down."
Woods and at least two others ignored those orders and made their way to the consulate which at that point was on fire. Shots were exchanged. The rescue team from the CIA annex evacuated those who remained at the consulate and Sean Smith, who had been killed in the initial attack. They could not find the ambassador and returned to the CIA annex at about midnight.
At that point, they called again for military support and help because they were taking fire at the CIA safe house, or annex. The request was denied. There were no communications problems at the annex, according those present at the compound. The team was in constant radio contact with their headquarters. In fact, at least one member of the team was on the roof of the annex manning a heavy machine gun when mortars were fired at the CIA compound. The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Spectre gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights. The fighting at the CIA annex went on for more than four hours -- enough time for any planes based in Sigonella Air base, just 480 miles away, to arrive. Fox News has also learned that two separate Tier One Special operations forces were told to wait, among them Delta Force operators.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ng-benghazi-attack-sources-say/#ixzz2AQNNJDIP

 

[PapaG]

Re: zing! White House & State Dept it was Islamic Militants in Libya 2 hrs after att

"Woods, Doherty and at least two others ignored those orders and made their way to the Consulate which at that point was on fire. Shots were exchanged. The quick reaction force from the CIA annex evacuated those who remained at the Consulate and Sean Smith, who had been killed in the initial attack. They could not find the ambassador and returned to the CIA annex at about midnight.

"

True heroes who ignored an asinine refusal to help out those under attack. All should get the Congressional Medal of Honor, but there is no way that Obama is going to give it to them after he lied to the faces of the parents of the deceased.

 

[PapaG]

Re: zing! White House & State Dept it was Islamic Militants in Libya 2 hrs after att

Who authorized the three "stand down" orders? People were literally watching this live in both the Pentagon and the White House. Interesting that the reporter is the Pentagon correspondent, and I assume her sources are military.

 

[PapaG]

Re: zing! White House & State Dept it was Islamic Militants in Libya 2 hrs after att

Obama's whopper in the last debate:

Now with respect to Libya, as I indicated in the last debate, when we received that phone call, I immediately made sure that, number one, that we did everything we could to secure those Americans who were still in harm’s way; number two, that we would investigate exactly what happened, and number three, most importantly, that we would go after those who killed Americans and we would bring them to justice. And that’s exactly what we’re going to do.

100% falsehood according to multiple sources now. This is the guy running on a "Trust Me!" platform this week.

 

[PapaG]

Re: zing! White House & State Dept it was Islamic Militants in Libya 2 hrs after att

Panetta's latest excuse. Still wondering who made the "stand down" call to the distress signals and requests for support.

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012...backing-white-house-handling-of-libya-attack/

 

[PapaG]

Re: zing! White House & State Dept it was Islamic Militants in Libya 2 hrs after att

The team was in constant radio contact with their headquarters. In fact, at least one member of the team was on the roof of the annex manning a heavy machine gun when mortars were fired at the CIA compound. The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Spectre gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights. The fighting at the CIA annex went on for more than four hours -- enough time for any planes based in Sigonella Air base, just 480 miles away, to arrive. Fox News has also learned that two separate Tier One Special operations forces were told to wait, among them Delta Force operators.

Un-fucking-real. Apparently Obama canceled a campaign event today. Must be spin time in the Situation Room. He's going to have to speak about this failure to protect his own personnel and troops.

Who gave the "stand down" order?

 

[DaLincolnJones]

Re: zing! White House & State Dept it was Islamic Militants in Libya 2 hrs after att

“(The) basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on; without having some real-time information about what’s taking place,” Panetta said, according to The Associated Press. “And as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, Gen. Ham, Gen. Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation.”

Panettas spin

could thi sbe the next scape goat?

 

[PapaG]

Re: zing! White House & State Dept it was Islamic Militants in Libya 2 hrs after att

“(The) basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on; without having some real-time information about what’s taking place,” Panetta said, according to The Associated Press. “And as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, Gen. Ham, Gen. Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation.”

Panettas spin

could thi sbe the next scape goat?

Read the article. There was literal minute-by-minute intel from SEALs with lasers on the attackers.

Huge scandal. Of course, the Obama media is just going to ignore this lesson in failed leadership, and in lying to the people for at least 2 weeks.

 

[DaLincolnJones]

Re: zing! White House & State Dept it was Islamic Militants in Libya 2 hrs after att

yeah man, just point out the fact that anytime they start pointing out who is who, the blame gets shifted by the white house


more options, lambs to the slaughter?

Gen. Carter Ham is the head of U.S. Africa Command

 

[PapaG]

Re: zing! White House & State Dept it was Islamic Militants in Libya 2 hrs after att

yeah man, just point out the fact that anytime they start pointing out who is who, the blame gets shifted by the white house


more options, lambs to the slaughter?

Gen. Carter Ham is the head of U.S. Africa Command

The White House and the Pentagon had people watching the live feed. Blaming it on Carter Ham is a cop-out, and still doesn't explain 2 weeks of lying about a video being the fault of the "spontaneous protest". That lie was so obvious and insulting, I immediately rejected it on this board, only to be mocked for doing so.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Re: zing! White House & State Dept it was Islamic Militants in Libya 2 hrs after att

If you keep saying it's a huge scandal, maybe it will become a huge scandal.

Whether it's supposed to or not, this has all the hallmarks of something that's just going to blow over. Like fast and furious did.

 

[oldguy]

Re: zing! White House & State Dept it was Islamic Militants in Libya 2 hrs after att

If you keep saying it's a huge scandal, maybe it will become a huge scandal.

Whether it's supposed to or not, this has all the hallmarks of something that's just going to blow over. Like fast and furious did.

And that's simply because the American press is nothing more than a propaganda machine. If this happened to Bush, he would have been crucified by the press.

Do you agree with the Commander and Chief's decision to tell rescuers to stand down?

 

[PapaG]

Re: zing! White House & State Dept it was Islamic Militants in Libya 2 hrs after att

And that's simply because the American press is nothing more than a propaganda machine. If this happened to Bush, he would have been crucified by the press.

Do you agree with the Commander and Chief's decision to tell rescuers to stand down?

How about the CIC telling the UN that the attack was the result of a video, when clearly they knew at that point that it was a lie.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Re: zing! White House & State Dept it was Islamic Militants in Libya 2 hrs after att

And that's simply because the American press is nothing more than a propaganda machine. If this happened to Bush, he would have been crucified by the press.

And then what would have happened? That's right, nothing.

Do you agree with the Commander and Chief's decision to tell rescuers to stand down?

Nope.

How about the CIC telling the UN that the attack was the result of a video, when clearly they knew at that point that it was a lie.

Nope.

Guys, this kind of shit happens, and people rally and yell about it, and then nothing else happens.

Sure, we can talk about "if Bush did this then" because liberals aren't up in arms. But in the same vain, we can also wonder why conservatives weren't up in arms during the Bush administration's many, many foreign policy blunders.

Could it be that politics is nothing more than a popularity contest where the supporters of each side are cognitively dissonant to the actions of their own party? and that having a virtual panic attack on goddamn sports message boards about it isn't going to do a fucking thing?

Probably. I learned that lesson long ago. Come join me. It's nice and quiet over here.

 

[noknobs]

Re: zing! White House & State Dept it was Islamic Militants in Libya 2 hrs after att

I do think that there was a deliberate attempt to portray what happened as something it wasn't: a mob action rather than a terrorist attack. That's the only way I can read the continuing line of appearances and statements by the US ambassador to the UN, Jay Carney and others to that effect. There's now ample evidence that they knew full well that it was a terrorist attack and yet for two weeks they kept saying otherwise. Why would they do that? Because an unplanned mob attack in response to a anti-Muslim video would be something that the Administration couldn't be faulted for failing to plan for. It also fit with Obama's election campaign narrative that al qaeda is on the run as a result of his administration's aggressive attacks on its leaders.

Sep 11th - Protestors storm U.S. embassy in Cairo, decrying the movie & replacing American flag with a black one inscribed with Muslim slogan used by militant groups. In Benghazi, a protest outside the consulate turns deadly as heavily armed militants, possibly using the protest as cover for a premeditated attack, kill 4 Americans.

Some of the fighters tell a Libyan reporter for the NY Times that they were moved to act due to the video.

Sep. 12th - At a news conference, a spokesman for Ansar al-Shariah praised the attack as the proper response to such an insult to Islam (re: the video).

Other Benghazi militia leaders who know the group say its leaders and ideology are all homegrown. They profess no interest in global fights against the West or distant battles aimed at removing American troops from the Arabian Peninsula.

Sep. 12th - Obama says, "Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence." There's no actual mention of the video, but it seems clear that's what he's referencing. And for good reason. By now there were clear protests to the video in Cairo, Tunisia, and Morocco, with a militant flag over the Cairo embassy. So it had to be front of mind as a possible cause in Benghazi, even as they sift through the tons of info and conflicting reports that were coming in. He did not commit that it was in fact due to the video.

In the same speech Obama says, "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation..." Whether you think he's referring directly to Benghazi or not, just his mere mentioning of terror, goes against your claim that they were deliberately attempting to portray it as a mere mob action. You don't juxtapose Benghazi to acts of terror if you don't want people to think it was terrorism. Makes no sense. Like his reference to the video, he left this statement vague - they clearly didn't know.

Sep 12th - Obama goes on 60 minutes and says that the attack in Benghazi was different from the video protest in Cairo. "You're right that this is not a situation that was exactly the same as what happened in Egypt, and my suspicion is, is that there are folks involved in this who were looking to target Americans from the start."

CBS then chose not to air that for a month... If you hate Obama and have an agenda I'm sure the claim will be that Obama didn't want it to air, but then why say all those things in the first place? This is on CBS.

Sep. 13th - At a campaign event in Las Vegas, Obama said, "No act of terror will dim the light of the values that we proudly shine on the rest of the world..." Again, if he were trying to portray it as something other than terrorism, he wouldn't bring up the phrase 'act of terror'.

Sep. 13th – WH Press Secretary Jay Carney says that the protests around the world were due to reaction to the video (accurate). Carney also made it clear he didn’t want to speculate in light of the ongoing investigation in Benghazi. These remarks get turned around by some with political agendas to mean that he said the Benghazi attack was based on the video (not accurate).

Sep 13th - State department spokeswoman says authorities "are very cautious about drawing conclusion with regard to who the perpetrators were... (and) whether it was premeditated" until their investigation was complete. Seems like common sense.

Sep. 13th – Obama at a campaign rally in Denver again refers to events in Benghazi as an act of terror. “So what I want all of you to know is that we are going to bring those who killed our fellow Americans to justice. I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished.” Again, why reference terror if he's trying to portray it as something other than terrorism?

 

[noknobs]

Re: zing! White House & State Dept it was Islamic Militants in Libya 2 hrs after att

I do think that there was a deliberate attempt to portray what happened as something it wasn't: a mob action rather than a terrorist attack. That's the only way I can read the continuing line of appearances and statements by the US ambassador to the UN, Jay Carney and others to that effect. There's now ample evidence that they knew full well that it was a terrorist attack and yet for two weeks they kept saying otherwise. Why would they do that? Because an unplanned mob attack in response to a anti-Muslim video would be something that the Administration couldn't be faulted for failing to plan for. It also fit with Obama's election campaign narrative that al qaeda is on the run as a result of his administration's aggressive attacks on its leaders.

(cont'd)

Sep 16th - UN Ambassador Susan Rice goes on all five majors to explain the current administration thinking, saying that the attacks were in part a response to the anti-Islam video that had spurred protests across the region. Contrary to the beliefs of some, Rice did not give a definitive answer on what exactly took place - "RICE: [O]ur current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous — not a premeditated — response to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.... We’ll wait to see exactly what the investigation finally confirms, but that’s the best information we have at present."

By this time it had been reported that attackers told reporters their actions were due to the video. However witnesses also said there wasn't a peaceful protest beforehand, which contradicts Rice. We know the attackers were heavily armed but that's not evidence of premeditation since Benghazi militia leaders who know Ansar al-Shariah claim it’s capable of carrying out the attack by itself with only a few hours of planning.

On October 18th, the Wall Street Journal would report that the night Rice went public with that assessment, intelligence analysts were receiving new info that contradicted the info she had. "Despite their growing uncertainty, intelligence officials didn’t feel they had enough conclusive, new information to revise their assessment. Ms. Rice wasn’t warned of their new doubts before she went on the air the next morning."

Sep 19th - Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, said the Americans "were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy, while also saying it was an “opportunistic attack”.

Sep 20th - White House spokesman, Jay Carney, cleared up any confusion by saying, "It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack..." That's the White House Spokesman saying that, he's a parrot for Obama. So how is that portraying it as something other than terrorism for two weeks after the attack?

Sep. 21st – Clinton appoints an independent panel to investigate potential failures in the State Department’s procedures in Benghazi.

Sep 25th - Obama on 'The View' - When asked if it was terrorism, Obama said, "We're still doing an investigation. (true) There's no doubt that with the kind of weapons that were used, the ongoing assault, that it wasn't just a mob action. We don't have all the information yet, so we're still gathering it. But what's clear is that around the world there's still a lot of threats out there." He added that "Extremist militias" were suspected to have been involved." How is that misleading the public? Is 'extremist militia' so outrageously different than 'terrorists'? Only if you have an agenda.

Days later, Carney was asked why Obama hadn't labeled the incident a terrorist attack. He said, "I think you're misunderstanding something here. I'm the president's spokesman. When the head of the National Counterterrorism Center, Matt Olsen, in open testimony in Congress, answered a question by saying yes, by the definitions we go by -- this is me paraphrasing -- this was a terrorist attack -- I echoed that, because this president, this administration, everybody looks to the intelligence community for the assessments on this. And it has been since I said so, the president's position that this was a terrorist attack." Again, how is this portraying it as something it wasn't?

Oct 18th - Ahmed Abu Khattab, a leader in the Ansar al-Sharia militia, indicates to Reuters and NY Times reporters that while he didn't participate in attack, it was in response to the video.

Oct 19th - Fox News' Geraldo Rivera and Peter Doocy both report that the video may have had something to do with the Benghazi assault.

Oct 20th - Washington Post publishes article confirming CIA provided the administration and Congress their initial beliefs that it stemmed from a protest. LA Times publishes article quoting intelligence officials as saying the assault was spontaneous, not ordered by al Qaeda, and was in response to the video.

Oct 22nd - Wall Street Journal reports that Obama was told in his daily intelligence briefing for over a week that the attack in Benghazi grew out of a protest.

So does it really outrage some of you so much that he didn't say 'terrorism' on the fucking View? Or that the video would get referenced in the following weeks? There clearly seems to have been major flaws in the intelligence communities response, and I think in the military response, but to accuse the administration of willfully lying to the public seems a bit of a stretch. If we weren't so close to election, the fingers would be pointing at those who fed Obama his info, not at Obama.

For some of you, everything that supports your position is gospel, but everything that contradicts it is spin.

Everyone has said it was terrorism for weeks now, do you all feel better? What has changed? Have the 4 dead Americans come back to life? I personally think it's pathetic and sickening that the right has decided to use dead Americans for political gain, and making the time-table of declaring this terrorism a talking point, just so their man can get a bump in the polls.