[Hoot Gibson]

This election is now in the bag for Romney. It turns out that an al Qaeda affiliated terrorist group claimed responsibility for the Benghazi attack within two hours of its launch. Multiple email messages were widely distributed and the White House Situation room was among the addressees.

I saw this story breaking object FNC's Greta show last night but it will be everywhere today. Obama's stock on the Intrade site is dropping like a rock. Romney may lead there by the end of today.

I do not forsee any Obama October surprise being able to save him after what he did to mislead the American people after the Libyan attack.

[nky]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/24/us/libya-b...?hpt=hp_t1
Washington (CNN) -- Two hours after the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, the White House, the State Department and the FBI were told that an Islamist group had claimed credit, government e-mails obtained by CNN show.
One of the e-mails -- sent from a State Department address to various government agencies -- specifically identifies Ansar al-Sharia as claiming responsibility for the attack on its Facebook page and on Twitter.
The e-mails raise further questions about the seeming confusion on the part of the Obama administration to determine the nature of the September attack and those who planned it.

[Harry Rex Vonner]

Of course he knew. Unfortunately, all media outlets except Fox will bury it.

[TheRealVille]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/24/us/libya-b...?hpt=hp_t1
Washington (CNN) -- Two hours after the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, the White House, the State Department and the FBI were told that an Islamist group had claimed credit, government e-mails obtained by CNN show.
One of the e-mails -- sent from a State Department address to various government agencies -- specifically identifies Ansar al-Sharia as claiming responsibility for the attack on its Facebook page and on Twitter.
The e-mails raise further questions about the seeming confusion on the part of the Obama administration to determine the nature of the September attack and those who planned it.

The subject line reads: "Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack."
The email says: "Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli.
The Facebook claim of involvement was subsequently denied by the group at a news conference in the following days, but not very convincingly.
"We are saluting our people for this zeal in protecting their religion, to grant victory to the prophet," a spokesman for Ansar al-Sharia said at the time. "The response has to be firm."

Could this have led to confusion, and wanting to wait, and get all the details? It's good to know that if Romney gets elected, we will have a "shoot first, aim later" President.

[Granny Bear]

Wow; this is unbelievable!!

Dunno about that Harry Rex; it's headline on cnn.com!!

[Granny Bear]

Washington (CNN) -- Two hours after the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, the White House, the State Department and the FBI were told that an Islamist group had claimed credit, government e-mails obtained by CNN show.

One of the e-mails -- sent from a State Department address to various government agencies -- specifically identifies Ansar al-Sharia as claiming responsibility for the attack on its Facebook page and on Twitter.

The e-mails raise further questions about the seeming confusion on the part of the Obama administration to determine the nature of the September attack and those who planned it.

The attack left U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans dead.



Benghazi attack: Who knew what when?

Libya attack suspect speaks to reporter

New Benghazi documents emerge The day after it took place, President Barack Obama labeled the incident an "act of terror."

But in the days following the attack, White House spokesman Jay Carney maintained there was no evidence suggesting the attack was "planned or imminent."

The administration also suggested that an anti-Muslim video produced in the United States likely fueled a spontaneous demonstration in Benghazi as it had in Cairo, where the U.S. Embassy also was attacked.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland and Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, all cited the video as a motivating factor in the attack.


Here is the first part of the story as it appears on cnn.com...

Your arguments are empty RealVille....even all that passionate defending because it was in response to the video. It was all lies and a ruse.

[TheRealVille]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57...n-sept-11/

[Granny Bear]

I read your link. I don't understand how you think it supports your story.

I do remember the passion and ferocity with which you demanded that the video initiated the violence.

I don't agree with you on many many things, but you're not stupid. You've got to know that Obama and his circle have lied, covered up and now scrambling because of this story.

[Harry Rex Vonner]

Could this have led to confusion, and wanting to wait, and get all the details? It's good to know that if Romney gets elected, we will have a "shoot first, aim later" President.

Are you saying your boy is a modern day Nero who fiddled while Rome burned? If so, it is an apt comparison.

It is now over six weeks since the terrorism occurred. Kardashian has still avoided confronting the facts. Apparently most everyone other than your boy knows the facts. Your boy, of course, wants to hide it all until after the election.

Your boy is a deceptive and incompetent fool. We need to send him back home to Indonesia or wherever he chooses to call home.

[TheRealVille]

I read your link. I don't understand how you think it supports your story.

I do remember the passion and ferocity with which you demanded that the video initiated the violence.

I don't agree with you on many many things, but you're not stupid. You've got to know that Obama and his circle have lied, covered up and now scrambling because of this story.

Watch the video, he explains that he thought it was terrorists. When you are in a Presidential position, you can't jump the gun on every decision you make. You cannot shoot from the hip. It took time to figure out what happened. In one of the emails about the terrorists facebook page, the terrorists alluded that the film might be part of the attack, as was the reason in Cairo, and told people on their page

"We are saluting our people for this zeal in protecting their religion, to grant victory to the prophet,

In the video, the President even said that he didn't think the reason was like Cairo.

"You're right that this is not a situation that was -- exactly the same as what happened in Egypt and my suspicion is that there are folks involved in this who were looking to target Americans from the start," Mr. Obama said.

On September 13, a senior U.S. official told CNN that the violence in Libya was not the work of "an innocent mob."
"The video or 9/11 made a handy excuse and could be fortuitous from their perspective, but this was a clearly planned military-type attack," the official said.
But it wasn't until September 19 that the administration began to call the attack the work of terrorists.

From the CNN link above. A US official said this 2 days after the attack, then 6 days later the White House said it. You people do realize that things at this level take time to figure out. It's a good thing nobody on BGR was President, we would be in a new war, right now, with all the "shoot first, aim later" mentality.

[Bob Seger]

Wow; this is unbelievable!!

Dunno about that Harry Rex; it's headline on cnn.com!!

Dont worry Granny, they'll send Candy out to "retract" anything that is deemed detrimental to Obama.

[nky]

We did nothing to help
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-33816_162-57...ya-attack/
Could U.S. military have helped during Libya attack?

CBS News) The closer we get to the election, the harder Republicans in Congress are pushing for answers to a big question: What really happened in the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya last month that killed the U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans?

Some lawmakers are asking why U.S. military help from outside Libya didn't arrive as terrorists battered more than 30 Americans over the course of more than seven hours. The assault was launched by an armed mob of dozens that torched buildings and used rocket propelled grenades, mortars and AK-47 rifles.

CBS News has been told that, hours after the attack began, an unmanned Predator drone was sent over the U.S. mission in Benghazi, and that the drone and other reconnaissance aircraft apparently observed the final hours of the protracted battle.

The State Department, White House and Pentagon declined to say what military options were available. A White House official told CBS News that, at the start of the attack, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Martin Dempsey and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta "looked at available options, and the ones we exercised had our military forces arrive in less than 24 hours, well ahead of timelines laid out in established policies."

But it was too late to help the Americans in Benghazi. The ambassador and three others were dead.

A White House official told CBS News that a "small group of reinforcements" was sent from Tripoli to Benghazi, but declined to say how many or what time they arrived.

:HitWall:

[TheRealThing]

Watch the video, he explains that he thought it was terrorists. When you are in a Presidential position, you can't jump the gun on every decision you make. You cannot shoot from the hip. It took time to figure out what happened. In one of the emails about the terrorists facebook page, the terrorists alluded that the film might be part of the attack, as was the reason in Cairo, and told people on their page

"We are saluting our people for this zeal in protecting their religion, to grant victory to the prophet,

In the video, the President even said that he didn't think the reason was like Cairo.

"You're right that this is not a situation that was -- exactly the same as what happened in Egypt and my suspicion is that there are folks involved in this who were looking to target Americans from the start," Mr. Obama said.


From the CNN link above. A US official said this 2 days after the attack, then 6 days later the White House said it. You people do realize that things at this level take time to figure out. It's a good thing nobody on BGR was President, we would be in a new war, right now, with all the "shoot first, aim later" mentality.

You can try to spin it and I know you will. However, 15 days after the Benghazi attack Obama stood in front of the UN and declared the violence the result of an anti-Islamic video. The email log now in possession of FOX News, (the nation's only viable main stream media source) takes all the wiggle room out of the equation for team Obama. Names, times, details, it's all a matter of record. Who knew and when will fall into place very soon. Not to mention that it seems there was a seven hour time frame in which the compound was under attack, during which, American former military fought gallantly before they were finally overwhelmed. Seven hours of combat marked these guys final hours, and administration officials knew all about it.

[WideRight05]

And the media is still covering up for him. Pray tell, what is it going to take for the media to finally give up on him?

[TheRealVille]

You can try to spin it and I know you will. However, 15 days after the Benghazi attack Obama stood in front of the UN and declared the violence the result of an anti-Islamic video. The email log now in possession of FOX News, (the nation's only viable main stream media source) takes all the wiggle room out of the equation for team Obama. Names, times, details, it's all a matter of record. Who knew and when will fall into place very soon. Not to mention that it seems there was a seven hour time frame in which the compound was under attack, during which, American former military fought gallantly before they were finally overwhelmed. Seven hours of combat marked these guys final hours, and administration officials knew all about it.

On September 19th, he called it an act of terrorists. Enlighten me, how would you have handled the statements to the media? What timeline would you have used? Would you have investigated, and tried to find out the truth, or just shot from the hip on it?

[Granny Bear]

What anyone else would do is irrelevant.

What Obama did; however, IS relevant. Appears that he 1-didn't supply the security that the situation clearly needed and was requested; 2-didn't react to the email messages that he started receiving two hours into a seven hour battle; 3-tried to cover up his total disregard of the situation by lying about a damn video (THAT could've led to a big problem; we even debated the hell out of it on BGR) and 4-used the media in his attempt toward the cover up.

YOU even fought diligently trying to convince us that the video was an intrigal part of the problem RealVille.... Even to the point of understanding WHY it was the rationale for the violence.

I can't see your point at all!!!



Bob Seger - according to my sources, you have a huge crush on Candy!! Any truth to the rumor???
:lmao:

[Harry Rex Vonner]

Could this have led to confusion, and wanting to wait, and get all the details? It's good to know that if Romney gets elected, we will have a "shoot first, aim later" President.

If your boy was "wanting to wait and get all the details" why did he and his comrades immediately start pushing the video as the one and only cause of the terrorist attack.

You need to at least try to be consistent even if you aren't objective.

[TheRealThing]

On September 19th, he called it an act of terrorists. Enlighten me, how would you have handled the statements to the media? What timeline would you have used? Would you have investigated, and tried to find out the truth, or just shot from the hip on it?

Well, if you could post the link proving those words came out of Obama's mouth on the 19th, I'd be interested to see it. I am aware that the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, Matthew Olsen, told federal committees that Stevens and three other Ameicans "were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy." But that was Olsen, not Obama. What was Obama doing at the UN on the 25th still blaming the video?

What would I have done? Not sure, but, you can bet your dreams of retirement I wouldn't have floated the bush league cover story he did, or anything like it. The idea of being honest with the American public, though novel in the minds of liberals, wouldn't have needed to be replete with the facts. All that was necessary, was to say it was an act of terror and we're getting to the bottom of what happened. If he'd been even that forthcoming, he'd have had the cover he now needs to escape the firestorm created by lying about it. His campaign line, "Al-Qeada is on the run" was just too good to give up. So, he ran the video story up the flag pole to see if it would fly. It doesn't matter exactly where the idea for the video first came from. They had real time intelligence on the matter. And we know this now because that fact is backed up by an email log.

[TheRealVille]

What anyone else would do is irrelevant.

What Obama did; however, IS relevant. Appears that he 1-didn't supply the security that the situation clearly needed and was requested; 2-didn't react to the email messages that he started receiving two hours into a seven hour battle; 3-tried to cover up his total disregard of the situation by lying about a damn video (THAT could've led to a big problem; we even debated the hell out of it on BGR) and 4-used the media in his attempt toward the cover up.

YOU even fought diligently trying to convince us that the video was an intrigal part of the problem RealVille.... Even to the point of understanding WHY it was the rationale for the violence.

I can't see your point at all!!!



Bob Seger - according to my sources, you have a huge crush on Candy!! Any truth to the rumor???
:lmao:

No, it's not irrelevant. If you all are going to bitch and complain on how he handled it, you should be able to state what you would have done different, that would have been acceptable.

[Granny Bear]

It IS irrelevant because it's hindsight and can't change anything.

I can without hesitation say that ignoring a plea for increased security, ignoring emails that are informing him of imminent attack AND lying to cover up his inaction is wrong. And it's wrong on so many levels!! No matter who did this crap, IT'S WRONG. Further, it was no mistake, but a choice made by our President.

[TheRealVille]

STATE DEPARTMENT — U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says an Internet claim of responsibility that followed last month's attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, is not hard evidence of who killed four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador. The Obama administration's handling of the event has become an issue in the U.S. presidential campaign.

Within hours of the September 11 attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, a State Department clearinghouse for publicly available information notified U.S. officials that the Islamist group Ansar al-Sharia claimed credit for the violence in posts on Facebook and Twitter.

That has raised more questions about the Obama administration's initial public assessment that the violence was linked to a protest over an Internet video defaming the Prophet Muhammad - an explanation the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations repeated five days after the attack.

Secretary Clinton says the Ansar al-Sharia Internet claim proved nothing.

"Posting something on Facebook is not in and of itself evidence, and I think it just underscores how fluid the reporting was at the time and continued for some time to be,'' he said.

Speaking to reporters at the State Department Wednesday, she said an ongoing review of those events is looking into all of the information available at the time, as well as what has been learned since.

"The independent Accountability Review Board is already hard at work looking at everything, not cherry picking one story here or one document there, but looking at everything, which I highly recommend as the appropriate approach to something as complex as an attack like this," said the secretary of state.

​​
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney and some of his party's lawmakers in Congress have accused the Obama administration of misleading Americans about the violence that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others.

White House press secretary Jay Carney says "there were emails about all sorts of information that was becoming available in the aftermath of the attack,'' and that U.S. intelligence officials moved to "assess strands of information and make judgments about what happened and who is responsible.''

Secretary Clinton says no one wants to get to the bottom of what happened more than the Obama administration.

"What I keep in mind is that four brave Americans were killed and we will find out what happened, we will take whatever measures are necessary to fix anything that needs to be fixed, and we will bring those to justice who committed these murders,'' she said.

It is reported that Turkey has extradited to Tunisia a suspect in the Benghazi attack, but State Department officials would not comment on whether U.S. authorities are trying to question that individual.

http://www.voanews.com/content/clinton_i...32642.html

[SKINNYPIG]

On September 19th, he called it an act of terrorists. Enlighten me, how would you have handled the statements to the media? What timeline would you have used? Would you have investigated, and tried to find out the truth, or just shot from the hip on it?

With all due respect to the President and you TRV, enlighten myself and other BGR members, as to where the rock solid evidence, emails or anything else involved was, that so compelled the President and his staff to keep telling us the "video" was an excuse or reason for the attack. He had much more evidence that it was a terrorist attack than he did that it had ANYTHING to do with a video. Why did he focus on the video?

It is my opinion that one of three things happened here.
1. Our President is cold as ice, and told someone else to handle it.
2. He had no idea what happened and followed the advice of his campaign team...Which makes him grotesquely incompetent.
3. He knew exactly what happened and who was involved. Conspired with his staff and decided to cover it up, knowing the affect it may have on the election.

I choose 3. Either choice should be enough to disqualify him as one to cast a vote for...By any American!

[TheRealVille]

With all due respect to the President and you TRV, enlighten myself and other BGR members, as to where the rock solid evidence, emails or anything else involved was, that so compelled the President and his staff to keep telling us the "video" was an excuse or reason for the attack. He had much more evidence that it was a terrorist attack than he did that it had ANYTHING to do with a video. Why did he focus on the video?

It is my opinion that one of three things happened here.
1. Our President is cold as ice, and told someone else to handle it.
2. He had no idea what happened and followed the advice of his campaign team...Which makes him grotesquely incompetent.
3. He knew exactly what happened and who was involved. Conspired with his staff and decided to cover it up, knowing the affect it may have on the election. Go figure. We can't expect many from red kentucky to be for him, so it really doesn't matter.

I choose 3. Either choice should be enough to disqualify him as one to cast a vote for...By any American!

Around 50% are for him, and a lot of them are in states that will most likely keep him in office.

[SKINNYPIG]

Around 50% are for him, and a lot of them are in states that will most likely keep him in office.

I know...crazy ain't it?

[Harry Rex Vonner]

Around 50% are for him, and a lot of them are in states that will most likely keep him in office.

You are correct. Close to 50%. And the vast majority of that group are made up of those who make no contribution whatsoever to the welfare of the country. Rather than contributing to the welfare, they receive welfare.

It would be a reasonable estimate to say that 80% to 90% of the income tax dollars "contributed" to the country's coffers by voters comes from those who will vote for Romney.

[TheRealThing]

No, it's not irrelevant. If you all are going to bitch and complain on how he handled it, you should be able to state what you would have done different, that would have been acceptable.

Tell the truth.

[TheRealVille]

Tell the truth.

Are you really Hoot? Are you drunk tonight? You are not coherent. What truth could he tell, until he found out for sure? A President cannot shoot from the hip like most republicans do.

[TheRealThing]

Are you really Hoot?

Where is that link showing Obama saying it was an act of terror on the 19th?

[TheRealVille]

Where is that link showing Obama saying it was an act of terror on the 19th?

However, it wasn't until September 19 that Matthew Olsen, the nation's counterterrorism chief, told senators that it was a terrorist attack. The next day, Carney also said it was "self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack."

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/24/us/libya-b...index.html

Obama's spokesman for that particular department.

[TheRealThing]

Obama's spokesman for that particular department.

No, Obama's spokesman he is not. Like I said in post #18 hint, look up ^, Olsen made that statement in committee to federal committees. It wasn't made as an official administration position to the American public. I asked for a link showing Obama made anything like an admission that it was a terrorist act on the 19th.