U.S. Ambassador Killed Over Anti-Islam Movie - Page 19 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-18-2012, 10:46 AM   #271
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Pearl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,653
Local Time: 10:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen

Pearl was just going by what was out at the time she started the thread. Don't think she's in on any conspiracy-she's not Candy Crowley. I think she probably started the thread pre Rose Garden, no?
I began this thread on the morning of September 12th, back when the reports indicated that the ambassador was killed over the movie.

For those who are up in arms over Obama not mentioning that this was a terrorist act, how do you feel about GWB not admitting Iraq never had WMDs? Sounds like a double standard there.
__________________

__________________
Pearl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2012, 06:05 PM   #272
War Child
 
Caleb8844's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 662
Local Time: 08:10 AM
BENGHAZI: Documents show Stevens worried about security threats, al-Qaeda | Special Report | Bret Baier | Fox News Channel

Quote:
Across 166 pages of internal State Department documents – released today by a pair of Republican congressmen pressing the Obama administration for more answers on the Benghazi terrorist attack – slain U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and the security officers assigned to protect him repeatedly sounded alarms to their superiors in Washington about the intensifying lawlessness and violence in Eastern Libya, where Stevens ultimately died.

On September 11 – the day Stevens and three other Americans were killed – the ambassador signed a three-page cable, labeled “sensitive,” in which he noted “growing problems with security” in Benghazi and “growing frustration” on the part of local residents with Libyan police and security forces. These forces the ambassador characterized as “too weak to keep the country secure.”

In the document, Stevens also cited a meeting he had held two days earlier with local militia commanders. These men boasted to Stevens of exercising “control” over the Libyan Armed Forces, and threatened that if the U.S.-backed candidate for prime minister were to prevail in Libya’s internal political jockeying, “they would not continue to guarantee security in Benghazi.”

Roughly a month earlier, Stevens had signed a two-page cable, also labeled “sensitive,” that he entitled “The Guns of August: Security in Eastern Libya.” Writing on August 8, the ambassador noted that in just a few months’ time, “Benghazi has moved from trepidation to euphoria and back as a series of violent incidents has dominated the political landscape…The individual incidents have been organized,” he added, a function of “the security vacuum that a diverse group of independent actors are exploiting for their own purposes.”

“Islamist extremists are able to attack the Red Cross with relative impunity,” Stevens cabled. “What we have seen are not random crimes of opportunity, but rather targeted and discriminate attacks.” His final comment on the two-page document was: “Attackers are unlikely to be deterred until authorities are at least as capable.”

By September 4, Stevens’s aides were reporting back to Washington on the “strong Revolutionary and Islamist sentiment” in the city.

Scarcely more than two months had passed since Stevens had notified the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice and other agencies about a “recent increase in violent incidents,” including “attacks against western [sic] interests.” “Until the GOL [Government of Libya] is able to effectively deal with these key issues,” Stevens wrote on June 25, “the violence is likely to continue and worsen.”

After the U.S. consulate in Benghazi had been damaged by an improvised explosive device, earlier that month, Stevens had reported to his superiors that an Islamist group had claimed credit for the attack, and in so doing, had “described the attack as ‘targeting the Christians supervising the management of the consulate.”

“Islamic extremism appears to be on the rise in eastern Libya,” the ambassador wrote, adding that “the Al-Qaeda flag has been spotted several times flying over government buildings and training facilities…”

The documents also contain evidence that the State Department’s denials of requests for enhanced security in Benghazi in the months leading up to 9/11 may have contributed to the ability of the attackers to plan their assault on the consulate and annex grounds without being detected.


Read more: BENGHAZI: Documents show Stevens worried about security threats, al-Qaeda | Special Report | Bret Baier | Fox News Channel
__________________

__________________
Caleb8844 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2012, 10:18 PM   #273
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 08:10 AM
Quote:
“every piece of information that we get, as we got it we laid it out to the American people. The picture eventually gets fully filled in.”
-President Obama on the Jon Stewart Show Oct 18
Expect Jon Stewart to get mentioned in the 3rd debate on Monday as this is clearly a whopper.

A little quiz. From whom has the president not taken questions from regarding the ambassador's murder?

1) The ladies of the View
2) Jon Stewart
3) David Letterman
4) The White House press corp
__________________
INDY500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2012, 04:34 PM   #274
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,474
Local Time: 09:10 AM
This "whopper" reeks of desperation by the GOP who have NOTHING else when it comes to foreign policy.

Obama flattened Romeny when it came up last week and even got the audience to applaud in his favor. Expect him to crush the governor again.

Romney will painfully try to put light between himself and Obama on these issues, but it's a mirage -- everyone knows that American foreign policy has made enormous improvements since the historical nadir of Bush/Cheney, even Romeny, because if you listen closely, he largely has followed Obama on all the major issues.

Benghazi is such a minor point, but it's all the GOP has. It's incredibly sad how they've tried to exploit this tragedy.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2012, 09:54 AM   #275
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 09:10 AM
Let me guess-the WH press corps

What do I win?

That was a stunner, the biggest underdog of the day in the league

Yes, if you want to believe conspiracy theories Obama was covering all of this up in order to preserve his record on the war on terror before the election. If he did to that intentionally, on his own or following advisers, well he certainly is not the man I thought he was.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2012, 07:14 PM   #276
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 09:10 AM
abcnews.com


By JOHN PARKINSON (@jparkABC) , DANA HUGHES (@dana_hughes) and SUNLEN MILLER (@sunlenmiller)
Oct 24, 2012

After the White House and State Department downplayed the significance of email alerts sent to national security officials in real-time during the assault on a U.S. consulate in Benghazi last month, top congressional Republicans are pouncing on the email alerts, one of which suggested a known terrorist group claimed credit for the attack in its immediate aftermath.

In light of the emails, Republican Sens. John McCain of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire teamed up today to write a letter to question President Obama why his administration "consistently described the attack for days afterward as a spontaneous response to an anti-Islam video."


"These emails make clear that your administration knew within two hours of the attack that it was a terrorist act and that Ansar al-Sharia, a Libyan militant group with links to al Qaeda, had claimed responsibility for it," the trio wrote. "This latest revelation only adds to the confusion surrounding what you and your administration knew about the attacks in Benghazi, when you knew it, and why you responded to those tragic events in the ways that you did."

In a separate statement, Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., the chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, said the email alerts "undermine any administration claim to have ever believed in good faith that our ambassador and three other American officials were murdered in a 'spontaneous reaction' to a film trailer posted on the Internet.

"I again call upon President Obama to release any intelligence reporting which led his administration to characterize the firebombing of our consulate and the assassination of our ambassador as a spontaneous demonstration against a movie clip," King wrote. "The White House should also release the intelligence analyses which finally convinced them that this was a terrorist attack."

Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., the chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee, also questioned what the White House and State Department initially knew.

"These emails add to the growing list of serious questions about what top officials from the Obama administration initially knew about the attacks on Americans in Benghazi and about who was responsible just hours after the assault began," Price wrote in a statement. "At the very least, they demand that, on behalf of the American people, we continue to ask why the Obama administration attempted to so adamantly and publicly push an alternative narrative about the attacks for more than two weeks after four Americans were killed. It is a narrative that appears to have been, from almost the very beginning, in doubt."

But Secretary of State Hillary Clinton today disputed any notion that the email alerts should be viewed as conclusive evidence.

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

Clinton reiterated that the State Department's internal investigation is ongoing and is examining all the evidence, "not cherry picking ... one story here or looking at one document there." She called a full investigation the "appropriate approach" before drawing any conclusions about the attack.

At least one congressional Democrat came to the administration's defense, urging lawmakers to afford investigators ample time to review the incident.

"We shouldn't do anything to compromise the ongoing effort to hunt down the attackers or the ongoing review of this attack by the independent accountability board," said Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, the top Democrat on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. "We need to let these investigations go forward and only then draw conclusions."

White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters today, "There was a variety of information coming in" in the aftermath of the attack as the intelligence community assessed strands of information to "make judgments about what happened and who was responsible."

White House officials added that the alerts were not definitive, noting that Ansar al-Sharia denied responsibility for the attack six days later.

State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland confirmed that the email mentioning Ansar al-Sharia was sent by the State Department's operations center, whose role is to collect public, unclassified information and disseminate it to senior administration officials in "real time."

Nuland added that the operations center sends tens of emails each day to keep administration officials informed of "what's out there in the public," and though it uses some judgment in sending out summaries of what various extremist groups and press reports are saying, the summaries should not be considered analysis.

"They report what they get. So if they reported, 'embassy in Tripoli says,' then it is based on something that embassy in Tripoli said," she said. "Whether that can be right or that could be wrong is something to be evaluated later."

Nuland confirmed that assessments on the reports are made by the intelligence community.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2012, 03:35 PM   #277
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,429
Local Time: 02:10 PM
Was there a variety of information coming in? Absolutely. Was it confusing? Absolutely. Were there conflicting reports? Sure. But why the hell did the Administration keep insisting for two weeks that a YouTube video was to blame? Just say "we don't know, we're still assessing, etc."

I don't get the moral hand-wringing over this, but at the same time, the Administration needs to admit this was a fuck-up.
__________________
nathan1977 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2012, 04:11 PM   #278
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Pearl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,653
Local Time: 10:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
Was there a variety of information coming in? Absolutely. Was it confusing? Absolutely. Were there conflicting reports? Sure. But why the hell did the Administration keep insisting for two weeks that a YouTube video was to blame? Just say "we don't know, we're still assessing, etc."

I don't get the moral hand-wringing over this, but at the same time, the Administration needs to admit this was a fuck-up.
This sums up what I believe about this issue. There certainly was a failure of communication with all offices - State Dept, CIA - and it killed people. Everyone needs to own up.
__________________
Pearl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2012, 01:28 PM   #279
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Pearl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,653
Local Time: 10:10 AM
Quote:
The day after Bell's, ahem, creative repackaging of the CBS story, fringe conservative blogs found themselves off and running with the fantasy. Hate radio personality and probable Wikipedia entry self-author Lars Larson went on Fox News to more or less repeat the claim, thereby entering it into the conservative canon. You'll now find stories at World Net Daily and on various smaller, fringe blogs, as well.

But mostly, you'll find graphics polluting social media. They present images that, if indeed taken from the videos, were acquired three weeks later. They are presented with shocking text claiming it was watched live by a callous U.S. President who sat and... what? Cracked open a bottle of champagne, laughed diabolically and twirled his handlebar mustache? Thought about how the death of an American ambassador on his watch would surely seal his re-election and, therefore, his secret bid to turn America into a Muslim theocracy where white men are slaves to the African master race and white women are forced to abort their babies at eight months under penalty of sex change? I can only imagine so, as that is exactly the level of thinking we're dealing with in these lies.

And, sadly, it's a level of thinking that we must occasionally address.
Larry Womack: How a Real News Story Became the 'Obama Watched Them Die' Meme
__________________
Pearl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2012, 03:26 PM   #280
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 09:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
Was there a variety of information coming in? Absolutely. Was it confusing? Absolutely. Were there conflicting reports? Sure. But why the hell did the Administration keep insisting for two weeks that a YouTube video was to blame? Just say "we don't know, we're still assessing, etc."

I don't get the moral hand-wringing over this, but at the same time, the Administration needs to admit this was a fuck-up.
This is a perfectly reasonable reaction. But one thing that has continually bothered is the tone used when mentioning "the youtube video" as if it would be absurd to think that could've been the cause of the attacks... it should be absurd, but the reality is that it was responsible for a lot of violence in two dozen other countries
__________________
Jive Turkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2012, 05:21 PM   #281
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 08:10 AM
.
__________________
INDY500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2012, 09:05 PM   #282
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,272
Local Time: 09:10 AM
Quote:
Former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice defended the Obama Administration’s handling of the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, departing from the many conservatives who have accused the White House of mishandling its response to the attack, or worse, covering up its incompetence.

“When things are unfolding very, very quickly, it’s not always easy to know what is really going on on the ground,” Rice told Fox News host Greta Van Susteren.
Condi presented this sacrilege on Fox.
__________________
anitram is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2012, 10:48 PM   #283
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 09:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
Condi presented this sacrilege on Fox.

Good for her.

Now where's Sununu to explain to us why really she really said that?
__________________
maycocksean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2012, 07:58 AM   #284
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 09:10 AM
Yeah, we know why she really said that.

Did Fox have her escorted out of the building?
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 07:41 PM   #285
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
the iron horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: in a glass of CheerWine
Posts: 3,251
Local Time: 09:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jive Turkey View Post
This is a perfectly reasonable reaction. But one thing that has continually bothered is the tone used when mentioning "the youtube video" as if it would be absurd to think that could've been the cause of the attacks... it should be absurd, but the reality is that it was responsible for a lot of violence in two dozen other countries

I agree, but was the video the reason for the attack on the
U.S. Embassy in Benghazi on 9/11?

And what did President Obama and those in power know?

A lot of questions
__________________

__________________
the iron horse is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:10 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com