Printable View
I was watching Fox and the ticker on the bottom of the screen said State Department and WH e mails confirming the Benghazi attack was terrorist perpetrated started being sent the evening of the attacks.
Anybody heard the same?
If so it could make things get REALLY interesting.
October surprise for the Romney camp?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/s...,5146278.story
The last president who lied got impeached... This one probably will get another nobel award!!
Quote:
White House told of militant claim two hours after Libya attack: emails
The U.S. Consulate in Benghazi is seen in flames during a protest (Esam Al-Fetori Reuters, REUTERS / September 12, 2012)
Ads by Google
Mark Hosenball
Reuters
8:10 p.m. CDT, October 23, 2012
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.
The emails, obtained by Reuters from government sources not connected with U.S. spy agencies or the State Department and who requested anonymity, specifically mention that the Libyan group called Ansar al-Sharia had asserted responsibility for the attacks.
The brief emails also show how U.S. diplomats described the attack, even as it was still under way, to Washington.
U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the Benghazi assault, which President Barack Obama and other U.S. officials ultimately acknowledged was a "terrorist" attack carried out by militants with suspected links to al Qaeda affiliates or sympathizers.
Administration spokesmen, including White House spokesman Jay Carney, citing an unclassified assessment prepared by the CIA, maintained for days that the attacks likely were a spontaneous protest against an anti-Muslim film.
While officials did mention the possible involvement of "extremists," they did not lay blame on any specific militant groups or possible links to al Qaeda or its affiliates until intelligence officials publicly alleged that on September 28.
There were indications that extremists with possible al Qaeda connections were involved, but also evidence that the attacks could have erupted spontaneously, they said, adding that government experts wanted to be cautious about pointing fingers prematurely.
U.S. intelligence officials have emphasized since shortly after the attack that early intelligence reporting about the attack was mixed.
Spokesmen for the White House and State Department had no immediate response to requests for comments on the emails.
MISSIVES FROM LIBYA
The records obtained by Reuters consist of three emails dispatched by the State Department's Operations Center to multiple government offices, including addresses at the White House, Pentagon, intelligence community and FBI, on the afternoon of September 11.
The first email, timed at 4:05 p.m. Washington time - or 10:05 p.m. Benghazi time, 20-30 minutes after the attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission allegedly began - carried the subject line "U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack" and the notation "SBU", meaning "Sensitive But Unclassified."
The text said the State Department's regional security office had reported that the diplomatic mission in Benghazi was "under attack. Embassy in Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well."
The message continued: "Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four ... personnel are in the compound safe haven. The 17th of February militia is providing security support."
A second email, headed "Update 1: U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi" and timed 4:54 p.m. Washington time, said that the Embassy in Tripoli had reported that "the firing at the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi had stopped and the compound had been cleared." It said a "response team" was at the site attempting to locate missing personnel.
A third email, also marked SBU and sent at 6:07 p.m. Washington time, carried the subject line: "Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack."
The message reported: "Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli."
While some information identifying recipients of this message was redacted from copies of the messages obtained by Reuters, a government source said that one of the addresses to which the message was sent was the White House Situation Room, the president's secure command post.
Other addressees included intelligence and military units as well as one used by the FBI command center, the source said.
It was not known what other messages were received by agencies in Washington from Libya that day about who might have been behind the attacks.
Intelligence experts caution that initial reports from the scene of any attack or disaster are often inaccurate.
By the morning of September 12, the day after the Benghazi attack, Reuters reported that there were indications that members of both Ansar al-Sharia, a militia based in the Benghazi area, and al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, the North African affiliate of al Qaeda's faltering central command, may have been involved in organizing the attacks.
One U.S. intelligence official said that during the first classified briefing about Benghazi given to members of Congress, officials "carefully laid out the full range of sparsely available information, relying on the best analysis available at the time."
The official added, however, that the initial analysis of the attack that was presented to legislators was mixed.
"Briefers said extremists were involved in attacks that appeared spontaneous, there may have been a variety of motivating factors, and possible links to groups such as (al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and Ansar al-Sharia) were being looked at closely," the official said.
(Additional reporting by Susan Cornwell; Editing by Mary Milliken and Jim Loney)
People have to know about it for it to be a big deal. I don't see that happening. People are too concerned with stupid shit.
Well isn't that unusual.
Will it prove damaging now? Maybe that is why O had a "Gee, I'm about to crap my pants" look while he was mean mugging Mittens last night.
What about the poor sap who made the film that has been blamed for the ruckus? He's been in jail since just a few days after it all went down.
While it's true for the far end spectrum of both sides, every election has been decided by the few precentage middle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fmedges
People are too concerned with what Obama or Romney will do for THEM. Most people don't understand that the success of this country is more important than just THEMSELVES. I was watching that fool General Wesley Clark talk about the happenings in Libya and he just makes me sick. He said that bad things just happen sometimes and that you can't blame the president for things that just happen. While I don't disagree that things just do happen I do disagree with the though that this specific event just happened. He also said that this was "no big deal". As a former military member I am absolutely confused how another former military member could feel this way. Everybody that I deployed with joined the military to make sure stuff like this didn't happen. Every American life abroad is important. From the Ambassador on down. The fact that he states that this is no big deal is sickening. This man has no honor. He also says is the last thing we need is more "boots on the ground" in Libya. Let me clue you all in. As a member of the Marines, that's what we do. We fight battles. That's what we get paid for. I guarantee that 10 out 10 Marines would jump at the opportunity to kill these fucks who did this. The whole "we're sick of fighting" attitude is fucking stupid. If you aren't the ones doing the fighting then shut the fuck up. They don't know anything.
Rome burns whilst Nero fiddles................
Another reason why I think that the electoral college should be eliminated. Why should members of a few states decide the election?Quote:
Originally Posted by ChunkyMonkey
Obama will get a pass by the media, but I'm not so sure about the independents. This comes at a bad time for him on top of the lackluster series of debate performances.
Heard, read, talked to folks in a higher pay grade than I. It is not only known, but covered up by guess who??? The MSM. They are sweating like a bull in a trailer outside Bruces in Severance. They know IF R gets in ,the crapper will finally over flow, with the shit they have been jamming down it. Hoping all they "ignored for O" would disappear and never be seen or heard from again.Quote:
Originally Posted by BPTactical
4 American citizens were Killed on American Soil and all we heard was How some fuckin "movie" incited them to attack the embassy.
ARAB Spring[M2] How about ARAB GLOW[Battle][Jeep]
Couldn't have said it better... "Qualis artifex pereo"Quote:
Originally Posted by BPTactical
LOL, been saying it was an organized attack since the day after it happened. It was too coincidental and the Marines could have turned a simple angry mob, even if armed. Never made sense.
It was quite obvious to anyone with half a brain that it had nothing to do with a movie from the very beginning.
1. 9-11
2. Consulate attacked and burned
3. Ambassador killed
4. presence of sustained direct fire and indirect fire.
5. Muslim country, recent upheaval, no real law.
6. 9-11
doesn't take a leap of faith to come to a conclusion fairly quickly.
7. First 9/11 after OBL deceased.Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodburbon
Agreed on the leap of faith.
If our State Department and WH is so incompetent that they could not connect the dots.......
Personally I think BO tried using it as an excuse to try and introduce an "Anti defamation law" for the Islamic faith.
Misfeasance of office at least, malfeasance of office at the most.
Totally reprehensible either way.
People died and BO lied.
[Bang] FFS! That's EXACTLY the reason the electoral college works. It gives an equal voice to less populated states.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fmedges
This is pretty basic stuff, people.
Obama can lie out his teeth about this but Clinton was getting impeached for a BJ. Go figure.
Not really. Clinton got impeached for lying about a blow job.Quote:
Originally Posted by sniper7
Exactly, why does everybody forget this? He was impeached for perjuring himself to a grand jury and obstruction of justice where he was being accused of sexual harassment of Paula Jones. The BJ was just evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey Guns
It depends on how you look at it. In the current system If I told you that 6/10's of a country wanted candidate A to win then should he win? Currently it would depend on where the 6 out of ten people lived. We can play all sorts of math games, but it all depends on what you define as "fair". I happen to believe that everybody's vote should count as equal no matter where you live or where the population centers of this country are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey Guns
That's the main argument for getting rid of the electoral college... it wouldn't go by state, look at the national tally... add it all up, plain and simple, whoever got more votes wins. That's how it works anywhere else in the world where things are decided by popular vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fmedges
The end result of going to a popular vote only system would be that the interests of New York, California, Illinois, Ohio, Florida, and couple other states would get attention and nobody would give a shit what Colorado thinks. Does that sound "fair" to you? The other byproduct would be that the urban vote would outweigh the rural vote. Live in BFE? No one cares.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fmedges
Bottom line - The Electoral College is a compromise to ensure every state gets a say. At the founding, it ensured the older, more populous states didn't completely overwhelm the younger or more agrarian and less populated states. Today, it ensures the President has to at least pay lip service to people that don't live in the top 20 TV markets.
If you had one person deciding the policies for every state in the country then I would agree that the electoral college system would be a good one, however this is not the system that we have. I would say that the federal government should concentrate on issues that effect the nation as a whole and state governments should concentrate on state issues. The argument for the electoral college is that all of the states are represented equally, instead of just a few. However the reality of it is that only certain states under this system really matter. The fact that this system makes it fair for everyone doesn't add up. It all depends on where you live. I do not think that one persons vote should count more or be de-valued depending on what part of the country you live in. I also don't like the fact that with my vote I elect an elector that then casts the vote that counts.
Wouldn't it be simpler to just say each state tallies up their votes for each candidate, then all the states put their numbers in, and each individual vote gets counted?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fmedges
Tell me what kind of "lip service" he paid to Maine, Alaska, Hawaii, Montana, and Rhode Island? The fact is that the way it is now excludes States as well. Who's to say which state is more important? Why don't we just do away with the notion of winning states as a whole and move toward the notion of winning the country as a whole? Should the federal government treat you differently depending on what state you live in? Does the military protect certain states only? Of course not, then why does it matter what state you live in when you vote for the executive of the federal government?Quote:
Originally Posted by Inconel710
Yes. It is true that states with higher population numbers would be "battleground" states, but does it really matter if California has more voters than Nevada? An individuals vote still counts for the same % no matter what state they voted in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin13
Here is what I dont get...
Reports put UAV's in the area capturing live images at the time of the attack on the Consulate... They clearly saw what was going on in a Sit. Room somewhere....
We had Marines in Tripoli...we had Apache's and other rotary wing aircraft in Italy, the 173 Airborne is in Vicenza, Italy...
We have Air craft carriers in the Mediterranean with combat effective aircraft on deck..
We have the Israeli's to the north east...with IDF guys geared up almost 24/7.
Soldiers, Airman, Marines, we know when we go downrange that if the shit really hits the fan to just hold out until the Calvary comes in...someone, something will come for us, it's just a matter of time.... Thunderbolt-II's, Rotary Wing Aircraft, QRF from somewhere...something.
The weapons these two lone SEAL's were operating were found caked in there own blood.....These guys held out for over 7 hours...TWO of them...vs the attackers...
And what did our Government do....watch these guys get slaughtered on the UAV feed...watched the car chase and rounds exchanged to the " safe house" that was under prepared and had inadequate protection...which was breached..and still no one came.
Just...what the fuck!!!!
I just left Active duty 4 weeks ago (come monday) and for fucks sake, I know Rangers dont leave anyone behind, so what in the fuck was going on in Bengahzi that we left these SEAL's to die...
its infuriating..
Isn't it plainly obvious? "By order of the President" do nothing... [Bang][Mad][Rant1] I call treason.Quote:
Originally Posted by NightCat
Agreed!!!!! Treason indeed! Crucify the mother fucker!Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin13