News Article: Benghazi attack: CIA reported 'within 24 hours' Islamist militants to blame

banjeaux

All-American
Jun 6, 2007
2,126
1
0
Slidell, Louisiana
Obama's cover-up about Benghazi is much worse than Nixon's Watergate cover-up. No one died in Watergate. I expect Romney to hammer Obama on this in the next debate.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/9621274/Benghazi-attack-CIA-reported-within-24-hours-Islamist-militants-to-blame.html


Barack Obama was under renewed pressure over his handling of the fatal attacks on the US consulate in Benghazi last night, after CIA sources said they had reported "within 24 hours" that the assault was carried out by Islamist militants.


The claims raised fresh questions about when exactly Mr Obama learned that the storming of the consulate was a terrorist event, as senior Republicans continued to accuse him of misleading the public over the attacks in order to protect his record on neutralising al-Qaeda.

As the US general election enters its final weeks, the Benghazi incident has become an increasingly charged political issue ahead of Monday's last presidential debate, which will focus exclusively on foreign policy.

Mr Obama defended his record on Benghazi during an appearance on the acerbic current affairs comedy programme, The Daily Show, pledging to get to the bottom of what happened and hold those responsible.

However his pledge to track down those responsible for killing Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans was contrasted by a report from Benghazi that one of the alleged ring leaders in the attacks was openly mocking both the Libyan and US governments.

Ahmed Abu Khattala, who has been linked to the militia group Ansar al-Shariah gave a two-hour interview to the New York Times at a luxury hotel, in which sipped a strawberry frappé while boasting no one had questioned him over the attacks and that he had no plans to go into hiding.


 

uafan4life

Hall of Fame
Mar 30, 2001
16,298
8,453
287
44
Florence, AL
Wow.

That's huge, in several ways.

And it's probably going to be a very large blow to Obama's reelection bid.


Sent from my HTC Droid Incredible using Tapatalk 2
 

gmart74

Hall of Fame
Oct 9, 2005
12,336
2
57
Baltimore, Md
Wow.

That's huge, in several ways.

And it's probably going to be a very large blow to Obama's reelection bid.


Sent from my HTC Droid Incredible using Tapatalk 2
i disagree. anyone that can justify voting for him at this point can justify anything. dems will keep voting dem, reps will keep voting rep, and the undcide at this point are too stupid to expect rational thought from.
 

JPT4Bama

Hall of Fame
Aug 21, 2006
5,793
0
0
Hoover, AL
Man I wish all you racist, capitalist meanies would go back to clinging to guns and religion and leave this genius to his destiny.

Look, Obama is cool, OK? If you want to be considered cool as well you must comply, otherwise the danger of becoming uncool is really real. Not to mention not-cool.

Did anyone see him on John Stewart's show? Wow! Dude was frosty.
 

bamacon

Hall of Fame
Apr 11, 2008
17,186
4,366
187
College Football's Mecca, Tuscaloosa
Obama's cover-up about Benghazi is much worse than Nixon's Watergate cover-up. No one died in Watergate. I expect Romney to hammer Obama on this in the next debate.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/9621274/Benghazi-attack-CIA-reported-within-24-hours-Islamist-militants-to-blame.html




I agree. BamainBoston could back me up on this if he had permission but that last debate was a setup for this issue. Most "experts" said Mitt blew but he didn't at all. He set a trap and Barry walked right into it. Barry said he called it a terrorist attack the next day. Mitt said lets get that statement on the record. On Monday he'll ask the president why he orchestrated a campaign to blame a video for two weeks when he believed differently. BHO will not be able to square that circle and he is going to sound absurd trying to.
 

Tidewater

FB|NS|NSNP Moderator
Staff member
Mar 15, 2003
24,804
19,177
337
Hooterville, Vir.
I agree. BamainBoston could back me up on this if he had permission but that last debate was a setup for this issue. Most "experts" said Mitt blew but he didn't at all. He set a trap and Barry walked right into it. Barry said he called it a terrorist attack the next day. Mitt said lets get that statement on the record. On Monday he'll ask the president why he orchestrated a campaign to blame a video for two weeks when he believed differently. BHO will not be able to square that circle and he is going to sound absurd trying to.
I think you've given way too much credit for both Romney & Obama. Romney blew it. Period.
Obama will simply have to say, "I'm as black now as I was in 2008. Plus, I have regular meetings with Jayzee. Who are you going to vote for?" That will be enough for all Democrat voters. Plus, they will neither know nor care who this "Ben Gozzy" guy is. ("Doesn't he play center for the San Antonio Spurs?")
 

RandallPoffo

BamaNation Citizen
Sep 17, 2012
35
0
0
isn't the o camp saying he called it a terrorist attack in the rose garden during a speech the day after it happened?

do they have proof? or are they just saying "trust us."
 

swoop10

Hall of Fame
Feb 10, 2001
5,005
0
45
63
Valdosta, GA
isn't the o camp saying he called it a terrorist attack in the rose garden during a speech the day after it happened?

do they have proof? or are they just saying "trust us."
He said the word terror one time and they are taking that and using it as him calling it a terror attack and ignoring the fact that for two weeks he claimed it was the result of a stupid video. Just another example of Democrats trying to get the ignorant vote and they will because that is about all who should vote for them.
 

Bamaro

TideFans Legend
Oct 19, 2001
28,908
14,309
287
Jacksonville, Md USA
I agree. BamainBoston could back me up on this if he had permission but that last debate was a setup for this issue. Most "experts" said Mitt blew but he didn't at all. He set a trap and Barry walked right into it. Barry said he called it a terrorist attack the next day. Mitt said lets get that statement on the record. On Monday he'll ask the president why he orchestrated a campaign to blame a video for two weeks when he believed differently. BHO will not be able to square that circle and he is going to sound absurd trying to.
While in the rose garden the next day responding to the attacks BO said ”No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this nation” so even if he didn't use the exact word terrorism he referred to the incident as an act of terror.
 

Tide1986

Suspended
Nov 22, 2008
15,667
2
0
Birmingham, AL
"Terrorism" and "Terrorist Act" apparently have legal significance. Here's an interesting article on the matter that I found out of a news station in New York:

What is the Definition of Terrorism and Why is the White House Afraid of Using the Term?

The Obama Administration has consistently circumvented any discussion of the definition of the word "Terrorism" dating back to 2009. It has been the policy of the Obama Administration from the beginning not to acknowledge the term, perhaps thinking if they avoid acknowledging it, it could not happen on their watch. More importantly, using the term "terrorism" confers the onus of culpability onto the administration, a responsibility they are hard-pressed to accept.

The first documented case of the Obama Administration obfuscating the issue of defining the term "terrorism" was by former Obama White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs at a press conference on November 9, 2009. This press conference was held shortly after the murders that took place at Fort Hood in Memphis, Tn. A reporter identified only as Jennifer by Mr. Gibbs asks about the determination by the White House over whether the Fort Hood incident has been classified as an "act of terrorism."
Feel free to read the remainder article -- it analyzes several different statements made by the White House around acts of terror.
 
Last edited:

NationalTitles18

Suspended
May 25, 2003
32,419
42,281
362
Mountainous Northern California
Full Text of Obama's Rose Garden Speech:

Rose Garden
10:43 A.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Every day, all across the world, American diplomats and civilians work tirelessly to advance the interests and values of our nation. Often, they are away from their families. Sometimes, they brave great danger.
Yesterday, four of these extraordinary Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Benghazi. Among those killed was our Ambassador, Chris Stevens, as well as Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith. We are still notifying the families of the others who were killed. And today, the American people stand united in holding the families of the four Americans in our thoughts and in our prayers.
The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack. We're working with the government of Libya to secure our diplomats. I've also directed my administration to increase our security at diplomatic posts around the world. And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.
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. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.
Already, many Libyans have joined us in doing so, and this attack will not break the bonds between the United States and Libya. Libyan security personnel fought back against the attackers alongside Americans. Libyans helped some of our diplomats find safety, and they carried Ambassador Stevens’s body to the hospital, where we tragically learned that he had died.
It's especially tragic that Chris Stevens died in Benghazi because it is a city that he helped to save. At the height of the Libyan revolution, Chris led our diplomatic post in Benghazi. With characteristic skill, courage, and resolve, he built partnerships with Libyan revolutionaries, and helped them as they planned to build a new Libya. When the Qaddafi regime came to an end, Chris was there to serve as our ambassador to the new Libya, and he worked tirelessly to support this young democracy, and I think both Secretary Clinton and I relied deeply on his knowledge of the situation on the ground there. He was a role model to all who worked with him and to the young diplomats who aspire to walk in his footsteps.
Along with his colleagues, Chris died in a country that is still striving to emerge from the recent experience of war. Today, the loss of these four Americans is fresh, but our memories of them linger on. I have no doubt that their legacy will live on through the work that they did far from our shores and in the hearts of those who love them back home.
Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. We mourned with the families who were lost on that day. I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed. And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.
As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.
No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.
But we also know that the lives these Americans led stand in stark contrast to those of their attackers. These four Americans stood up for freedom and human dignity. They should give every American great pride in the country that they served, and the hope that our flag represents to people around the globe who also yearn to live in freedom and with dignity.
We grieve with their families, but let us carry on their memory, and let us continue their work of seeking a stronger America and a better world for all of our children.
Thank you. May God bless the memory of those we lost and may God bless the United States of America.
END
10:48 A.M. EDT
Several times Obama refers to the "attack" that took place. He even says "No acts of terror", which seems to be a bridge from speaking about 9/11/01 to the Benghazi attack and he does seem to be implying that this was an act of terror even though he doesn't come right out and clearly and unambiguously call it that.

Backing up a bit:

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. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.
Obama seems to be implying here - and, in fact, others in the administration went on to say this in no uncertain terms - that the attackers went on the attack in response to the video "denigrating" Islam. He says, as he said 2 weeks later at the UN, that this video can not justify this attack.

On 09/12/12 it was already being questioned whether this was a response to the video or a planned attack, with a number taking each position. Obama seemed to take the position that morning that it was spontaneous and in response to the video. Others in the administration said that clearly and Obama again implied as much as his UN speech.

There's a big difference between a demonstration gone awry and a planned attack that the Consulate saw coming and asked for help that was denied; and everyone, including Obama, knows it.

The question is NOT or SHOULD NOT BE did Obama call this or imply that is was an act of terror, but did he mislead the American people to believe it was a spontaneous response to a video on youtube....or was he ignorant of the facts on the ground that he should have known, especially given that the Ambassador and his team had asked for more security because of the growing danger there? Hillary Clinton admitted that requests for added security were denied.

What did the President know and when did he know it? If he didn't know, then why not? If he did, then why did he mislead the American people?
 

Tide1986

Suspended
Nov 22, 2008
15,667
2
0
Birmingham, AL
Full Text of Obama's Rose Garden Speech:



Several times Obama refers to the "attack" that took place. He even says "No acts of terror", which seems to be a bridge from speaking about 9/11/01 to the Benghazi attack and he does seem to be implying that this was an act of terror even though he doesn't come right out and clearly and unambiguously call it that.

Backing up a bit:



Obama seems to be implying here - and, in fact, others in the administration went on to say this in no uncertain terms - that the attackers went on the attack in response to the video "denigrating" Islam. He says, as he said 2 weeks later at the UN, that this video can not justify this attack.

On 09/12/12 it was already being questioned whether this was a response to the video or a planned attack, with a number taking each position. Obama seemed to take the position that morning that it was spontaneous and in response to the video. Others in the administration said that clearly and Obama again implied as much as his UN speech.

There's a big difference between a demonstration gone awry and a planned attack that the Consulate saw coming and asked for help that was denied; and everyone, including Obama, knows it.

The question is NOT or SHOULD NOT BE did Obama call this or imply that is was an act of terror, but did he mislead the American people to believe it was a spontaneous response to a video on youtube....or was he ignorant of the facts on the ground that he should have known, especially given that the Ambassador and his team had asked for more security because of the growing danger there? Hillary Clinton admitted that requests for added security were denied.

What did the President know and when did he know it? If he didn't know, then why not? If he did, then why did he mislead the American people?
At best, Obama simply did not want to be pinned down to one particular position on the Benghazi incident until he could figure out which position would be the most politically expedient to hold. He crafted his words to be ambiguous and malleable to whichever position would serve his interests best. In other words, he's being an opportunist.
 

swoop10

Hall of Fame
Feb 10, 2001
5,005
0
45
63
Valdosta, GA
While in the rose garden the next day responding to the attacks BO said ”No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this nation” so even if he didn't use the exact word terrorism he referred to the incident as an act of terror.
That's because even if the attack had been a spontaneous act because of the video it should still be an act of terror. It was instead a terrorist attack planned out before hand. You may not think there is a difference but there is a huge difference, IMO. Blaming the video puts the blame on someone else and calling it a terrorist attack would have put the blame where it belongs.

Sorry but this is and should be a huge fail for Obama. The man just has no clue when it comes to things of this nature. Remember when he jumped in on the Cambridge situation with "the police acted stupidly" statement. He didn't mind jumping right in without knowing the facts in that situation and he was wrong. Romney jumped in this situation and was right.
 

Bamaro

TideFans Legend
Oct 19, 2001
28,908
14,309
287
Jacksonville, Md USA
At best, Obama simply did not want to be pinned down to one particular position on the Benghazi incident until he could figure out which position would be the most politically expedient to hold. He crafted his words to be ambiguous and malleable to whichever position would serve his interests best. In other words, he's being an opportunist.
No one knew for sure for days what was the cause. Not BO, not MR, not the CIA, not the FBI, not the state dept. It took awhile to sort out the facts from the conflicting reports. Things aren't always as neat and clean as we would like.
 

NationalTitles18

Suspended
May 25, 2003
32,419
42,281
362
Mountainous Northern California
"Within 24 hours of the deadly attack, the CIA station chief in Libya reported to Washington that there were eyewitness reports that the attack was carried out by militants, officials told The Associated Press. But for days, the Obama administration blamed it on an out-of-control demonstration over an American-made video ridiculing Islam's Prophet Muhammad."

http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-w...-chief-libya-linked-benghazi-attack-militants

Again, 2 weeks?!
 

swoop10

Hall of Fame
Feb 10, 2001
5,005
0
45
63
Valdosta, GA
I agree that two weeks was way too long. They should have NEVER let Rice go on the Sunday morning shows saying what she did.
Bamaro, they knew within a day. Even the Lybian government knew and passed on their knowledge yet Obama denied it. You need to ask yourself why. Honestly if you can't see that something is going on with this then you are truly blinded.