Liberals are upset with Romney's use of the word "binder"

[Jackbass]

Originally Posted by spence

Romney has to be careful with Libya, it's already blown up on him once because he didn't know the facts and the more info that comes out the more the Administration's story has been reinforced.

-spence

Sorry but did you miss Candy stating she was wrong when interviewed by Anderson Cooper post debate. The administrations story has many holes that still need to be filled. The fact is Obama had no idea what happened in Libya and used a bogus excuse blaming a citizen of the US for putting out a video on Islam. They toed that line for two weeks prior to facts being leaked(pure speculation)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by Jackbass

The fact is Obama had no idea what happened in Libya and used a bogus excuse blaming a citizen of the US for putting out a video on Islam. They toed that line for two weeks prior to facts being leaked(pure speculation)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes, this is a 2 part problem. Clinton falling on the sword for the lack
of intelligence is one thing. She still hiding in Peru?
But the fact that the White House spokesmen continued to propagate the video
and put out false information about the Bengazi attack is another.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jackbass

Sorry but did you miss Candy stating she was wrong when interviewed by Anderson Cooper post debate.

No she didn't, she restated her assertion during the debate which was accurate. Obama did indeed refer to the attack as an act of terror and it also did take two weeks for the Administration to clearly state it was planned by insurgents and not purely spontaneous.

The administrations story has many holes that still need to be filled. The fact is Obama had no idea what happened in Libya and used a bogus excuse blaming a citizen of the US for putting out a video on Islam. They toed that line for two weeks prior to facts being leaked(pure speculation)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Everything I've read indicates the initial reporting from the scene was that the attack was a response to the video. As the investigation began they appear to have collected evidence that more substantial arms were used signaling it was an attack coordinated by a local militia. There are still some who believe it might have been both...the conservative militia saw the staged outrage on 9/11 from the video and decided to attack.

The only big mistake I see in their story was that Rice wasn't briefed with the latest intel before she went on the Sunday talk shows. I believe they let it sit for a while after that to make sure they had a clearer picture. They certainly could have handled this better, but to claim vast conspiracy is just lame politics.

WYSIATI

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

No she didn't, she restated her assertion during the debate which was accurate. Obama did indeed refer to the attack as an act of terror and it also did take two weeks for the Administration to clearly state it was planned by insurgents and not purely spontaneous.


Everything I've read indicates the initial reporting from the scene was that the attack was a response to the video. As the investigation began they appear to have collected evidence that more substantial arms were used signaling it was an attack coordinated by a local militia. There are still some who believe it might have been both...the conservative militia saw the staged outrage on 9/11 from the video and decided to attack.

The only big mistake I see in their story was that Rice wasn't briefed with the latest intel before she went on the Sunday talk shows. I believe they let it sit for a while after that to make sure they had a clearer picture. They certainly could have handled this better, but to claim vast conspiracy is just lame politics.

WYSIATI

-spence

"Obama did indeed refer to the attack as an act of terror "

Please post where he specifically referred to the Bengazi attack as an act of terror in the Rose Garden speech. He made general statements about "acts of terror", and one could reasonably infer he was talking about that specific attack. But he most crtainly did not specifically call that attack an act of terror, not in the next day's Rose Garden speech.

"Everything I've read indicates the initial reporting from the scene was that the attack was a response to the video"

Then you need to re-think where you're getting your infornmation. You might want to cast the net wider than the Obama Fan Club newsletter.

"The only big mistake I see in their story was that Rice wasn't briefed with the latest intel before she went on the Sunday talk shows"

Days after the attack, Jay Carney said there was no evidence that it was anything other than a response to the video. Obama connected teh attack and the video on Letterman, and at the UN.

Spence, you're entitled to your own opinions. You are not entitled to yoru own facts.

I also want to know (as was asked in the debate, which Obama dodged completely) who rejected the request for additional security, and why? Read the transcript of how completely he refused to even come close to answering the question.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Please post where he specifically referred to the Bengazi attack as an act of terror in the Rose Garden speech. He made general statements about "acts of terror", and one could reasonably infer he was talking about that specific attack. But he most crtainly did not specifically call that attack an act of terror, not in the next day's Rose Garden speech.

Jim, Seriously?

4 Americans are killed and the President comes forth to make a public statement that “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.” He said it later that night and again the next day.

What else do you think he could have been talking about?

Then you need to re-think where you're getting your infornmation. You might want to cast the net wider than the Obama Fan Club newsletter.

There was a good write up in the NYTimes Monday, I guess they just made it all up.

To Libyans who witnessed the assault and know the attackers, there is little doubt what occurred: a well-known group of local Islamist militants struck the United States Mission without any warning or protest, and they did it in retaliation for the video. That is what the fighters said at the time, speaking emotionally of their anger at the video without mentioning Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or the terrorist strikes of 11 years earlier.

....The fighters said at the time that they were moved to act because of the video, which had first gained attention across the region after a protest in Egypt that day. The assailants approvingly recalled a 2006 assault by local Islamists that had destroyed an Italian diplomatic mission in Benghazi over a perceived insult to the prophet. In June the group staged a similar attack against the Tunisian Consulate over a different film, according to the Congressional testimony of the American security chief at the time, Eric A. Nordstrom.

Hey, just in case you didn't read what I just posted...here's the last sentence again...

The assailants approvingly recalled a 2006 assault by local Islamists that had destroyed an Italian diplomatic mission in Benghazi over a perceived insult to the prophet. In June the group staged a similar attack against the Tunisian Consulate over a different film, according to the Congressional testimony of the American security chief at the time, Eric A. Nordstrom.

And just to be sure we have our facts straight, here's the actual testimony from Rep. Issa's House Oversight investigation.

REP. RAUL LABRADOR (R-ID): I just have a quick question for Lieutenant Colonel Wood and Mr. Nordstrom. Given the information that you saw on TV and your knowledge of the situation in Libya, did you come to a conclusion as to whether this was a terrorist act or whether it was based on some film that was on the Internet?

[...]

NORDSTROM: The -- the first impression that I had was that it was going to be something similar to one of the brigades that we saw there, specifically the -- the brigade -- and it's been named in the press -- that came to my mind was Ansar al-Sharia.

It was a -- a unit or a group that Lieutenant Colonel Wood's personnel and I had -- had tracked for quite some time, we were concerned about. That specific group had been involved in a similar but obviously much smaller scale incident at the end of June involving the Tunisian consulate in Benghazi where they stormed that facility and it was in protest to what they claimed was an anti-Islamic film in Tunis. [House Oversight Committee hearing on consulate security in Benghazi, 10/11/12, via Nexis]

Go ahead, blast the American Security Chief as not having a clue. Perhaps you can even toss a few petty insults along the way...

Days after the attack, Jay Carney said there was no evidence that it was anything other than a response to the video. Obama connected teh attack and the video on Letterman, and at the UN.

And on Letterman he called them terrorists again...connected the attack to the video? See Congressional testimony from the House Oversight investigation.

I've conveniently copied it into this post above.

I also want to know (as was asked in the debate, which Obama dodged completely) who rejected the request for additional security, and why? Read the transcript of how completely he refused to even come close to answering the question.

As they say in political debates, if you're explaining you're losing.

-spence