HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » E-mails: White House knew...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 07:46 AM

E-mails: White House knew of extremist claims in Benghazi attack

Source: CNN

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.


Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/24/us/libya-benghazi-e-mails/index.html



Hey I am just posting this so you see what is coming in the news cycle.

82 replies, 10531 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 82 replies Author Time Post
Reply E-mails: White House knew of extremist claims in Benghazi attack (Original post)
underpants Oct 2012 OP
2pooped2pop Oct 2012 #1
24601 Oct 2012 #78
2pooped2pop Oct 2012 #82
leftofcool Oct 2012 #2
randome Oct 2012 #3
minkyboodle Oct 2012 #4
leveymg Oct 2012 #5
rainlillie Oct 2012 #6
jillan Oct 2012 #7
Amimnoch Oct 2012 #8
mac56 Oct 2012 #16
LTR Oct 2012 #55
mzteaze Oct 2012 #80
pointsoflight Oct 2012 #9
Live and Learn Oct 2012 #34
Overseas Oct 2012 #41
sharkman25 Oct 2012 #10
mac56 Oct 2012 #17
leveymg Oct 2012 #25
JDPriestly Oct 2012 #56
sharkman25 Oct 2012 #59
JDPriestly Oct 2012 #69
Billsmile Oct 2012 #11
sharkman25 Oct 2012 #12
Billsmile Oct 2012 #15
sharkman25 Oct 2012 #35
BlueInPhilly Oct 2012 #46
sharkman25 Oct 2012 #47
Billsmile Oct 2012 #77
JDPriestly Oct 2012 #57
sinkingfeeling Oct 2012 #13
joeglow3 Oct 2012 #21
sinkingfeeling Oct 2012 #40
joeglow3 Oct 2012 #51
sinkingfeeling Oct 2012 #67
joeglow3 Oct 2012 #71
sinkingfeeling Oct 2012 #72
JDPriestly Oct 2012 #61
joeglow3 Oct 2012 #70
Adenoid_Hynkel Oct 2012 #14
dipsydoodle Oct 2012 #22
MjolnirTime Oct 2012 #50
dipsydoodle Oct 2012 #52
JDPriestly Oct 2012 #63
rainlillie Oct 2012 #18
ProSense Oct 2012 #19
patrice Oct 2012 #20
AngryAmish Oct 2012 #23
2pooped2pop Oct 2012 #26
Liberalynn Oct 2012 #31
reflection Oct 2012 #24
leveymg Oct 2012 #28
reflection Oct 2012 #30
sharkman25 Oct 2012 #36
leveymg Oct 2012 #42
sharkman25 Oct 2012 #43
leveymg Oct 2012 #48
sharkman25 Oct 2012 #53
Actionman Oct 2012 #27
justiceischeap Oct 2012 #29
nenagh Oct 2012 #32
leveymg Oct 2012 #33
Actionman Oct 2012 #39
JDPriestly Oct 2012 #64
justiceischeap Oct 2012 #68
fugop Oct 2012 #37
Catherine Vincent Oct 2012 #38
JDPriestly Oct 2012 #65
vduhr Oct 2012 #44
KansDem Oct 2012 #45
MjolnirTime Oct 2012 #49
yellowcanine Oct 2012 #54
lexx21 Oct 2012 #81
janx Oct 2012 #58
flying_wahini Oct 2012 #60
JDPriestly Oct 2012 #66
Enrique Oct 2012 #62
NightOwwl Oct 2012 #73
GetTheRightVote Oct 2012 #74
GeorgeGist Oct 2012 #75
hrmjustin Oct 2012 #76
marshall Oct 2012 #79

Response to underpants (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 07:54 AM

1. I don't think the American people really give a crap

about the Benghazi business. The pukes can rehash it all they want but it doesn't mean a thing to most people. It's all the pukes can come up with. Kinda sad for them, I guess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2pooped2pop (Reply #1)

Fri Oct 26, 2012, 05:18 PM

78. You don't think Americans give a crap about four murdered Americans? It would be sad if

that were the case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 24601 (Reply #78)

Mon Oct 29, 2012, 12:47 PM

82. not in the big picture of things.

No, I don't think they care about this incident in comparison to their own problems.

This is sad sure, but it's still a "so?" when you look at all the other shit going on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underpants (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 07:56 AM

2. someone claimed credit? Some Islamist group? Needle in a haystack anyone?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underpants (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 07:58 AM

3. And when the WH sorted through all the possibilities, they told us what they thought.

I know, I know, this is 'proof positive' that Obama is incompetent, according to the pundits. But this is, in the end, nothing, and even most Republicans know it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underpants (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 07:59 AM

4. CNN is pushing this hard

AFAIK no news here all sorts of mixed information about people claiming responsibility. And this was reported by the admin

(From Sept 12th)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/12/us-libya-usa-attack-idUSBRE88B0EI20120912

U.S. government officials said the Benghazi attack may have been planned in advance and there were indications that members of a militant faction calling itself Ansar al Sharia - which translates as Supporters of Islamic Law - may have been involved.

They also said some reporting from the region suggested that members of Al-Qaeda's north Africa-based affiliate, known as Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, may have been involved.

"It bears the hallmarks of an organized attack," one U.S. official said. However, some U.S. officials cautioned against assuming that the attacks were deliberately organized to coincide with the September 11 anniversary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underpants (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 08:01 AM

5. Funny how differently CNN treated the real 9/11, which really was negligent homicide.

At least.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underpants (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 08:04 AM

6. "CIA Documents Support Rice's Account"...


"CIA documents that will be the basis of testimony to the House Intelligence Committee this week support United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice's early account of the attacks the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, writes columnist David Ignatius in The Washington Post.

“Talking points” prepared by the CIA on Sept. 15, the same day that Rice taped three television appearances, support her description of the Sept. 11 attack as a reaction to Arab anger about an anti-Muslim video prepared in the United States, Ignatius reported on Saturday.

Citing CIA documents, he wrote that a senior intelligence official said the analysts’ judgment was based in part on monitoring of some of the Benghazi attackers, which showed they had been watching the Cairo protests live on television and talking about them before they assaulted the consulate.

His reporting supports Obama administration claims that early intelligence reports pointed to a connection between the attacks and a crude, anti-Islam video published online by an amateur U.S. filmmaker once convicted of bank fraud.

http://news.yahoo.com/report-cia-documents-support-rices-account-114601136--politics.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underpants (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 08:07 AM

7. Too Bad the President didn't call it an act of terror the morning after it happened & golly gee-

if I was Mittwit (ew ew ew ew) I would've made a public speech calling the President incompetent while
Islamist crazies were right in the middle of attacking us.


Oh - wait!

That's exactly what happened? Never mind......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underpants (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 08:08 AM

8. Stupid assed sensational news story.

Okay, let's theorize the worst:

Say that everything in this "story" is 100% accurate.

Even go on the unstated that President Obama himself had read it, knew about it, had been debriefed on it.

Dose it demonstrate a breech of disclosure? NO, personally I appreciate that this president doesn't take the first report he gets, and runs to the public screaming "TERRORISTS". I appreciate that he responds appropriately, and awaits more solid information when he gets it. Perhaps if the previous disaster that was in the Whitehouse had done the same, and actually waited for all the information to come in before sending the military into Iraq we could be a few trillion dollars less in debt at this time, and less the 4,287 dead solders, 30,182 wounded soldiers, and somewhere between 109,000 and 119,000 dead Iraqi civilians. (and these are just 2009 numbers, on my quick search I didn't see a more recent update)

So, at the worst, this proves that our President is guilty of waiting until he was sure of the information received before shooting his mouth off about it?? I say GOOD FOR HIM!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Amimnoch (Reply #8)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 08:54 AM

16. This

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Amimnoch (Reply #8)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 11:10 AM

55. You are absolutely correct sir!

All it proves is he did the right thing. And I think any president with a sane mind would have done likewise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Amimnoch (Reply #8)

Sat Oct 27, 2012, 12:45 AM

80. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underpants (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 08:22 AM

9. Of course they knew the claims. What don't people get about keeping things close to the vest...

...and deliberately *not* revealing everything you know and all of the leads you're pursuing, so that you can do an investigation, so that you don't burn any sources, and so that you can more effectively pin down those responsible? You wouldn't want the president saying too much when they're in the midst of trying to determine who did it and bring them to justice. Right?

So what the f*ck is the issue?

This is clearly the case of the republicans trying to do everything they can to politicize the issue. And they're willing to politicize the issue even if it hinders the investigation, burns sources, and hinders our ability to get those involved--as we saw in the case of Issa releasing those documents a few days ago.

Those truly concerned should be much more upset about what Issa did than with the precise words that the Obama administration used in public statements.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pointsoflight (Reply #9)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 10:00 AM

34. +1 nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pointsoflight (Reply #9)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 10:11 AM

41. Well said!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underpants (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 08:25 AM

10. Here's the e-mail

 

I copied this from Faux so ignore their bull-crap foot note.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sharkman25 (Reply #10)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 08:55 AM

17. Your concern is noted.

If you had wanted to crop the image and lose the buil-crap footnote, you could have. Most computers have the "Paint" app.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sharkman25 (Reply #10)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 09:30 AM

25. Nonissue. They knew and on 9/12 they told us, (see video, Rose Garden speech, 04:18-22)

"No act of terrorism will shake the resolve of the American people"

Case closed. Romney has to have the worst advisors or memory, ever. "Romnesia." Fox News is the broadcast journalistic version of Alsheimer's Disease. CNN is just shooting chaff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sharkman25 (Reply #10)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 11:11 AM

56. Am I the only person who was paying attention at the time?

They said that the circumstances were confusing. They said they were investigating. They said that very clearly. It's called the "fog of war," and while we are not at war in Libya, the Libyans have not yet completed their revolution. Just this week, one of Ghadaffi's sons was killed in an armed struggle.

Remember, when our troops went into Afghanistan to find Bin Laden -- and let Bin Laden escaped into Pakistan? That was when Bush was president. Remember.

Well, that huge mistake was attributed to the "fog of war."

When the events in Benghazi occurred, it took weeks to figure out what was going on. We probably still don't really know now.

Obama has ordered that the perpetrators of the chaos and death in Benghazi be found and brought to justice. Remember, Obama is the guy who ordered that Bin Laden be brought to justice and who made sure that Bin Laden was brought to justice.

Obama has got this. Just drop the right-wing talking points. They are not welcome here.

Fog of war.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #56)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 11:21 AM

59. Well...

 

Your statement that "When the events in Benghazi occurred, it took weeks to figure out what was going on. We probably still don't really know now." is why the administration should have waited before going out with the statement that this WAS a response to a video.

I agree with your other observations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sharkman25 (Reply #59)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 01:00 PM

69. I want to be sure you read this.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/12/u-s-ambassador-to-libya-3-others-killed-in-rocket-attack-witness-says/

CNNs reporting from the day. CNN apparently has Romnesia.

Of course, the president had to respond to the chaos. And he was probably trying to get our people out. Stevens was not the only American or American supporter in Libya at the time.

As I point out below, CNN is a news organization. They are supposed to ferret out the facts. The White House is not a news organization. It is supposed to take care of the safety of Americans abroad. That is not always possible.

We have been very fortunate for many years in that, in spite of the huge numbers of American diplomatic personnel we have around the world, very few have come to harm. It's a statistical likelihood that sooner or later, considering the kind of world we live in, an event like the attack on the Benghazi consulate would happen. It is very sad, and everything should be done to prevent such events, but we can't prevent everything. It's just not humanly possible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underpants (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 08:27 AM

11. The Media Trusts Terrorist Groups

Apparently the media doesn't value investigation prior to reporting. They trust the word of terrorists.


The White House's preference of fact gathering prior to making pronouncements apparently offends CNN's journalistic integrity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Billsmile (Reply #11)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 08:37 AM

12. Do you have a trove of evidence showing claims of responsibility by terrorists are usualy false? eom

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Billsmile (Reply #15)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 10:03 AM

35. In this case however...

 

The only claim of responsibility came from a group the State Department and the White House knew to exist and operate in Lybia and it is that group (Ansar al-Sharia) that claimed responsibility. It was the White House and the State Department who claimed the attack was in response to a video by a spontaneous mob. The video of the attack, which the State Dept watched live and for which still has not been released by the State Dept. or White House to the public, reports to show NO mob on scene during the attack. My point is ONLY this: If no mob was on site during the attack AND you have a known terrrorist group in the area claiming responsibility for the attack less than 24-hours after it happend, well, your options of who was responsible are, uh....limited.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sharkman25 (Reply #35)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 10:35 AM

46. Why are you still here?

^ SHARKMAN

You are the VERY FIRST poster I will call a troll, because you obviously are. Of course there was a mob outside!

You are spreading misinformation here, but please don't misunderstimate (sic) our intelligence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueInPhilly (Reply #46)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 10:40 AM

47. Just quit with your ridiculous assertions. Billsmile and I are talking about this...

 

if you don't appreciate the discussion that he and I are having then butt-out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Billsmile (Reply #11)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 11:17 AM

57. Terrorists, or people claiming to be terrorists, take credit for everything bad that happens.

That is part of how terrorists work.

And why do they do this?

Because the aim of true terrorists (and we haven't really clearly defined the word in our law yet) is to spread terror.

Killing and mayhem are not necessarily, not always, the purpose of the terror. The purpose of the terror is to spread FEAR and distrust -- to terrorize, to intimidate and frighten people so that people will do or think what the terrorists want them to do or think.

That is why we have to investigate carefully the on-the-ground facts about situations like Benghazi to determine who was behind the violence and what their purpose really was.

Was it an angry crowd of demonstrators (as it was in Egypt) protesting something or asking for something?

Or was it an armed and organized gang trying to control through violence or threats of violence?

Sometimes it is both.

Republicans -- simplistic fools.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underpants (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 08:41 AM

13. So, the President and SOS should have run to microphones and spewed this?

Wasn't it better to wait a while and determine if the claim was true?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sinkingfeeling (Reply #13)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 09:16 AM

21. I agree. but

They also should not have pushed the story that they did. Sorry, but this is a fuck up and I am NOT happy with our president about it. I still support him 100%, but I am not about to shove my head up my ass because I don't want to criticize him over this blatant failure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeglow3 (Reply #21)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 10:09 AM

40. Nonsense. 'Blatant failure' of what?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sinkingfeeling (Reply #40)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 10:47 AM

51. Pushing a story they had ZERO reason to push

I get, and appreciate, our President's committment to waiting until he has all the facts instead of shooting from the hip. However, had zero basis (as he did NOT have all the facts from his own admission) to support the claim that this was motivated by an internet film. If anything, it appears there was more evidence possessed by the WH at the time to support the claim that is a terrorist attack and had nothing to do with a film.

Even if it was an honest mistake, there is no denying the fact that it stinks of pushing a story they new was false to avoid the potential negative consequences that come with a terrorist attack "on your watch."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeglow3 (Reply #51)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 12:08 PM

67. Again, nonsense. Nobody in the Administration 'pushed' a story about the film.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sinkingfeeling (Reply #67)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 01:27 PM

71. Really?

I heard the claim made to the UN by Obama. I heard Clinton and others make the claim on the Sunday morning news shows. Maybe you have a different definition of "pushed" than I do, but they clearly made a claim without all the facts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeglow3 (Reply #71)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 02:21 PM

72. Where in this transcript does the President say that the attack in Libya was the

result of a video and not of 'killers'? I even present the Fox News version of the transcript.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/25/transcript-obama-address-to-un-general-assembly/#ixzz2AF1SoC9E

Hilary said, "Yesterday, our U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya was attacked. Heavily armed militants assaulted the compound and set fire to our buildings. American and Libyan security personnel battled the attackers together. Four Americans were killed.

This was an attack by a small and savage group – not the people or Government of Libya. "

http://www.nationaljournal.com/nationalsecurity/hillary-clinton-s-statement-on-the-attack-in-libya-20120912

The word 'video' isn't in that statement at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeglow3 (Reply #21)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 11:31 AM

61. Ridiculous. Please see my posts.

Terrorism is poorly defined. And it probably can't be differentiated from other crime or mob violence in many situations.

Terrorism is, in my view, defined not by the nature of the act itself, but by the intent of the person who is committing the act.

Terrorism, in my view, is committing or threatening to commit violence in order to frighten or intimidate someone into adopting some political opinion or taking some political action.

Terrorism is to be differentiated from other violent acts or threats of violent acts by the intent, by the purpose, by the motivation of the person committing or threatening the violence.

That is why acts of terror cannot always be differentiated from other acts of violence.

In Benghazi, the video shows a crowd of people, a truck, people who appear to be climbing over the wall. What is their purpose? Was it to frighten the American people? Was it to frighten people in Benghazi? Was it to avenge some act like the controversial video? You cannot tell.

That someone sends a message AFTER THE ACT HAS BEEN COMPLETED is terrorism because the message is meant to cause fear of violence to frighten or intimidate someone into adopting some political opinion or taking political action.

But, without an investigation and evidence, we cannot know for sure that the people who sent the message ACTUALLY HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE attack on the consulate in Benghazi. Therefore the fact that a message was sent is a bit of evidence, but not proof that the attack itself was terrorist. You need a lot more evidence to determine whether it was or not.

If there is an earthquake, some strange religious group can claim that they caused the earthquake. But that does not mean they did.

Settle down. Go back and study grade school science. You have to have more evidence than someone's Facebook or e-mail claim to prove something.

President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton handled this situation very well. They did not keep any facts hidden. There are always a lot of false claims made after events occurred.

Keep calm. Think clearly. Please. It's good for your health.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #61)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 01:25 PM

70. I call BS on this

I am not taking about to RW talking point of he NEEDED to call it terrorism. Rather, he has taken pride in making sure he has all the facts before forming a conclusion. However, he spoke in front of the UN and had all his associates talking on the Sunday news shows about how this was due to a film. He had ZERO basis for making that claim if he was doing what he says he does: wait until all facts are available before forming an opinion and passing it on to us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underpants (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 08:45 AM

14. and this oh-so-vigilant CNN had nothing to say when Dubya failed to read the 9-11 PDB

and didn't look into faked WMD claims and Iraq
or contracting, waste fraud and abuse there for years.

funny how that works, eh?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Adenoid_Hynkel (Reply #14)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 09:22 AM

22. Why the focus on CNN ?

A simple search will show that half the world is reporting the same. e.g Yahoo / Reuters http://news.yahoo.com/white-house-told-militant-claim-two-hours-libya-010758099.html and Guardian / Associated Press http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/19/cia-report-benghazi-attack-militants

The weapons listed bear no relationship to a routine protest on the subject of a video :

Rocket-propelled grenades, hand grenades, assault rifles, 14.5 mm anti-aircraft machine guns, diesel canisters, gun trucks, mortars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_the_U.S._diplomatic_mission_in_Benghazi

The relationship between the attack on the consulate at 10.30 pm local time in Libya and the protest earlier that day is loose to say the least. It was either planned for 9/11 anyway and in the event of the protests the timing that day became arbitrary or was maybe planned earlier that day and took until late that night local time to get the tools together. Either way it seems obvious it was a terrorist attack.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Reply #22)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 10:47 AM

50. Because this is CNN's lame attempt to sway the race.

 

Why deny it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MjolnirTime (Reply #50)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 10:54 AM

52. If the entire world's media are publishing it

what's special about CNN ? Are you saying the world's media are trying to sway the election ? Its what happens with news.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Reply #22)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 11:47 AM

63. The weapons listed bear a lot to do with violence in what is still a war zone.

Libya is experiencing the aftershocks of an armed revolution.

There are all kinds of weapons available to all kinds of people. That these military weapons were in the hands of the people attacking the embassy suggests it was an armed terrorist attack, but that is all they do. They suggest it. If the same thing happened here in the US, there would be no doubt that the acts were intended to cause fear and intimidate and either rob a bank, avenge a drug lord or make a political statement.

But in a country like Libya, it isn't so easy to tell.

Not all violence is terror. The truck looked with the heavy arms looked like terrorists might have been in it. But some of the others there looked like demonstrators.

Stevens actually died from suffocation caused by smoke inhalation, not by gunfire.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/17/christopher-stevens-death_n_1890322.html

This is still being investigated, I suspect. Sometimes it takes years to figure something like this out. Sometimes we never know what happened.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underpants (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 09:02 AM

18. What the hell people! Even local murder investigations take time to be investigated..

Why on earth would the White House jump out there and tell people something that wasn't investigated or verified? I'm so damn tired of the dumbass people in this country thinking everything is like CSI, or whatever crappy show they're currently watching. Bush rushed into Iraq without investigating the intell, and look where that got us. If Mickey Mouse claimed responsibility , should the White House have believed him too? Come on now!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underpants (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 09:03 AM

19. Fox's Van Susteren Misrepresents State Dept. Emails To Rehash Tired Libya Talking Points

Fox's Van Susteren Misrepresents State Dept. Emails To Rehash Tired Libya Talking Points
http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/10/24/foxs-van-susteren-misrepresents-state-dept-emai/190888

The media is grasping at straws in Operation Rescue Mitt.

He has been humiliated and destroyed on this issue, and they can't have that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underpants (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 09:09 AM

20. I don't know why anyone didn't deduce that the WH had received something like that anyway, hence...

"acts of terror".

Since some people are not into pinning problems on just ANYONE in order to "prove" something politically, the WH would have reserved accusations about exactly WHO it was that carried out the attacks until more careful investigations have been carried out, in order to avoid the possibility of attacking the WRONG people on just anyone's say so.

Believe it or not, shooting first, even just with words, and asking questions later is NOT a good idea in a place as chaotic as Libya.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underpants (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 09:22 AM

23. This story is getting weird.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AngryAmish (Reply #23)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 09:33 AM

26. I don't see anything weird about it.

or new.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2pooped2pop (Reply #26)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 09:43 AM

31. +1

The Administration investigated, and called it an act of terror a day later. What the hell is the big deal about this?

Oh right there isn't a big deal. Just the Right Wing loving Main Stream press aiding their rich Puke owners and friends.

I am more concerned about the Repukes attacks on Women in this country and their raiding of our Economy to further the agenda of the wealthy few. Hopefully the majority of U.S. voters will agree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underpants (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 09:27 AM

24. If my lawn mower got stolen

The Liberation Brotherhood of the Great Rebellion for the Almighty would probably claim credit. It's best to absorb information as it comes in, assess its credibility, and then issue statements as appropriate. Better to be right than be first.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reflection (Reply #24)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 09:35 AM

28. "Better to be right than be first" - unless you're CNN.

Really, I think CNN should simply be activated like the Emergency Broadcast Network, in the event of a hurricane or volcano eruption.

Otherwise, it's just politicized plastic read by plasticine people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #28)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 09:41 AM

30. They have fallen far indeed, my friend. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #28)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 10:06 AM

36. What was CNN wrong about in their reporting? n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sharkman25 (Reply #36)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 10:12 AM

42. It's a non-story. No new info, just calculated spin. Misleading. Propaganda.

So, what's wrong about that? It was the journalistic equivalent of concern trolling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #42)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 10:16 AM

43. That's non responsive to the question and does not defend your intital statement.

 

I'm not trying to defend CNN or any other network for that matter, but I do appreciate factually-based reviewable research to support claims even by those I typically agree with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sharkman25 (Reply #43)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 10:43 AM

48. You've never heard of factual but misleading reporting before?

It's like reporting, "Man denies beating his wife" in response to the unfounded question, "When, sir, did you stop beating your wife." Creates a misleading impression that the man was doing something improper, when the only thing wrong was the intent to sully his reputation.

But, you knew that when you posted that FauX NewZ propaganda image.

Cheez-itz.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #48)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 10:57 AM

53. Okay, I get your perspective now, even with the unnecessary ad-hominem. eom

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underpants (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 09:34 AM

27. CNN still apologizing to Romney

CNN going all out to help correct the Romney self destruct moment seem to not happen... Hoping to get in the favor of Romney. Now CNN is using the GOP talking point that the POTUS took 19 days to call it an act of terrorism act of terror the day after wasn't about the subject for having the Rose Garden press conference, Benghazi.

Now the only other station to run the Rev. Wright story just as much or more than fox news was CNN. So expect them to repeat this until it explodes or up to election day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underpants (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 09:37 AM

29. This is what the righties on Twitter (& I assume elsewhere are spinning this)

The Obama admin knew and lied about knowing (cover-up) giving credence (in their minds) to Benghazi-gate.

My take is that there are just some things we, as a nation, shouldn't be told because then it becomes international and a security issue. I think there was more going on in Benghazi than just a consulate as news stories have stated: CIA. However, the repubs will do whatever they can to create a Carter Iran-like scandal for the administration. If they hadn't lost their friggin' thinking caps (or, if they ever had them at all), they'd see this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to justiceischeap (Reply #29)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 09:48 AM

32. +100

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to justiceischeap (Reply #29)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 09:49 AM

33. This will blowback on those who are trying to twist the facts and politicize the attack.

If it doesn't blow up in the faces of the Romney spinners, then I have totally lost my respect for what I still think is the basic good sense of most of the American people.

Knock wood.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #33)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 10:09 AM

39. Doesn't matter

Issa gives out names of supporters in the region. This is a consistent move of the right to achieve their goal, expose secrets with names to hurt the other side no matter who's life may be lost.

But our enemy is not the right it's us. Reading some of the post that Obama fucked up, he didn't tell the truth and so on... I like to know how many think it was ok for the President to not tell us what was going on the weekend of the Bin Laden raid. Or that when he tell the story it wasn't as exact as it happened. Or the same apply to the President giving the green light to the Seals to take out the pirates to save American lives. The drone attacks over Pakistan we weren't told about up to the point they were not being acknowledged...

I bet there is no one that doubts him when he says we will make the perpetrator pay. Will there be an uproar when they are targeted killed and we are not notified first or soon after?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to justiceischeap (Reply #29)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 11:56 AM

64. Yes. And the president was probably trying to get Americans out of Libya safely.

That is the first thought you would have in a situation like that seems to me. How do we protect those Americans who are living or stationed there?

The White House is not a news organization.

Did CNN have news cameras at the scene in Benghazi? No. If they had maybe they would have known more about what was going on.

We have far too little on-the-scene reporting from our news media around the world.

How about CNN's own reporting from the day of the attacks:

U.S. sources say they do not believe the attacks that killed Stevens and three other Americans in Benghazi, Libya, were in reaction to the online release of a film mocking Islam, CNN's Elise Labott reports.

"It was not an innocent mob," one senior official said. "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."

This meshes with information recorded earlier in this post, including that U.S. sources told CNN that the Benghazi attack was planned, and that perhaps a protest against the film was used as a diversion. Also, a London think tank with strong ties to Libya speculated Wednesday that Stevens was the victim of a targeted al Qaeda attack "to avenge the death of Abu Yaya al-Libi, al Qaeda's second in command killed a few months ago." (See 12:51 p.m. update.)

The Libya attacks came on the same day that protesters in Cairo, Egypt, scaled the walls of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo. Protesters there reportedly were upset about an online film considered offensive to Islam.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/12/u-s-ambassador-to-libya-3-others-killed-in-rocket-attack-witness-says/

CNN itself reported that the events appeared to be both a demonstration and an attack. Why are they trying to backtrack and ignore their own reporting? The situation was confusing and that is what CNN itself reported.

Does someone at CNN have Romnesia?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #64)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 12:10 PM

68. And the reason we have so little media around the world

is that the CEO's running these "news" agencies deem on-the-ground reporters not profitable enough.

Good post, BTW.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underpants (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 10:06 AM

37. Nothing new

Americans have moved on from this scandal. I think unless there's a big new "SCANDAL!" unveiled, I don't see it moving anyone. Even Romney didn't attack on it the other night. The attention span of the American people has moved on already.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underpants (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 10:09 AM

38. This is all manufactured outrage

isn't that always the case where some person or group claim responsibility? In fact, it's usually a few. I can't figure what the big deal about all this. But I do know this is one topic that partisan republicans out there that are yelling their usual fake outrage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Catherine Vincent (Reply #38)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 11:58 AM

65. Manufactured outrage.

Here is CNN's own reporting from 09/12/12.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/12/u-s-ambassador-to-libya-3-others-killed-in-rocket-attack-witness-says/

Good reporting -- then. Now. Not so good.

Romnesia. CNN has Romnesia. It's catching.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underpants (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 10:28 AM

44. How many times has a terrorist group.....

claimed responsibility for an attack? We know the answer to that - there has always been this pattern with terrorist groups. Of course they want to claim responsibility (take credit) to look more powerful. Therefore, it's not wise to allow them to take credit without first investigating it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underpants (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 10:29 AM

45. This comment from the site sums it up

From BinaryTruth:

"Bin Laden determined to attack inside the United States..."
Republican voter response: "Oh well it's not like 9/11 could have been prevented! I'll give Bush a 2nd vote..."

"Iraq has weapons of mass destruction..."
Republican voter response: "Well, they DID have WMD.. Fox News said so... and besides, I'll still vote a 2nd time for Bush..."

On Benghazi...

Republican voter response: "IMPEACH!!! IMPEACH!!!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underpants (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 10:46 AM

49. Half of the extremist groups in the world take credit for an attack when it happens.

 

How is this different?

and thanks for the concern.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underpants (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 11:06 AM

54. Extremists make claims all the time for things they didn't do as well as for things they did.

The claims need to be checked out. And since when should a WH be expected to release that kind of information to the public right away? For one thing, it is usually classified. If Romney tries to make a big deal out of this it will backfire big time, imo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yellowcanine (Reply #54)

Sat Oct 27, 2012, 01:08 AM

81. I completely agree with you

What does the lame stream media thing we should have done? Nuked Libya because of an email? These morons are sensationalizing something that is not even an issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underpants (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 11:18 AM

58. Yes...and? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underpants (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 11:25 AM

60. But, aren't ALL terrorist attacks - ALL attacks planned?



CNN now Faux reincarnation

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flying_wahini (Reply #60)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 12:02 PM

66. Terrorism is not well defined.

It will take a number of court decisions (for which I hope there is never a need) before the words will be placed in context and clearly defined.

Right now, terrorism is what the current government says it is.

Usually terrorist attacks have to be organized. But then, maybe not? And how loosely can actions be organized and still qualify as "terrorism." And does intent have to be proved to convict someone of terrorism? And precisely how is the intent to terrorize differentiated from other criminal intent?

Nobody knows as far as I can tell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underpants (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 11:41 AM

62. I read it and it looks like no big deal

I imagine a lot of people will do the same.

I don't understand why people get so mad at news organizations for doing reporting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underpants (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 03:17 PM

73. No one cares.

Seriously. Outside of the beltway media and their audience, this is a non-issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underpants (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 09:17 PM

74. Just the repubs trying to make the story a political one...

so they can make points off the President, very unpatriotic of them,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underpants (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 10:05 PM

75. Speaking of scapegoats ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underpants (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 11:52 PM

76. They were supposed to take the claim as gospel?

I think not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underpants (Original post)

Fri Oct 26, 2012, 06:13 PM

79. I think the administration should address the issue of the video clip head on

They need to explain where the intel came from, and why it was important to focus so much attention on it in the beginning.

It will all be much clearer when we know the facts behind everything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread