Fox: FBI, NCTC showed al-Qaeda connection to Benghazi attack 2 days afterward

posted at 9:21 am on October 29, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

John McCain asked yesterday on CBS’ Face the Nation, “What did the president know? When did he know it? And what did he do about it?”  Fox News has more on the first two questions this morning.  According to their sources, the FBI and the National Counterterrorism Center briefed lawmakers two days after the attack on al-Qaeda’s connections to the Benghazi attack, one day before the CIA director showed up on Capitol Hill to tell a completely different story:

Two days after the Libya terror attack, representatives of the FBI and National Counterterrorism Center gave Capitol Hill briefings in which they said the evidence supported an Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda-affiliated attack, Fox News has learned.

The description of the attack by those in the Sept. 13 briefings stands in stark contrast to the now controversial briefing on Capitol Hill by CIA Director David Petraeus the following day — and raises even more questions about why Petraeus described the attack as tied to a demonstration. …

FBI and NCTC also briefed that there were a series of Al Qaeda training camps just outside of Benghazi, where the attack occurred and resulted in the deaths of four Americans. The area was described as a hotbed for the militant Ansar al-Sharia as well as Al Qaeda in North Africa.

Fox News is told there was no mention of a demonstration or any significant emphasis on the anti-Islam video that for days was cited by administration officials as a motivating factor.

Petraeus has been the quiet man in all of this, and this could be the reason why.  According to Fox’s report, Petraeus left very little room for equivocation in his briefing.  According to their sources, Petraeus dismissed the significance of the use of a mortar position in the attack and insisted that the event started as a spontaneous demonstration that got out of control when radicals took advantage of the confusion.

But there’s another problem in this report for the White House.  Since having to back away from Susan Rice’s attempt to sell the same story to the media five days after the attack on five different Sunday talk shows, they have insisted that the Obama administration shared the assessments it received from the intel community as they received them.  Did anyone ever share the FBI and NCTC assessments in the 13th that al-Qaeda was linked to the attack?  Not to my recollection.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

And on Nov. 7, after the President is re-elected, rightists will forget there’s even a place called Benghazi.

chumpThreads on October 29, 2012 at 10:46 AM

I’d like to forget there was ever a Barak Hussein Obama occupying the White House.

Cleombrotus on October 29, 2012 at 10:58 AM

Right, because all will be peaceful in the world. You better hope people forget about it.

Cindy Munford on October 29, 2012 at 10:49 AM

Wrong again, Cindy.

They’ll forget about it because the possibliity of scoring political points that might hurt the President in the election will no longer exist.

Once the issue no longer has the potential to hurt President Obama, the Right will lose interest.

Sheesh, you weren’t even close!

chumpThreads on October 29, 2012 at 11:00 AM

And on Nov. 7, after the President is re-elected, rightists will forget there’s even a place called Benghazi.

chumpThreads on October 29, 2012 at 10:46 AM

God forbid, but whatever happens on November 6th, we won’t forget about this or Fast and Furious. You better hope, for Obama’s sake, that he loses.

Night Owl on October 29, 2012 at 11:02 AM

chumpThreads on October 29, 2012 at 11:00 AM

Yep, exactly like the Democrats forgot all about that little break in at the Watergate, once Tricky was elected. The really stupid thing is that the American people forgive errors faster than they forgive cover ups and liars, The Won is doing it wrong.

Cindy Munford on October 29, 2012 at 11:04 AM

And you’re absolutely certain that was no conflicting intel from another credible source, leading Patraeus to decide that not enough evidence existed for the CIA to change its assessment?

bayam on October 29, 2012 at 10:44 AM

You kinda sound like Jay Carney…

Well… there’s no clear evidence saying it wasn’t the video. So, we’re sticking with that story.

Droopy on October 29, 2012 at 11:06 AM

And you’re absolutely certain that was no conflicting intel from another credible source, leading Patraeus to decide that not enough evidence existed for the CIA to change its assessment?

bayam on October 29, 2012 at 10:44 AM

Then why did Petraeus and others in the Obama administration not talk about any of this from the beginning? Why did they say it was related to a demonstration/YouTube when they didn’t really know? Why didn’t they just say they didn’t know? Why didn’t they just acknowledge unequivocally that it was a terrorist attack and that they were still gathering info about what had happened and why? They didn’t – they pushed a singular story with certainty about what happened.

More credible than the CIA field office 1 mile from the incident?
So much more credible and convincing that it would erase any question that it was a planned terrorist attack on 9/11?

Really? Obama and his administration – including Petraeus – have strongly peddled the whole spontaneous attack/YouTube narrative from day one. They didn’t say this was one possibility among others that they also talked about. They didn’t speak with doubt about their conclusion about it arising from spontaneous attack/YouTube. That is the only narrative they pushed on every administration level.

It wasn’t until reporters started revealing that there were all sorts of other very credible intelligence – from both State and the CIA – that indicated that it had nothing to do with a demonstration/YouTube that the Obama administration started to slowly change their story. Oh, they’d told us what they knew and would update what they told us as they learned more. Obama and his administration blamed a demonstration/YouTube for 3 weeks (even going so far as to broadcast an advertisement distancing the US government from the YouTube video). People at all levels of the Obama administration have lied to us through their teeth from the beginning.

gwelf on October 29, 2012 at 11:10 AM

You would think that as a journalist or a news organization who wants to be at the top of the Media rankings you would want to get to the truth behind this story. You would think that a journalist would love to be the one who blew the lid on the evil and corruption happening in this administration. The fact that this doesn’t occur (except for Fox News and the bloggers) just boggles the mind and only leads to the conclusion that the old media simply does not give two rats craps for those who died, are willing to sell their souls, their careers and their morals to protect this President and his corrupt minions.

The sad truth is that while there will be investigations of this, no one will be punished for this when the hearings and investigations are over. Obama and Clinton will escape this without a scratch while some poor schlub will fall on his/her sword for them.

Fortunately God is watching and there are no secrets with him. They will one day truly pay for their crimes. If not in this world…certainly in the next.

Scorched_Earth on October 29, 2012 at 11:12 AM

Wrong again, Cindy.

They’ll forget about it because the possibliity of scoring political points that might hurt the President in the election will no longer exist.

Once the issue no longer has the potential to hurt President Obama, the Right will lose interest.

Sheesh, you weren’t even close!

chumpThreads on October 29, 2012 at 11:00 AM

Did you happen to see Chris Wallace’s interview with Warner and Udall yesterday, where they steadfastly avoided answering his questions as to whether the drones at Benghazi were armed or not?

Do you contend that wanting to know the truth about those drones is ‘playing politics’? Would you contend that their steadfast avoidance to answer his questions was because they wanted the truth to be known to all, and that their behavior had nothing at all to do with political concerns?

Don’t bother replying unless you are willing to give straight, non-sarcastic answers to those question.

Anti-Control on October 29, 2012 at 11:13 AM

Obama’s Disinformation Czar must be on vacay?

workingclass artist on October 29, 2012 at 11:14 AM

Scorched_Earth on October 29, 2012 at 11:12 AM

My guess is they will start reporting on it when they figure out a way for it to be a positive for The Won. Sure is taking a long time for that to happen, isn’t it?

Cindy Munford on October 29, 2012 at 11:15 AM

It is pretty obvious that at least one of the following is true.

1) Obama knows what happened — at least enough to know it that if it comes out it will hurt his election chances very badly. He is sandbagging and has lied his ass off to cover up inconvenient facts about the spontaneous protest terrorist attack until after the election. He instructed Carney and Rice to say what they said publicly in the days after the spontaneous protest terrorist attack.

2) Obama is completely incompetent. He viewed the situation in Libya before the spontaneous protest terrorist attack through rose colored glasses, adopting policies that led to both the spontaneous protest terrorist attack and its tragic consequences. He was derelict in his duty on the anniversary of 9/11. He was afraid to act during the spontaneous protest terrorist attack and basically voted “present”, issuing ambiguous orders about helping the Americans under spontaneous protest terrorist attack.

3) Obama was disinterested before and detached during the spontaneous protest terrorist attack. He really didn’t think it was that a big of a deal until a week or two afterwards when FOXnews’ reporting gained some traction. Though “tragic”, he still doesn’t think it’s really that big a deal. It could happen any time to any President and any ambassador in any consulate/embassy.

These are not mutually exclusive. I think all three are true, as illustrated by my spontaneous protest edits.

farsighted on October 29, 2012 at 11:15 AM

Even poll babysitter Clinton sent help to Mogadishu when Americans were in trouble and dying.

Speakup on October 29, 2012 at 11:15 AM

Don’t worry guys, in a couple of weeks chump threads and bayam will once again believe that asking tough questions of a president and his administration will be the highest form of patriotism.

gwelf on October 29, 2012 at 11:16 AM

Reuter via HuffPost (9/12/212)

“WASHINGTON, Sept 12 (Reuters) – General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the U.S. military’s Joint Chiefs of Staff, spoke with Pastor Terry Jones by phone on Wednesday and asked him to withdraw his support for a film whose portrayal of the Prophet Mohammad has sparked violent protests – including one that ended with the death of America’s envoy to Libya. ….”

Now we know Panetta, (very likely) Dempsey, others, watch the drone feed as the Benghazi attack unfold.

Pepole were rightly outraged at various people, including Petraeus, yet I don’t see anything about Gen. Dempsey.

Sir Napsalot on October 29, 2012 at 11:17 AM

Yep, exactly like the Democrats forgot all about that little break in at the Watergate, once Tricky was elected. *snip*
Cindy Munford on October 29, 2012 at 11:04 AM

What? The Democrats forgot all about Watergate after the election? Are you kidding?

You really need to go back to your passive/aggressive schtick, Munford. When you try to engage in actual argument, you just look silly.

chumpThreads on October 29, 2012 at 11:19 AM

Sir Napsalot on October 29, 2012 at 11:17 AM

The handling of this has been horrific. But you are correct, what was Gen. Dempsey’s role?

Cindy Munford on October 29, 2012 at 11:21 AM

chumpThreads on October 29, 2012 at 11:19 AM

Right over his head.

Cleombrotus on October 29, 2012 at 11:22 AM

Obama’s Disinformation Czar must be on vacay?

workingclass artist on October 29, 2012 at 11:14 AM

Or he/she got lost among the 40+ other czars Obama has appointed.

natasha333 on October 29, 2012 at 11:22 AM

Don’t worry guys, in a couple of weeks chump threads and bayam will once again believe that asking tough questions of a president and his administration will be the highest form of patriotism.

gwelf on October 29, 2012 at 11:16 AM

Same will happen with the MSM. They will instantly discover many things very interesting and worthy of their attention, investigation and analysis that they previously thought were unimportant. They will sanctimoniously and condescendingly tell us it is their job to be skeptical, suspicious, critical, and curious and to ask the new President hard questions.

farsighted on October 29, 2012 at 11:24 AM

chumpThreads on October 29, 2012 at 11:19 AM

How do I look silly? The Democrats and the press (whoever they are) kept on the story until Nixon rightfully resigned. No one died in Watergate. The problem is that this has been botched from the word go. Considering the circumstances and the fog of war, there probably would have been a hundred better ways to handle this that the public would have accepted. And Obama went with the stupidest explanation ever and they rode it until it dropped. The man in incompetent in every facet of leading this nation.

Cindy Munford on October 29, 2012 at 11:26 AM

And on Nov. 7, after the President is re-elected, rightists will forget there’s even a place called Benghazi.

chumpThreads on October 29, 2012 at 10:46 AM

The Projector is at it again!

ShadowsPawn on October 29, 2012 at 11:26 AM

Do you contend that wanting to know the truth about those drones is ‘playing politics’? Would you contend that their steadfast avoidance to answer his questions was because they wanted the truth to be known to all, and that their behavior had nothing at all to do with political concerns?

Don’t bother replying unless you are willing to give straight, non-sarcastic answers to those question.

Anti-Control on October 29, 2012 at 11:13 AM

To answer your questions:
Yes, I think there are valid questions to be asked about what happened in Libya, but it’s also true that the Republicans are frantically trying to use the situation for political gain. Notice Romney, after being smacked down at the 2nd debate, is avoiding the subject.

That’s why I say, if Obama wins, the truth will take on less urgency for those who simply want to hurt the President’s re-election chances; ie 95% of the Right.

On the second question, the Obama administration can rightly say that it’s important to wait until all the facts are gathered to determine what happened and why. A full investigation will happen, but that is probably weeks, if not months away.

chumpThreads on October 29, 2012 at 11:27 AM

gwelf on October 29, 2012 at 11:16 AM

Like why was Pres. Bush reading “My Pet Goat” to those children in LA?

Cindy Munford on October 29, 2012 at 11:29 AM

chumpThreads on October 29, 2012 at 11:27 AM

You do relize that it is coming out that Obama was watching this transpire live in the Situation Room, courtesy of the live Drone Feed?

And, he chose to do nothing, while brave Americans died.

kingsjester on October 29, 2012 at 11:29 AM

kingsjester on October 29, 2012 at 11:29 AM

My heart still won’t let me believe that.

Cindy Munford on October 29, 2012 at 11:30 AM

Cindy Munford on October 29, 2012 at 11:26 AM

Ok, I confess I did miss the sarcasm, but in my own defense, I have to handle Cindy with tongs and a hazmat suit.

chumpThreads on October 29, 2012 at 11:31 AM

To answer your questions:
Yes, I think there are valid questions to be asked about what happened in Libya, but it’s also true that the Republicans are frantically trying to use the situation for political gain. Notice Romney, after being smacked down at the 2nd debate, is avoiding the subject.

That’s why I say, if Obama wins, the truth will take on less urgency for those who simply want to hurt the President’s re-election chances; ie 95% of the Right.

On the second question, the Obama administration can rightly say that it’s important to wait until all the facts are gathered to determine what happened and why. A full investigation will happen, but that is probably weeks, if not months away.

chumpThreads on October 29, 2012 at 11:27 AM

Absolutely stunning. The polls have hardly borne out Romney losing any of the debates. In addition, the moderator saved Obama from that line of questioning by lying and later had to admit it, and you call that a smack down.

Talk about blind partisan hackery… its on full display right there.

ShadowsPawn on October 29, 2012 at 11:31 AM

That’s why I say, if Obama wins, the truth will take on less urgency for those who simply want to hurt the President’s re-election chances; ie 95% of the Right.

On the second question, the Obama administration can rightly say that it’s important to wait until all the facts are gathered to determine what happened and why. A full investigation will happen, but that is probably weeks, if not months away.

chumpThreads on October 29, 2012 at 11:27 AM

What, no “the bengazi police acted stupidly”? You are a chump.

VegasRick on October 29, 2012 at 11:32 AM

Cindy Munford on October 29, 2012 at 11:30 AM

According to Breitbart.com:

Lt. Col. Tony Schafer told Fox News that sources were telling him that the President was watching the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya in real-time. Schafer told Fox that “only the President” could have ordered backup for the Americans who were under siege by terrorists so the President was most certainly informed of the situation as it was unfolding. “I hate to say this,” Schafer said, “according to my sources, yes, [the President] was one of those in the White House situation room in real-time watching this. And the question becomes, ‘What did the President do or not do in the moments he saw this unveiling?’ He — only he — could issue a directive to Secretary of Defense Panetta to do something.”

kingsjester on October 29, 2012 at 11:32 AM

There’s a question I’d loved to have answered… We’ve all seen the picture of the Preezy in the situation room, when he single-handedly killed OBL. How come they haven’t released the picture of him watching the attack on the Benghazi consulate? Are they afraid that we’d see the Preezy was too busy packing his luggage for his trip to Vegas?

Hill60 on October 29, 2012 at 11:32 AM

You do relize that it is coming out that Obama was watching this transpire live in the Situation Room, courtesy of the live Drone Feed?

And, he chose to do nothing, while brave Americans died.

kingsjester on October 29, 2012 at 11:29 AM

I’m willing to wait until ALL the facts are in, as opposed to selected bits touted by the right in hopes of affecting the election.

chumpThreads on October 29, 2012 at 11:33 AM

My heart still won’t let me believe that.

Cindy Munford on October 29, 2012 at 11:30 AM

I believe it, pure evil that one is.

VegasRick on October 29, 2012 at 11:33 AM

On the second question, the Obama administration can rightly say that it’s important to wait until all the facts are gathered to determine what happened and why. A full investigation will happen, but that is probably weeks, if not months away.

chumpThreads on October 29, 2012 at 11:27 AM

Obama watched it happen. He was the one who gave the order to let those people die, or else his chain of command deliberately disobeyed his order (alleged order). He is the one who needs to answer the questions and he could have done it 45 days ago. The only reason to drag this out is to try to save his political hide.

Night Owl on October 29, 2012 at 11:33 AM

Does anyone seriously believe that we would still be dissecting all these side issues or that we would be asked to wait on an “internal investigation” or that the administration’s willing apologists here and in the LSM would be trolling up distractions if there was proof that a timely presidential order to defend the consulate personnel was both made and disobeyed?

Knott Buyinit on October 29, 2012 at 11:34 AM

but in my own defense, I have to handle Cindy with tongs and a hazmat suit.

chumpThreads on October 29, 2012 at 11:31 AM

Expand, please! What exactly does that mean?

Cindy Munford on October 29, 2012 at 11:35 AM

I’m willing to wait until IGNORE ALL the facts are in, as opposed to selected bits touted by the right in hopes of affecting the election.
chumpThreads on October 29, 2012 at 11:33 AM

FTFY

VegasRick on October 29, 2012 at 11:36 AM

I’m willing to wait until ALL the facts are in, as opposed to selected bits touted by the right in hopes of affecting the election.

chumpThreads on October 29, 2012 at 11:33 AM

Translation: Like my fallen messiah, I’m stalling, with all my might.

Tyrone Woods remains unavailable for comment. May God rest him and the other 3 brave Americans murdered for the sake of politica expediency.

kingsjester on October 29, 2012 at 11:37 AM

To answer your questions:
Yes, I think there are valid questions to be asked about what happened in Libya, but it’s also true that the Republicans are frantically trying to use the situation for political gain. Notice Romney, after being smacked down at the 2nd debate, is avoiding the subject.

That’s why I say, if Obama wins, the truth will take on less urgency for those who simply want to hurt the President’s re-election chances; ie 95% of the Right.

On the second question, the Obama administration can rightly say that it’s important to wait until all the facts are gathered to determine what happened and why. A full investigation will happen, but that is probably weeks, if not months away.

chumpThreads on October 29, 2012 at 11:27 AM

Could you offer up a good reason why Warner or Udall couldn’t simply have told the truth about whether the drones were armed or not? Can you explain how their absolute refusal to be helpful with Wallace could be for any other reason than political gamesmanship?

Do you believe Obama’s administration is guilty of playing politics over Benghazi at all?

Anti-Control on October 29, 2012 at 11:37 AM

blink on October 29, 2012 at 11:32 AM

The funny thing about Gov. Romney getting “smacked down” on this subject in the second debate is what finally caused it to hit the front page. Until the press thought they could use it against Gov. Romney,(by lying) they avoided the subject like the plague, not they are doing everything they can to put the cat back in the bag.

Cindy Munford on October 29, 2012 at 11:38 AM

My heart still won’t let me believe that.

Cindy Munford on October 29, 2012 at 11:30 AM

I think it will turn out to be worse than anything we are talking about now.

Night Owl on October 29, 2012 at 11:39 AM

On the second question, the Obama administration can rightly say that it’s important to wait until all the facts are gathered to determine what happened and why. A full investigation will happen, but that is probably weeks, if not months away.

chumpThreads on October 29, 2012 at 11:27 AM

Wait until all the facts are in? They went on a full court press of claiming it was due to a spontaneous demonstration of a YouTube video. The maker of the YouTube video is in jail (just like Hillary promised the father of one of the slain SEALs), General Dempsey personally called a private citizen and asked him not to further promote the video. Obama and Hillary produced and aired a video distancing us from the video. Obama did it again in person at the UN. This isn’t waiting for the facts to come in – they pushed a specific narrative as hard as they could.

It was only when it was being reported that they were lying did they start to equivocate and they are now using the “lets wait for all the facts” line as a defense to try to shut up very legitimate questions. They repeatedly said they were giving us the intel they had and would update as they had more but this has already been proven a lie – they pushed the demonstration narrative even though they had credible and contradictory intel hours after the attack started.

gwelf on October 29, 2012 at 11:40 AM

Until the press thought they could use it against Gov. Romney,(by lying) they avoided the subject like the plague, not now they are doing everything they can to put the cat back in the bag.

Cindy Munford on October 29, 2012 at 11:38 AM

Cindy Munford on October 29, 2012 at 11:40 AM

Expand, please! What exactly does that mean?

Cindy Munford on October 29, 2012 at 11:35 AM

Simply that in my interactions with you on this board, I’ve found your approach to be…equivocal…at best.

chumpThreads on October 29, 2012 at 11:42 AM

Sir Napsalot on October 29, 2012 at 11:17 AM

The point I am making is that Dempsey KNEW Benghazi attack, presumably watched our men being cut down, yet for reasons unknown, hassled a private citizen to shift blame from Obama WH.

I know Panetta is a politic hack and a communist to boot, but Gen Dempsey expects our military serving men and women with the highest honor, loyalty, and integrity, even though Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods were no longer ‘active’ military.

Where are yours, sir?

Sir Napsalot on October 29, 2012 at 11:43 AM

Does anyone seriously believe that we would still be dissecting all these side issues or that we would be asked to wait on an “internal investigation” or that the administration’s willing apologists here and in the LSM would be trolling up distractions if there was proof that a timely presidential order to defend the consulate personnel was both made and disobeyed?

Knott Buyinit on October 29, 2012 at 11:34 AM

Nope. If any of this made him look good it would be splashed over every media available, and added to his “Osama is dead and GM is alive” rant. They would be bragging about it non-stop.

Night Owl on October 29, 2012 at 11:43 AM

I’m willing to wait until ALL the facts are in, as opposed to selected bits touted by the right in hopes of affecting the election.

chumpThreads on October 29, 2012 at 11:33 AM

Yeah, unlike the President, who knew that it was a pre-planned attack perpetrated by a terrorist organization, but went out and LIED to the American people about it. He blamed it on a video. His people blamed it on a video.

He lied, we are calling him on it and you are all butt-hurt about it. Get over it, we aren’t letting it go.

ShadowsPawn on October 29, 2012 at 11:47 AM

Off topic – gumbyandpokey spotted prancing about during Hurricane Sandy: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/shirtless-man-in-horse-mask-ruinsenhances-live-coverage-of-hurricane-sandy/

Anti-Control on October 29, 2012 at 11:48 AM

the Obama administration can rightly say that it’s important to wait until all the facts are gathered to determine what happened and why. A full investigation will happen, but that is probably weeks, if not months away.

chumpThreads on October 29, 2012 at 11:27 AM

Jay, is that you?

spiritof61 on October 29, 2012 at 11:50 AM

chumpThreads on October 29, 2012 at 11:42 AM

Interesting. The fact that I don’t insult people for beliefs that do not match mine means that I equivocate? The only thing you need to know is that I don’t ever want you to leave HotAir, I don’t want you banned (unless you break the host’s rules) for not agreeing with the majority and that I am open to your views. It doesn’t mean that I agree with them but I can always appreciate a well argued point. Your comment would suggest that you find that view is lacking in intelligence and resolve, that’s fine.

Cindy Munford on October 29, 2012 at 11:50 AM

I’m willing to wait until ALL the facts are in, as opposed to selected bits touted by the right in hopes of affecting the election.

chumpThreads on October 29, 2012 at 11:33 AM

Exactly how long are you willing to wait?

Cindy Munford on October 29, 2012 at 11:51 AM

On Pres. Obama and members of his cabinet and live vid feeds.

Fast and Furious:
1. Wire Taps of the gun stores that were “ordered to sell guns to known gun mules of the durg cartels.

2. Live vid feed of the inside of the stores, camers on the check out counter up close and clear.

3. Live vid feed from the parking lots nite lighting polls clear enough to get the lis plates ect. of the mules cars and live feed of the transfer of the guns in the parking lots to the drug cartel border gun runners who delived the guns straight to Mexico.

4. Atty Gen. Holder, F.B.I. leadership possible even the F.B.I. Director himself, Hopeless Land Leader Sisterman too all watched in their cozy offices in D.C.

They cover up their assory before the fact in the killing of Brian Terry.

But for the grace of God go any one of U.S..

If we do not act now the guilt will come to U.S. for our failure to act.

Act UP, vote, vote, vote.

Just like in any fight make plans on how to deal with a tempory loss if the commie Democrats steal the elections with illegal immigrant and dead peoples votes.

They are so sick they would try to even use Biran Terrys ID to vote for Obama.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on October 29, 2012 at 11:52 AM

Could you offer up a good reason why Warner or Udall couldn’t simply have told the truth about whether the drones were armed or not? Can you explain how their absolute refusal to be helpful with Wallace could be for any other reason than political gamesmanship?

Do you believe Obama’s administration is guilty of playing politics over Benghazi at all?

Anti-Control on October 29, 2012 at 11:37 AM

Yes, there’s an election coming up! And yes, the Obama administration is going to tread carefully on how the Benghazi attack was handled in proportion to the efforts by his political opponents to ramp the incident up for electoral advantage. Welcome to the real world.

This incident cannot be swept under the rug. The facts will come out, and if Obama, whether he is in office or out, handled the situation badly, he should be called to account for his actions.

chumpThreads on October 29, 2012 at 11:52 AM

Who gave the order to “stand down” rescue/support at Benghazi?

It’s a simple question, Mr. President. Just give a name. No need for an investigation. Who gave the order?

spiritof61 on October 29, 2012 at 11:53 AM

Exactly how long are you willing to wait?

Cindy Munford on October 29, 2012 at 11:51 AM

Wednesday, Nov. 7 would seem like a reasonable target date.

spiritof61 on October 29, 2012 at 11:55 AM

This incident cannot be swept under the rug. The facts will come out, and if Obama, whether he is in office or out, handled the situation badly, he should be called to account for his actions.

chumpThreads on October 29, 2012 at 11:52 AM

How will he account for those actions? Is the nation going to impeach him and get the booby prize of Joe Biden? Or maybe, we just won’t reelect him next time…..oh wait.

Cindy Munford on October 29, 2012 at 11:55 AM

I wonder if part of the reason the Obama camp was so eager to get out a large early vote is to nullify the effect of any voters changing their minds should they learn the truth about the Obama administration’s lies and coverup of the deliberate Benghazi treachery.

Chessplayer on October 29, 2012 at 11:56 AM

blink on October 29, 2012 at 11:52 AM

Thanks, I do appear to be pretty toxic don’t I?

Cindy Munford on October 29, 2012 at 11:56 AM

There are quick response teams trained for these type rescues. Emergency rescue training is top priority throughout the military. Panetta saying they need more information is BS. Does the fire dept sit there and assess a burning building before a rescue? No, they train prior to these situations.

Here is where Obama failed America and it solely rests on him. The decision to cross borders is up to the POTUS only. Obama didn’t answer the 3am call. He voted present. He left those Americans to die. and he saw it on video.

Common_Cents on October 29, 2012 at 11:57 AM

Nope. If any of this made him look good it would be splashed over every media available, and added to his “Osama is dead and GM is alive” rant. They would be bragging about it non-stop.

Night Owl on October 29, 2012 at 11:43 AM

And, that is the proof of the pudding, right there. Since the order to activate a rescue attempt appears to be a standing order, once the ambassador was determined to be at risk, that attempt should have been immediately underway, unless directly countermanded as an order. If When that happened, the Stand Down order had to be within a paper trail and would be waved like a bloody shirt if it came from anyone else but Barry.

a capella on October 29, 2012 at 11:58 AM

Thanks, I do appear to be pretty toxic don’t I?

Cindy Munford on October 29, 2012 at 11:56AM

Well, we’ve never seen you without your makeup on or your hair neatly combed.

a capella on October 29, 2012 at 12:00 PM

I wonder if part of the reason the Obama camp was so eager to get out a large early vote is to nullify the effect of any voters changing their minds should they learn the truth about the Obama administration’s lies and coverup of the deliberate Benghazi treachery.

Chessplayer on October 29, 2012 at 11:56 AM

That thought crossed my mind when I heard him begging people in FL to vote early and providing them the buses to do so.

Night Owl on October 29, 2012 at 12:01 PM

Yes, there’s an election coming up! And yes, the Obama administration is going to tread carefully on how the Benghazi attack was handled in proportion to the efforts by his political opponents to ramp the incident up for electoral advantage. Welcome to the real world.

This incident cannot be swept under the rug. The facts will come out, and if Obama, whether he is in office or out, handled the situation badly, he should be called to account for his actions.

chumpThreads on October 29, 2012 at 11:52 AM

So the administration is going to share what they know with us but they won’t answer the tough questions? Sounds like they are politicizing it. They’ve called themselves the most transparent administration ever but they won’t ask simple questions. They are politicizing this.

gwelf on October 29, 2012 at 12:02 PM

Yes, there’s an election coming up! And yes, the Obama administration is going to tread carefully on how the Benghazi attack was handled in proportion to the efforts by his political opponents to ramp the incident up for electoral advantage. Welcome to the real world.

This incident cannot be swept under the rug. The facts will come out, and if Obama, whether he is in office or out, handled the situation badly, he should be called to account for his actions.

chumpThreads on October 29, 2012 at 11:52 AM

What is Obama’s job description, anyway – to serve the US, or for the US to serve him?

When do you believe the facts about Benghazi should come out – when Obama wants them to only? If you don’t believe the timeline should be determined by him alone, by whom do you believe it should be determined?

Anti-Control on October 29, 2012 at 12:03 PM

a capella on October 29, 2012 at 12:00 PM

LOL! Trust me, neither has chumpThreads.

Cindy Munford on October 29, 2012 at 12:04 PM

Memo to Mitt:

If the Weasel doesn’t come clean within, say, 48 hours on who gave the Stand Down order (it was him, by the way)–cut an ad with the SEAL’s dad talking about heroism and cowardice. And run it wherever you can.

“I’m Mitt Romney and I will never abandon brave Americans to die at the hands of our enemies. Ever.”

spiritof61 on October 29, 2012 at 12:05 PM

And, that is the proof of the pudding, right there. Since the order to activate a rescue attempt appears to be a standing order, once the ambassador was determined to be at risk, that attempt should have been immediately underway, unless directly countermanded as an order. If When that happened, the Stand Down order had to be within a paper trail and would be waved like a bloody shirt if it came from anyone else but Barry.

a capella on October 29, 2012 at 11:58 AM

That is very true. I said this last night but I’ll say it again. It wasn’t just those four people, he was willing to let the 30 people those guys led back to the CIA annex die too. He is evil.

Night Owl on October 29, 2012 at 12:05 PM

Interesting. The fact that I don’t insult people for beliefs that do not match mine means that I equivocate?

No, that’s not what I mean.
As I’ve said, we’ve interacted on this board before, and I have a certain perspective on how you argue. One doesn’t have to mock or call names to deliver an insult.

*snip* …I am open to your views. It doesn’t mean that I agree with them but I can always appreciate a well argued point.

Then perhaps I am missing something as I read your comments here. I acknowledge that possibility.

Your comment would suggest that you find that view is lacking in intelligence and resolve, that’s fine.

Cindy Munford on October 29, 2012 at 11:50 AM

And no, I don’t find that at all.

However, without putting too fine a point on it, if there’s a choice, in interacting with someone, between robust jousting and passive/aggressive wanking, I much prefer the former.

chumpThreads on October 29, 2012 at 12:09 PM

blink on October 29, 2012 at 12:07 PM

His guy is in deep dodo, we don’t need to waste time on me.

Cindy Munford on October 29, 2012 at 12:11 PM

blink on October 29, 2012 at 11:52 AM

When you get over calling me an idiot, I might decide to respond to your comments.

chumpThreads on October 29, 2012 at 12:11 PM

Ask the Mexican Goverment how open and honest Pres. Obama and Sec. of State Clinton are at crossing borders running guns to terrorist aka drug cartels.

Two Time Losers.

The third time we all may be the biggest losers.

They know not what they do.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on October 29, 2012 at 12:13 PM

Exactly how long are you willing to wait?

Cindy Munford on October 29, 2012 at 11:51 AM

Longer than Darrell Issa.

chumpThreads on October 29, 2012 at 12:15 PM

When you get over calling me an idiot, I might decide to respond to your comments.

chumpThreads on October 29, 2012 at 12:11 PM

I think you should wait until the investigation is completed before you post again. Just to be on the safe side.

In other news, Obama is in deep, deep doo doo.

spiritof61 on October 29, 2012 at 12:15 PM

chumpThreads on October 29, 2012 at 12:09 PM

Differing or preferable arguing styles is fine. Trust me, I have heard the passive aggressive charge ad nauseam, I now find it touching.

Cindy Munford on October 29, 2012 at 12:20 PM

Never Forget:

LBJ’s bombing pauses and not allowing the bombing of the guns and ammo in Hipong harbor before it was off loaded to be trucked down the trails and used to kill American fighting men.

John F. Kerry’s support of the NVA and VC by passing them info while still a U.S. Navy Reserve Officer.

Fast and Furious.

Gun running and cowardly actions in Lybia.

4 years of Iran building the nukes to be used on U.S. and our friends.

Never Forget,,, ever.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on October 29, 2012 at 12:22 PM

Long story short……..

Obama preferred they die than risk a stain on his progressive escutcheon with an “Imperialist” response.

BL@KBIRD on October 29, 2012 at 12:23 PM

*snip*

In other news, Obama is in deep, deep doo doo.

spiritof61 on October 29, 2012 at 12:15 PM

And I think he’s very strong to win the electoral college.

We’ll see next week, won’t we?

chumpThreads on October 29, 2012 at 12:25 PM

Trust me, I have heard the passive aggressive charge ad nauseam.

Cindy Munford on October 29, 2012 at 12:20 PM

Oh, I’ll bet you have!

chumpThreads on October 29, 2012 at 12:27 PM

chumpThreads,

How long should Brian Terrys family have to wait to find out the truth of the gun running to Mexico by Obama, Clinton, Holder, Big Sis etal.

Fast and Furious by Obama team starts 2009.

Brian Terry is shot and killed by a DEA paid drug infomer Dec. 14, 2010, and due to more soft leading from behind Brian etal has bean bags to defend themselves.

Now it is Oct. 29, 2012.

How long?

APACHEWHOKNOWS on October 29, 2012 at 12:29 PM

chumpThreads on October 29, 2012 at 12:15 PM

To address the point you made further up thread, you are not blind to the inconsistencies and are willing to have Obama held accountable. How will that happen? Obviously, as I pointed out, impeachment would be the worse case scenario, but who in their right mind would think that Biden is an acceptable alternative? So how would Obama pay?

Cindy Munford on October 29, 2012 at 12:29 PM

Old saying, “Cheaters never win.”

APACHEWHOKNOWS on October 29, 2012 at 12:30 PM

And I think he’s very strong to win the electoral college.

We’ll see next week, won’t we?

chumpThreads on October 29, 2012 at 12:25 PM

Indeed we will. See you at the polls, chump.

spiritof61 on October 29, 2012 at 12:31 PM

chumpThreads on October 29, 2012 at 12:27 PM

LOL! Age and experience has taught me that if you lose your temper, you lose the argument and that logic and timing are your friends.

Cindy Munford on October 29, 2012 at 12:31 PM

ps

The defense that “Bush did it too” is lame, why would a smart guy like Obama follow up and do the same thing as some one as dumb as all Democrats claim Bush is/was.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on October 29, 2012 at 12:33 PM

To address the point you made further up thread, you are not blind to the inconsistencies and are willing to have Obama held accountable. How will that happen? Obviously, as I pointed out, impeachment would be the worse case scenario, but who in their right mind would think that Biden is an acceptable alternative? So how would Obama pay?

Cindy Munford on October 29, 2012 at 12:29 PM

Cindy, he’s not going to go to jail and impeachment, if enacted would have nothing to do with Joe Biden’s suitability for the job. The President would be out and Biden would be in.

If it’s found that he seriously mishandled the Libya incident, he will be held accountable morally and politically. The fallout would be a serious drag on his presidency and he would lose much credibility with the American people.

Otherwise, what else do you think could be done?

chumpThreads on October 29, 2012 at 12:39 PM

chumpThreads, I notice that you didn’t address my post to you @12:03 – what’s the reason for that?

Here it is again: “What is Obama’s job description, anyway – to serve the US, or for the US to serve him?

When do you believe the facts about Benghazi should come out – when Obama wants them to only? If you don’t believe the timeline should be determined by him alone, by whom do you believe it should be determined?”

I want to add another question to that: how important is it you to have an informed electorate, one that doesn’t have to suffer through dealing with an administration which is resisting giving out information about its inner workings because it’s worried about how that information may damage its public image & popularity?

Anti-Control on October 29, 2012 at 12:40 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3