Benghazi - emails expose Obama's "it was the video" lie

[$tevie]

$tevie wrote:
Oooh, this is the biggest issue in the election. NOT.

Fifty-four percent of likely voters said American foreign policy was on the wrong track during the week ending October 21, and just 30 percent approved of Obama’s handling of it in September, the last time that question was asked.

Obama held an eight-point lead over Romney — 41 percent to 33 percent — on the question, “Which presidential candidate has the better plan for the war on terror?”

But on the issue of recent anti-American violence in the Middle East, most recently in Benghazi, Libya, a plurality of voters — 28 percent — said they “strongly disapprove” of Obama’s handling of the matter. Still, Romney did not fare much better: Twenty-six percent said they didn’t know how he handled the violence, and 18 percent said they strongly disapproved of his reaction.

http://blogs.reuters.com/talesfromthetra...riorities/

[August West]

swampy wrote:
Ansar al- Sharia claims responsibility for Benghazi attack....embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli. [Emphasis mine]

Do you simply not understand the intertubes?

[Lemon Drop]

swampy wrote:
Obama's "no acts of terror" speech made no direct reference to Benghazi,

That is ridiculous. Utter BS. The ENTIRE rose garden speech on Sept 12 was about the attacks in Libya and the deaths of Americans. It is not about anything else. Why don't you listen, it's only 5 and half minutes long, and you'll be better informed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Nu6VZ9DeVc

swampy it was because of the nonsense that was flying around in right wing media regarding Benghazi that Romney made a fool of himself in the second debate.
aren't you curious why he didn't bring this up in the foreign policy debate?
It's because he knows it is a NON ISSUE and Romney wasn't going to be made a fool on this again, even though people like you seem to have wanted him to.

[swampy]

Then, PLEASE, will one of you tell me WHY Obama's story changed from " no act of terror" to "video" over the following weeks?

9/14  "CARNEY: We certainly don’t know; we don’t know otherwise. You know, we have no information to suggest that it was a preplanned attack. The unrest we’ve seen around the region has been in reaction to a video that Muslims, many Muslims find offensive. And while the violence is reprehensible and unjustified, it is not a reaction to the 9/11 anniversary that we know of or to U.S. policy."

9/16 SUSAN RICE: "We do not-- we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned...We don't see at this point -- signs that this was a coordinated, pre-meditated attack."

9/19 CARNEY: "All I can tell you is that based on the information that we had then and have now we do not yet have indication that it was pre-planned or pre-meditated."

Then the six times Obama mentioned the video in his UN speech. And his refusal to call it terrorism last week on The View?

The "investigation is waaaaay out in front of him.

[Lemon Drop]

swampy wrote:
Then, PLEASE, will one of you tell me WHY Obama's story changed from " no act of terror" to "video" over the following weeks?
.

I notice that YOUR story changes everytime you get a response containing actual facts, and I think the answers to the questions you just raised (CIA responses to what Rice was saying, for example) have already been covered in earlier threads.

[August West]

Go pick up somemore intel on facebook and twitter, you can probably convince everyone that Gov. Romney is awesome with that.

[cbelt3]

Lemon Drop wrote:
[quote=cbelt3]

I *will* point out to the assembled Democratic Party Faithful that when Romney utters something that is not perfectly true, you guys run around screaming "Liar Liar, Pants on Fire !". But when YOUR guy muffs it, the person who points out "Hey.. that wasn't true" gets attacked.

If you're talking about Benghazi, "our guy" has not "muffed it."
Not talking about Libya here. State and POTUS handled this heinous attack with grace and humility.

I would MUCH rather the Republican strategy stop hammering at this one and go back to the economy, stupid.

[J Marston]

From Slate:

...In the same story that breaks the news and gives readers the e-mails, CBS News prints an unaired answer that Obama gave Steve Kroft on September 12. It was his first interview after the attacks.

"You're right that this is not a situation that was -- exactly the same as what happened in Egypt and my suspicion is that there are folks involved in this who were looking to target Americans from the start."

The next day, Obama was in Colorado, where he addressed the killings in Libya.

"A couple of days ago, for four Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Libya... So what I want all of you to know is that we are going to bring those who killed our fellow Americans to justice. I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished."

Obama didn't pretend that this was merely "a protest that got out of hand." The trouble, when we look back at the timeline, is that reporters didn't really glom onto the Libya story for a few days. When they did, by the Sunday shows and September 19, you had administration spokespeople soft-peddling the "target Americans from the start" story.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/10/24/the_shocking_world_changing_new_libya_e_mails.html

[$tevie]

The effort to turn this into a scandal is going to backfire, since most people are going to get sick of the Who Struck John and decide to ignore that aspect altogether. Nobody really gives a tiny rat's arse about this except right wingers who have been DESPERATELY SEEKING SCANDAL for four years now.

http://mediamatters.org/print/research/2...med/189817

[swampy]

Latest report is that one of the attackers has been arrested and is being held in Tunisia. Guess what...he's a member of Ansar al-Shaira.