http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/ … 2C20121024
(Reuters) - Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.
Will this hurt Obama or be swept under the rug?
Hi there, Long. How are you doing?
I believe the President was wise to wait until the claims could be investigated and verified. It would also be prudent on his part to withhold notoriety and publicity from the perpetrators for as long as possible. The President handled himself in the days immediately following the incident like a seasoned statesman.
If he was waiting for verification - then why do the "internet video" dance?
Is thinking that his top level spokespeople would look for direction from the White house before going on the record too much too assume?
As a liberal, I wouldn't expect you to say anything else, Quill.
I believe they were also being made aware by facebook, so I can understand the wait and see if this is true approach...however, I still do not understand the video part, and would like that to be clearly answered as well...I also understand this to be Al Quaeda, apparently they are now sneaking in to get there training with our own troops in Iraq...I do believe however that this does not not neccessarily mean some kind of cover up, and do not think it was Obama trying to hide this until the election was over...but I am upset the video question has yet to be answered.
Obama knew as much as Bush? They are at the head of the government and are/were the commander in chief. Who would launch operations or deny them if not the president? It is the reality of our world!
Why should Joe Public be privy to Military or National Security issues as they happen? Why should we be privy to any information until a course of action has been determined. Was it a mistake that there wasn't enough security there... obviously since US lives were lost. Media fed hysteria led to the clam up which is why we all thought it was the video that sparked the uprising. The media duped us again and now we're all to be mad at the President because he allowed us to be duped... what a joke.
Whoa.... You are blaming the "internet video" explanation on the media?
I agree that "Joe Public" does not need to know the "secret" stuff" And I also agree that pumping out ALL available details in the midst of a firestorm is not wise. And I also can see many situations where it is just not in our nation's best interest for an administration to tell everything it knows - immediately when demanded - all the time
But... it was the administration spokespeople that pushed the video explanation - not the media.
I only find fault with the apparently (as now known) obvious misinformation. I am not interested in the finger pointing about who did or did not do something about the security situation ie. cuts or requests
Why should we be lied to for days on end?
Please do not give Obama or his cohorts credit for withholding the truth in this incident to keep the terrorists from getting publicity. There is only one reason why it was withheld and that was to keep his political campaign on track. Furthermore, we have just had one of our ambassadors assassinated and several other Americans murdered, yet there is barely any recognition. In the past, Presidents made public statements, and the fallen Americans were returned home with honors. Obama handled it as he does everything else, with his own agenda in mind, not the country, not the people, and certainly not the individual. And not even his closest associates or cabinet, as many of his friends learned after the last election when they were subsequently thrown under the bus.
The mistake here was the press and the wave of the internet informing the families of their loss! The press needs to be stopped! How would you like it if you found out a loved one was killed over the tv or internet? Their was absolutely no reason to tell the American Public right away. The families of the four that lost their lives should have heard it from the POTUS! They and their love ones deserved and earned that respect!
Here are some issues as to why I believe Obama knew and agreed if not authorized the video story. First, Jay Carney and every press secretary before under every President, does not make statements without the Presidents approval. These briefings are generally in a binder on the podium from which the Secretary speaks and are signed by the President.
We also know this was followed in real time from multiple sources. The command center in the State Department and from the situation room in the Whitehouse. I cannot be convinced that during a 7 hour attack, no one went upstairs to wake the President and advise him.
We know it was followed in real time in 2 places, the intelligence community finds out about the attack and asks questions from the people who monitored the entire event. So how would the intelligence community come up with the conclusion it was over a video when there were no protesters there?
So we know the protester story could not come from State, or from intelligence, or even the CIA as we have discovered yesterday it appears they were asked for troops, so they knew it was an attack too. So it keeps leading back to the President.
I'm amazed that there are so many people in the CIA with access to all of the information about what happened on this forum? It must be a first in an Internet forum.
I think you and so many others miss the point, maybe we don't need to know sensitive information right away, but why continue to lie and especially a stupid lie like the video? It didn't fool anyone and probably cost Obama reelection.
On second thought, Obama did the right thing!
It's amazing how some want to turn a blind eye to the truth just to get the worst president in U.S. history re-elected, even foreigners.
by Mike Russo10 months ago
After more than two years and $7 million spent by the Benghazi Committee under taxpayer funds, it had to today report that it had found nothing — nothing — to contradict the conclusions that the independent...
by Quilligrapher4 years ago
In an interview with Fox News, Rep. Darrell Issa admitted, using more words than was necessary, that his May 8th hearing on the Benghazi terror attacks did not produce any new information.VAN SUSTEREN: "You have...
by Reality Bytes4 years ago
Spin this:New Details From Libya Consulate Attack: State Department Abandons Claim Of Protest Outside GatesThe deadly September attack on a U.S. consulate in Libya was not precipitated by an anti-American protest, as...
by JaxsonRaine4 years ago
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10 … urces-say/Yeah, it's fox.CIA operatives were told multiple times not to help during the attack on the embassy in Benghazi. One operative even had visual with a terrorist...
by andrew savage3 years ago
More importantly, how likely is it that american service members would know that their leader is disqualified from the executive administrative office of the federation? What would happen if such a foreign national...
by Reality Bytes4 years ago
Benghazi scandal demands answersThe Benghazi controversy is not one, but four separate scandals — each of which calls into question the president’s leadership.First, Benghazi raises legitimate questions about...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.