*BUSTED* Obama, LIAR- Emails prove he KNEW about Libya attacks within 2 hours

[Oldstyle]

Kindly explain both Jay Carney and Barack Obama's claims that they were giving the American people all of the information as it was given to them...when in fact the e-mails prove without a doubt that the Obama Administration was only giving us the information that coincided with the narrative that they decided to go with...namely that this was a "spontaneous" attack because of the YouTube video? Both of them were lying through their teeth when they made those statements.

Please see my post #294, once you understand that post, let me know and we will delve into this further.

Otherwise I am not going to repeat myself over and over.

The fact that many terrorist groups claimed responsibility for the original 9/11 attacks doesn't mean that a terrorist group wasn't in fact responsible for the attack. I'm sorry but I don't see your logic here. The Bush White House certainly didn't lie to us about who was responsible for the attack. As they found out who was behind it...we found out who was behind it. Now contrast THAT with what the Obama White House did! They knew within a few hours that it was a terrorist attack and not a spontaneous reaction to the video because they were watching it unfold streaming live. There WAS NO PROTEST taking place before the attack began. So then why did the Obama White House declare that it wasn't terrorists and that it WAS all about the YouTube video? Why did they hush up the information that it was a terrorist attack? Why did they lie to us?

 

[Liberal]

Yes, your attempt was a major fail.

Says the man who ignores facts to further his agenda.

Yeah, lack of evidence...

Right.

I am glad you agree that a PSA letting the administration know someone took claim to the 9/11/12 attacks on FACEBOOK was just that, a PSA.. Not the result of an investigation or direct intel, ensuring that the groups was indeed the ones responsible based on evidence.

Bush declared the first 9/11 a terrorist attack in his very first statement, it didn't take him 14 days after a disinformation campaign had failed.

Cool, you have reading comprehension issues.. Figures, you were probably home schooled.

I did not say that bush did not call it a terrorist attack (hallucination?), what I was saying was that a bunch of terrorist groups said they did 9/11/01... The Bush admin did the investigating needed to determine who it was.

Same thing happened here, they got an internal memo that said a group claimed responsibility for 9/11/12 on FACEBOOK and TWITTER, that does not mean that they know WITHOUT A DOUBT who did it. It's just like the JonBenét Ramsey case, when John Mark Karr said he did it, even though he did not. The determination needed to be made.

What a mindless drone you are. I guess the party is the only identity you have, huh? You have no principles so without the party you are adrift.

Now that, is sad.

YOU MAD BRO?



You have been shut down 3 times now, go lay down.

 

[Clementine]

That's a complete lie from the Administration as the recently released e-mails prove. They had information within two hours of the start of the attack that it was carried out by terrorists and wasn't because of any video but chose to ignore that information because it didn't fit with their narrative that Obama had decimated Al Queda.

That is right. They had the ability to watch the attacks for 7 hours and knew who was doing it and why. Two of the four victims were killed in the final hours, so they could have saved them. Obama did mention those fancy planes, submarines and other technology, all of which is meaningless if it's not used. None of the victims needed to die.

 

[Oldstyle]

Just released:

(Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Wednesday a Facebook post in which an Islamic militant group claimed credit for a recent attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya did not constitute hard evidence of who was responsible.


"Posting something on Facebook is not in and of itself evidence. I think it just underscores how fluid the reporting was at the time and continued for some time to be," Clinton said during an appearance with the Brazilian foreign minister at the State Department.

"The independent accountability review board is already hard at work looking at everything, not cherry picking one story here or one document there, but looking at everything - which I highly recommend as the appropriate approach for something as complex as an attack like this," she said.


"We will find out what happened. We will take whatever measures are necessary to fix anything that needs to be fixed and we will bring those to justice who committed these murders."


White House spokesman Jay Carney, asked about the emails, noted that Ansar al-Sharia had later denied responsibility for the attack.


"This was an open-source, unclassified email about a posting on a Facebook site. I would also note I think that within a few hours, that organization itself claimed that it had not been responsible. Neither should be taken as fact -- that's why there's an investigation under way," he told reporters traveling with President Barack Obama aboard Air Force One to Iowa.

Clinton: Facebook post about Benghazi attack not hard evidence | Reuters

I can only shake my head at this latest excuse from the Obama White House that the reason we were misled was that the situation was so "fluid" that it was impossible to determine it was a terrorist attack.

Funny how "now" it was too fluid to call...but for a week after the attack the Administration did in fact "call it" and they called it a spontaneous response to the YouTube video.

So if it really WAS too fluid to call? Then why did they do so and why did they cover up the intel that didn't agree with their "call"?

When someone starts lying it's hard to stop...isn't it?

 

[Oldstyle]

And I'm still waiting to hear why we didn't send help to our people in Bengazi. Seven hours? Are you kidding me? Gee, Mr. President...in that amount of time we could have probably gotten relief there if they HAD been riding "horses". With all that fancy stuff you're so proud of you would like to think we could protect our own. Guess not.

 

[RespondsWithGif]

The fact that the Libs here are defending Obama is nothing short of hysterical. He tried to cover up a terrorist attack because we got Bin Laden Therefore terrorism didn't exist anymore.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The fact that the Libs here are defending Obama is nothing short of hysterical. He tried to cover up a terrorist attack because we got Bin Laden Therefore terrorism didn't exist anymore.

Hard to claim "Al Qaeda is on their heels" when they are planning and executing major attacks on U.S. Diplomats.

What's a president to do? I know, lie through his fucking teeth and go to Vegas.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

So..... the official line is "we didn't know what was going on so we immediately blamed an otherwise unseen movie"???


Really?

 

[RespondsWithGif]

He has been caught. There is no getting out of it. Yet the lefties try to wiggle a squirm while screaming like small children.

 

[copsnrobbers]

Benghazi Conspiracy Points to Obama and Muslim Brotherhood

 

[Oldstyle]

What pisses me off even more is that Barack Obama stood on stage, wagged his finger at Mitt Romney and declare it "offensive" for anyone to even question his honesty on this. Mr. President...you ARE a liar. You lied to the American people for political reasons and THAT is "offensive".

Four people died that didn't have to because of your incompetence. I find that "offensive" as well.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Yes, your attempt was a major fail.

Says the man who ignores facts to further his agenda.

Yeah, lack of evidence...

Right.

I am glad you agree that a PSA letting the administration know someone took claim to the 9/11/12 attacks on FACEBOOK was just that, a PSA.. Not the result of an investigation or direct intel, ensuring that the groups was indeed the ones responsible based on evidence.

Bush declared the first 9/11 a terrorist attack in his very first statement, it didn't take him 14 days after a disinformation campaign had failed.

Cool, you have reading comprehension issues.. Figures, you were probably home schooled.

I did not say that bush did not call it a terrorist attack (hallucination?), what I was saying was that a bunch of terrorist groups said they did 9/11/01... The Bush admin did the investigating needed to determine who it was.

Same thing happened here, they got an internal memo that said a group claimed responsibility for 9/11/12 on FACEBOOK and TWITTER, that does not mean that they know WITHOUT A DOUBT who did it. It's just like the JonBenét Ramsey case, when John Mark Karr said he did it, even though he did not. The determination needed to be made.

What a mindless drone you are. I guess the party is the only identity you have, huh? You have no principles so without the party you are adrift.

Now that, is sad.

YOU MAD BRO?



You have been shut down 3 times now, go lay down.

President Kardashian lied.... and continues to lie.... PERIOD.

 

[Liberal]

The fact that many terrorist groups claimed responsibility for the original 9/11 attacks doesn't mean that a terrorist group wasn't in fact responsible for the attack. I'm sorry but I don't see your logic here.

The logic is simple, I never said that the group that made the claim did not do it.

However, during any incident there is a psychological condition (can't remember the name of it) where people/groups try to take advantage or directly inject themselves into the story. Their admission needed an investigation to ensure that we are going after the correct people.

The Bush White House certainly didn't lie to us about who was responsible for the attack.

You are delving too deep into my comparison. I spoke SPECIFICALLY about the people who claimed responsibility for 9/11/01 and the process, nothing else about the administration. However, they did not know who was directly responsible until a later time.. Even though groups said they did it.

As they found out who was behind it...we found out who was behind it. Now contrast THAT with what the Obama White House did! They knew within a few hours that it was a terrorist attack and not a spontaneous reaction to the video because they were watching it unfold streaming live.

They did not lie, at times the facts have been construed. For the most part they said it was pending investigation, Susan Rice admitted that the video was a parallel incident in relation to Libya. And as you can see from previous posts, the president has been misquoted and his words have been pulled out of context.

There WAS NO PROTEST taking place before the attack began.

So then why did the Obama White House declare that it wasn't terrorists and that it WAS all about the YouTube video?

If you follow the timeline there were FIRST claims that it was a response to video (first day), shortly afterwards Susan Rice said that the video could have been a cover or a parallel incident.

The quotes regarding Obama referenced are generally pulled out of context regarding this.

Why did they hush up the information that it was a terrorist attack? Why did they lie to us?

They didn't hide it, it has been labeled a terrorist attack.

However, this is a determination that took time to develop.. The email proves nothing other than the fact that someone went on Facebook and said they did it.

 

[Bigfoot]

There is talk that The Muslim Brotherhood has been running US weapons to Syria thru Turkey. The Turkish Ambassador was at the CIA safe-house having dinner with Chris Stevens. The attack started after the Turkish Ambassador left the premises. It is also of note that the group who attacked the CIA's safe-house may have been one of the groups that the US armed during Gaddafi's fall.

This president is on the wrong side. It is so crystal clear…let’s just take it one step at a time. The President of the United States of America, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State have all lied to you. They lied to you and said, ‘this might be a video, we don’t have all the information, the information is still sketchy, it’s confusing,’…We now have the documents that came into the Situation Room saying, ‘There’s an attack, they’re watching.’ Then, we have the documents that we had a live video feed in the Situation Room, so they could see that there was no protest. ​Then there are the documents– and there’s now 13, with this new one– there’s now 13 different documents saying it’s a terrorist attack, and here’s the group that’s doing it. And they lied to you.”

13 Documents and a Live video feed say it's a terrorist attack

 

[NYcarbineer]

So some emails show up and confirm that the President was telling the truth, and the madness of the Right translates it as some sort of proof of the opposite?

lol

 

[NYcarbineer]

Oh, btw, about every time a helicopter has gone down in Afghanistan, the Taliban claim credit for shooting it down.

Do we automatically take their word for it?

 

[BlindBoo]

The question is, is the left gonna call all those on the video a liar? Or will they bother to watch and listen to the lies

The facts are that the WH refused to take the reports seriously leading up to the anniversary of 9/11. making this president a weak, ineffectual and therefore dangerous leader. Whether he ignored threats due to his indifference or his arrogance and pursuit of power or some combination of both is unimportant... He is a terrible President...absolutely terrible!

If Obama's presidency is not done after this, then it is an indictment of the American people! The most disgusting and disturbing reality imo is the OMG (Obama media Groupies) who have completely betrayed their calling in their attempts to not only NOT investigate, but to actually offer the president cover!

IF he gets re-elected, there will be an impeachment over this....just have that gut feeling!! We are not going to let him get away with it. He's gotten away with so many other lies, but this time he's out-done himself and we are not going to forget!
And if he's impeached, he should be GONE in disgrace....not like Clinton did and hung around anyway. At least Nixon was man enough to step down, and he didn't kill or rape anyone!

Nixon was going to be impeached, convicted and removed from office. Killing no one? Yeah, as long as Asians don't count.

 

[Bigfoot]

So some emails show up and confirm that the President was telling the truth, and the madness of the Right translates it as some sort of proof of the opposite?

lol

I have no idea what you are thinking, you're logic doesn't make sense. They had REAL TIME video in The Situation room at the White House watching the terrorists attack. But of course you already know that.

 

[Oldstyle]

So some emails show up and confirm that the President was telling the truth, and the madness of the Right translates it as some sort of proof of the opposite?

lol

How pray tell do the e-mails show that Barack Obama was telling the truth? This is the same man who went on the John Stewart Show and solemnly declared that he had given the American people ALL of the information about what happened in Libya as soon as he had it....when in fact he had deliberately withheld information that labeled this a terrorist attack even though he knew within hours that was what it was. Madness of the right? This isn't a Republican vs. Democrat "thing"...this is the President of the United States lying to us.

 

[BlindBoo]

{“This is a fairly volatile situation and it is in response not to United States policy, not to obviously the administration, not to the American people,” White House spokesman Jay Carney said Friday. “It is in response to a video, a film that we have judged to be reprehensible and disgusting. That in no way justifies any violent reaction to it, but this is not a case of protests directed at the United States writ large or at U.S. policy. This is in response to a video that is offensive to Muslims.”} - direct lie

So, HOW EXACTLY DID YOU "debunk" this, drone?

Are you claiming that Carney never said it? Or that Carney doesn't work for the Obama administration?

Or are you just lying through your fucking teeth because you're a hack with no integrity who holds party above country?

I'm thinking it's the latter.

Lol, you ready? It is hilarious when you get mad.

Carney made it clear that the protests across the Muslim world targeting U.S. embassies and consulates were due to the video.

Which they were, he was NOT talking directly in relation to the Libya attacks, it was a general statement regarding all of the riots.

Next time READ the whole transcripts.




The fact that the emails said there was a group claiming they did it is NOT direct proof they did, in fact, do it. Like I have said a million times now, during 9/11/01 about 15 terrorist groups around the world took responsibility for the attacks.. An investigation needed to happen, to be sure it was terrorism.

The best way to look at this is like a court case, even if a man confesses to the killing there still has to be sufficient evidence to punish him for the crime. Same applies here, before executing blame and labeling it something they took the time to investigate.. And rightfully so told us they were doing that: “Look, this is obviously under investigation,”.



He was not just speaking specifically about Libya. Remember? There were other riots, where they were attacking our embassies.

Besides you ONCE AGAIN, cherry picked your quotes:

"There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There is no video that justifies an attack on an embassy. There is no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan. "

As you can see, he was speaking in generalities, the ideas are not spoken to be the same.. The period (.), symbolizes the END of statement..

Wrong by default.



Carney said this on 9/14/12

As already stated, the claim to the attacks does NOT mean that they have been found to be the ones who committed it. It was just a claim, NO PROOF.

You are thick. You think the government is going to tell us anything about an active investigation even though they are unsure..

You would probably complain about that too. You partisan hack.

{“The unrest around the region has been in response to the video.”} - Direct lie


So, HOW EXACTLY DID YOU "debunk" this, drone?

Are you claiming that Carney never said it? Or that Carney doesn't work for the Obama administration?

Or are you just lying through your fucking teeth because you're a hack with no integrity who holds party above country?

I'm thinking it's the latter.

Forgot the rest of the quote?

"We do not, at this moment, have information to suggest or to tell you that would indicate that any of this unrest was preplanned.”

Which was the truth, we had someone who CLAIMED they did it, but no hardcore evidence. In addition, notice the use of "any of this unrest was preplanned", he used the word "this", as in the macro sense ... That is because his response was to a question regarding ALL of the unrest in the middle east as a whole

DEBUNKED.

That's a complete lie from the Administration as the recently released e-mails prove. They had information within two hours of the start of the attack that it was carried out by terrorists and wasn't because of any video but chose to ignore that information because it didn't fit with their narrative that Obama had decimated Al Queda.

Wasn't the information that there was a group was claiming responsibility for the attack on facebook? Al Queda is like a bunch of roaches scattered into the darkness. Of course they are going to try and hit us when they can. But then again maybe al Queda has operatives all over the ME and formented the unrest over a shoddy video to obfusticate the issue and get the 'merkins to fight amonst themselves? Perhaps they think that Romney is a dumbfuck whom they want as president?