Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There are there disturbing scenarios for why Obama and his administration went about a month, with the false narrative that the Benghazi attack was started with a protest about a movie that went badly. We know for a fact that there never was a protest in Benghazi, much less one about a movie.
1. Obama never met with the heads of the various intelligence agencies, and never asked them “What happened in Benghazi,” and he just made up his own version of events, and went with it for a month. But that would mean that dozens and dozens of intel community personnel, who knew the truth but sat on their hands and allowed our president to go on TV for a month, and look like a fool.
or
2. Obama did meet with the heads of the various intelligence agencies, and asked them “What happened in Benghazi,” and they either lied to him, or withheld information, and purposely allowed him to be misled and allowed him to go on TV for a month, and look like a fool. But this too means that dozens and dozens of intel community personnel, who knew the truth but sat on their hands.
or
3. The most disturbing scenario is that the president did ask the heads of the various intelligence agencies what happened, they told him the truth, and he decided to mislead the world, with his false narrative of a Benghazi attack that started with a protest about a movie that it went badly.
I find it implausible that dozens of people in the intel community colluded to keep the president misinformed for weeks, because if that is true, we have a lot of bad intel folks that need to be fired or jailed.
I vote for #3. Because even if he did not set up a meeting, the intel community would be hounding him down to inform him of the truth, since that is there job.
We even have people on CD-Datata who agree with me, but they are okay with it because the president was only lying in an attempt to quell Muslim anger around the world.
So the president could lie that the terrorist attack motivated by the TV series Jersey Shore, because we have no evidence to the contrary? There was no protest, and yet the president's admin stated falsely for weeks that there was.
Let me get this straight, you ask such a stupid question after I post eyewitness reports quoting the attackers and other eyewitnesses the reasons for their attack... it really doesn't get any dumber than this on C-D and that's saying a lot.
I vote for a variation of #1. He relied on what his inner circle of advisers told him would be the best option politically, that being delaying anything that would require an action before the election. His advisers used the video protests as an excuse for inaction, hoping it would either be accepted or at least confuse the situation. The reason for this is so he could continue on with his campaign and fund raising. As to whether he knew it was a terrorist attack, I'd bet officially no, so he would have plausible denial-ability.
Let me get this straight, you ask such a stupid question after I post eyewitness reports quoting the attackers and other eyewitnesses the reasons for their attack... it really doesn't get any dumber than this on C-D and that's saying a lot.
There was no protest, much less a spontaneous protest about a movie, 0bama and crew lied for weeks.
Now, if you want to suggest the 0bama admin contacted the NYT a few days after the attack, and ran with these unsubstantiated, unverified, anecdotal interviews for his official stance, then apart from being irresponsible, his statements would would have been that it was a terrorist attack, and the terrorists were motivated by the movie. But instead, they made up this fairytale about a protest over the movie that became violent.
Get real, 0bama has the best intel agencies in the world, and he gives them the back of his hand and runs with a new article from the NYT?
I vote for a variation of #1. He relied on what his inner circle of advisers told him would be the best option politically, that being delaying anything that would require an action before the election. His advisers used the video protests as an excuse for inaction, hoping it would either be accepted or at least confuse the situation. The reason for this is so he could continue on with his campaign and fund raising. As to whether he knew it was a terrorist attack, I'd bet officially no, so he would have plausible denial-ability.
That is a possibility, since David Axelrod ducked the question, when Chris Wallace asked him directly, if 0bama met with the heads of intel on Sept 11 or 12. Maybe he didn't ask the question. But why would the intel community leave him hanging out there like the Emperor With No Clothes for almost a month?
I vote for a variation of #1. He relied on what his inner circle of advisers told him would be the best option politically, that being delaying anything that would require an action before the election. His advisers used the video protests as an excuse for inaction, hoping it would either be accepted or at least confuse the situation. The reason for this is so he could continue on with his campaign and fund raising. As to whether he knew it was a terrorist attack, I'd bet officially no, so he would have plausible denial-ability.
Obama can'tt have it both ways. Either he's a lier & there is a cover up, or, he's incompetent.
How many years was the then Bush administration misled about the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?
But I digress...
So where is the evidence that the Benghazi attacks WERE NOt motivated by the film and Terry Jones declaration of 9.11.2012 International Judge Muhammad day? And while we are at it, where is the evidence discrediting the interviews conducted in Benghazi, at the consulate, by the participants that the film was the motivation for their storming of the consulate?
Q&A from the New York Times
Q: What do eyewitnesses say about the events in Benghazi? Were they related to the insulting video, or is that a red herring? And was the assault planned for the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, or was it spontaneous?
A: According to reporting by David D. Kirkpatrick and Suliman Ali Zway of The New York Times, eyewitnesses have said there was no peaceful demonstration against the video outside the compound before the attack, though a crowd of Benghazi residents soon gathered, and some later looted the compound. But the attackers, recognized as members of a local militant group called Ansar al-Shariah, did tell bystanders that they were attacking the compound because they were angry about the video. They did not mention the Sept. 11 anniversary. Intelligence officials believe that planning for the attack probably began only a few hours before it took place.
Obama played the game for weeks even after finding out quickly what the story was.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
