<iframe src='http://www.video.theblaze.com/shared/video/embed/embed.html?content_id=25445289&width=400&height=224&property=theblaze' width='400' height='224' frameborder='0'>Your browser does not support iframes.</iframe>
White House knew about Libya attacks
- Thread starter Skulnik
- Start date
Well answer......so what? So if they said it was a terrorist attack as soon as they knew what would be better?
Speaking of the Mid East doesn't Rumsfeld look good? Didn't he have something to do with that little WMD thing?
Speaking of the Mid East doesn't Rumsfeld look good? Didn't he have something to do with that little WMD thing?
Last edited:
So you think a cover up is ok when the President is a DEMOCRAT, got it.
:0074
:facepalm:
CBS Busts Obama--and Itself--in Benghazi Cover-Up
by Joel B. Pollak24 Oct 2012582post a comment
CBS News has released a clip of an interview by Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes on Sep. 12 with President Barack Obama that indicates Obama knew the assault on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya was a premeditated terror attack--and suggests the White House later deceived the public by blaming protests against an anti-Islam video. CBS chose not to air the clip for over a month--but did air Obama?s attack on Romney that same night.
Obama told Kroft that the attack in Benghazi was different from the violent protest at the U.S. embassy in Cairo: "You're right that this is not a situation that was exactly the same as what happened in Egypt, and my suspicion is, is that there are folks involved in this who were looking to target Americans from the start."
Obama's remarks pointed towards a premeditated attack, in contrast to the story the White House went on to tell for weeks.
CBS chose not to air that portion of the interview with President Obama--not even in the days and weeks that followed, when it was highly relevant--first to the question of the nature of the Benghazi attack, then to the question of whether the president had in fact called it an act of terror from the start.
According to Fox News, the clip first appeared online on Oct. 19. It was embedded Oct. 24 in an article by CBS News? Sharyl Attkisson.
What CBS chose to air, instead, was President Obama?s attack on his Republican rival, Mitt Romney, who had criticized the administration?s apologetic response to the Cairo demonstration.
Obama said Romney ?seems to have a tendency to shoot first and aim later.? That portion of the interview aired immediately, and drove the news for days. Obama?s comment suggesting that the attack had been premeditated was not aired.
Attkisson reported this week that emails linking an Al Qaeda affiliate to the Benghazi attack had been sent to the White House Situation Room just over two hours after the attack had begun. The emails suggest that the Obama administration knew from the outset that the Benghazi attack had been a terrorist attack--and that it knowingly misled the public when it repeatedly claimed there was no evidence of terrorist involvement.
When the video story unraveled, the White House tried to argue that President Obama had called the Benghazi attack an act of terror all along. In the second presidential debate, the President famously pointed to his Sep. 12 statement in the Rose Garden as proof, though his reference to ?acts of terror? on that occasion had been general and not specific to the Benghazi attack, which he implied had been provoked by the video.
The new CBS footage suggests that Obama did, in fact, describe the Benghazi attacks as premeditated terrorism--not in the Rose Garden but in the White House itself, in a portion of an interview that did not air until more than a month later.
During that time, both CBS and Obama could have referred to the interview, but did not--likely because doing so would have vindicated Obama at the cost of exposing his subsequent deceit.
The fact that CBS refrained from publishing the critical clip from the interview widens the political scandal surrounding Benghazi into a media scandal.
National Public Radio?s Mara Liasson criticized CBS on Fox News Special Report yesterday, saying that CBS ought to have made the entire interview with Obama available immediately, in the public interest.
Together with the president, CBS has much to explain.
StevieDUH, you really need to EXPLAIN why you think it's ok to LIE to the American People.
by Joel B. Pollak24 Oct 2012582post a comment
CBS News has released a clip of an interview by Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes on Sep. 12 with President Barack Obama that indicates Obama knew the assault on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya was a premeditated terror attack--and suggests the White House later deceived the public by blaming protests against an anti-Islam video. CBS chose not to air the clip for over a month--but did air Obama?s attack on Romney that same night.
Obama told Kroft that the attack in Benghazi was different from the violent protest at the U.S. embassy in Cairo: "You're right that this is not a situation that was exactly the same as what happened in Egypt, and my suspicion is, is that there are folks involved in this who were looking to target Americans from the start."
Obama's remarks pointed towards a premeditated attack, in contrast to the story the White House went on to tell for weeks.
CBS chose not to air that portion of the interview with President Obama--not even in the days and weeks that followed, when it was highly relevant--first to the question of the nature of the Benghazi attack, then to the question of whether the president had in fact called it an act of terror from the start.
According to Fox News, the clip first appeared online on Oct. 19. It was embedded Oct. 24 in an article by CBS News? Sharyl Attkisson.
What CBS chose to air, instead, was President Obama?s attack on his Republican rival, Mitt Romney, who had criticized the administration?s apologetic response to the Cairo demonstration.
Obama said Romney ?seems to have a tendency to shoot first and aim later.? That portion of the interview aired immediately, and drove the news for days. Obama?s comment suggesting that the attack had been premeditated was not aired.
Attkisson reported this week that emails linking an Al Qaeda affiliate to the Benghazi attack had been sent to the White House Situation Room just over two hours after the attack had begun. The emails suggest that the Obama administration knew from the outset that the Benghazi attack had been a terrorist attack--and that it knowingly misled the public when it repeatedly claimed there was no evidence of terrorist involvement.
When the video story unraveled, the White House tried to argue that President Obama had called the Benghazi attack an act of terror all along. In the second presidential debate, the President famously pointed to his Sep. 12 statement in the Rose Garden as proof, though his reference to ?acts of terror? on that occasion had been general and not specific to the Benghazi attack, which he implied had been provoked by the video.
The new CBS footage suggests that Obama did, in fact, describe the Benghazi attacks as premeditated terrorism--not in the Rose Garden but in the White House itself, in a portion of an interview that did not air until more than a month later.
During that time, both CBS and Obama could have referred to the interview, but did not--likely because doing so would have vindicated Obama at the cost of exposing his subsequent deceit.
The fact that CBS refrained from publishing the critical clip from the interview widens the political scandal surrounding Benghazi into a media scandal.
National Public Radio?s Mara Liasson criticized CBS on Fox News Special Report yesterday, saying that CBS ought to have made the entire interview with Obama available immediately, in the public interest.
Together with the president, CBS has much to explain.
StevieDUH, you really need to EXPLAIN why you think it's ok to LIE to the American People.
I dunno ask Rumsfeld who appears tto be as upset about this as you.
First off, it may be ok to lie for purposes of National Defense. I dunno. I don't know what they had to gain by lying. You apparently do so why don't you simply explain it.
When do you think they were sure that this attack
was Al-Qeada? And do you think they should of said it was just because someone took credit for it? What if two groups take credit for it? Anyway, please just tell us why this gets you so upset. What the plus side to saying it was terror right away? And on a personal note you seem to be a very sensitive guy feeling so bad for people pumping gas and now this.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/U5xWNVJRMt4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
I guess you do not have an answer? Not sure what the Seal said because I can find twice as many to say the opposit. But really I am worried about you. Maybe you should see a doctor. You cannot explain why these things upset you so much and in the past they did not upset you. Only in the four ytears or so? Pity really.
What question do you want me to answer you idiot. I already told you that for reasons of Nation Defense a President could lie to the American Public. Now, how about you answering a question you republican POS What harm did the "Lie" as you call it do?
If you dont have an answer just say it bothers your stomach much like the gas prices.
What question asshole?:142smilie :142smilie
You really do not have an answer do you? You really are an empty headed republican. If I was a republican i would be upset watching you.:0002
No answer from you as usual. :sadwave:
You really do not have an answer do you? You really are an empty headed republican. If I was a republican i would be upset watching you.:0002
No answer from you as usual. :sadwave:
