Libyan president: 'film' had nothing to do with "terrorist attack"

• QuakerOats

  As most rational people knew, the attack and assassination of our ambassador had nothing to do with 'the film'.
  
  http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/26/14105135-libyan-president-to-nbc-anti-islam-film-had-nothing-to-do-with-us-consulate-attack?lite
  
  Can somebody please tell that to the president and the obama-run media so perhaps they will QUIT LYING ABOUT IT, and covering up what really happened!
• FatHobbit

  

  QuakerOats;1280667 wrote:Can somebody please tell that to the president and the obama-run media so perhaps they will QUIT LYING ABOUT IT, and covering up what really happened!

  I'm curious, what does the President stand to gain from lying? What could he be covering up? That Al Qaeda is still functioning?
• QuakerOats

  He obviously does not want to appear as a failure in foreign policy, after all, he is a Nobel Peace Prize winner (LOL). Such would mean he is a major failure, both domestically and in foreign affairs. In addition, calling out the Islamic terrorists for what they are, and The War on Terror for what it is, runs counter to his apology tour.
  
  Lying about it is one thing, but having the media perpetuate the lie and run interference for it is just as bad; they have ZERO integrity.
• FatHobbit

  

  QuakerOats;1280774 wrote: In addition, calling out the Islamic terrorists for what they are, and The War on Terror for what it is, runs counter to his apology tour.

  Isn't blaming the stupid movie counter to his apology tour? If he can blame it on a few terrorists instead of "all those crazy muslims" that seems more in line with his message to me.
• BGFalcons82

  

  FatHobbit;1280727 wrote:I'm curious, what does the President stand to gain from lying? What could he be covering up? That Al Qaeda is still functioning?

  The attack occurred on September 11, 2012. That is the anniversary of the terrorist's one-day victory over the evil satan. It is unfathomable that our country would be unprepared for ANOTHER terrorist attack...right? Especially on THAT DATE...right? Barry only attends 2/3rd of security briefings, there is quite a bit of evidence that this attack was coming prior to 9-11-12, and even the slain ambassador had knowledge that something was going to happen on the anniversary of the terrorist's biggest day ever. This country should certainly be prepared for something on THAT day...right?
  
  What would you do if you were caught napping with your pants down? Admit you were negligent in protecting Americans in the Middle East? Admit you flubbed reading the intel? Admit you were playing golf instead of protecting American asses on the anniversary of the largest attack ever on the USA? He HAS to run with the movie/Florida pastor scenario to make himself look good, like the quintessential narcissist he is. Plain as day and yet....the media is spoon feeding the pablum to the masses as if no one has a brain or a memory.
• FatHobbit

  

  BGFalcons82;1280805 wrote:The attack occurred on September 11, 2012. That is the anniversary of the terrorist's one-day victory over the evil satan. It is unfathomable that our country would be unprepared for ANOTHER terrorist attack...right? Especially on THAT DATE...right? Barry only attends 2/3rd of security briefings, there is quite a bit of evidence that this attack was coming prior to 9-11-12, and even the slain ambassador had knowledge that something was going to happen on the anniversary of the terrorist's biggest day ever. This country should certainly be prepared for something on THAT day...right?
  
  What would you do if you were caught napping with your pants down? Admit you were negligent in protecting Americans in the Middle East? Admit you flubbed reading the intel? Admit you were playing golf instead of protecting American asses on the anniversary of the largest attack ever on the USA? He HAS to run with the movie/Florida pastor scenario to make himself look good, like the quintessential narcissist he is. Plain as day and yet....the media is spoon feeding the pablum to the masses as if no one has a brain or a memory.

  That seems reasonable. I could not understand what motive Obama would have to throw all Muslims under the bus, when typically he has been fairly quick to defend them. (and in most cases I have agreed with him in not blaming all of them for the actions of some.)
• queencitybuckeye

  I wonder if the OP would be so quick to believe the head of a foreign nation over the POTUS if the latter's political affiliation was different.
• jmog

  FatHobbit;1280792 wrote:Isn't blaming the stupid movie counter to his apology tour? If he can blame it on a few terrorists instead of "all those crazy muslims" that seems more in line with his message to me.

  Not really, if he can blame it on the movie, his apology tour fits in perfectly because the attacks then have some percentage of blame laid in the US.
• QuakerOats

  
  
  
  
  
• jhay78

  

  queencitybuckeye;1280856 wrote:I wonder if the OP would be so quick to believe the head of a foreign nation over the POTUS if the latter's political affiliation was different.

  In this case, said leader of foreign nation merely confirms what I and anyone else with a few brain cells to rub together already knew: "the movie" argument is a tremendous fail.
  
  Even Jay Carney abandoned that argument and called it a terrorist attack.
• Footwedge

  BGFalcons82;1280805 wrote:The attack occurred on September 11, 2012. That is the anniversary of the terrorist's one-day victory over the evil satan. It is unfathomable that our country would be unprepared for ANOTHER terrorist attack...right? Especially on THAT DATE...right? Barry only attends 2/3rd of security briefings, there is quite a bit of evidence that this attack was coming prior to 9-11-12, and even the slain ambassador had knowledge that something was going to happen on the anniversary of the terrorist's biggest day ever. This country should certainly be prepared for something on THAT day...right?
  
  What would you do if you were caught napping with your pants down? Admit you were negligent in protecting Americans in the Middle East? Admit you flubbed reading the intel? Admit you were playing golf instead of protecting American asses on the anniversary of the largest attack ever on the USA? He HAS to run with the movie/Florida pastor scenario to make himself look good, like the quintessential narcissist he is. Plain as day and yet....the media is spoon feeding the pablum to the masses as if no one has a brain or a memory.

  Just curious here. How do you feel about Richard Clark's book detailing George Bush's avoidance/indifference/ignorance in acknowledging an imminent attack on our homeland by Al Quada in 2001?
  
  In case you didn't know, Clark's job was to prevent terrorism in our country. He continuously warned our administration that an attack was certainly forthcoming, and that Bush wanted no discussions on the subject. He and his buds were already drawing up invasion plans in iraq.
  
  Obama's watch....4 dead
  Bush 43's watch 3000 dead.
  
  Comment.
• Footwedge

  jhay78;1281009 wrote:In this case, said leader of foreign nation merely confirms what I and anyone else with a few brain cells to rub together already knew: "the movie" argument is a tremendous fail.
  
  Even Jay Carney abandoned that argument and called it a terrorist attack.

  It's called blowback. Get the fuck out their countries and you stop the terrorism. It didn't take Reagan long to figure this out in 1983.
• isadore

  QuakerOats;1280884 wrote:
  
  
  
  

  gosh a ruddies, lets follow reagan's example giving stinger missles to Iranian moderates and setting up 241 US marines, sailors and soldiers for slaughter at the marine corps barracks in beirut. Sentries were ordered to keep their weapons at condition four (no magazine inserted and no rounds in the chamber). No protection against a suicide bomber.
• BGFalcons82

  

  Footwedge;1281094 wrote:Just curious here. How do you feel about Richard Clark's book detailing George Bush's avoidance/indifference/ignorance in acknowledging an imminent attack on our homeland by Al Quada in 2001?
  
  In case you didn't know, Clark's job was to prevent terrorism in our country. He continuously warned our administration that an attack was certainly forthcoming, and that Bush wanted no discussions on the subject.
  
  
  
  
  He and his buds were already drawing up invasion plans in iraq.
  
  Obama's watch....4 dead
  Bush 43's watch 3000 dead.
  
  Comment.

  Trotting out the equivalence shtick, eh? Good try, but it doesn't mean squat as Bush is not on the ballot in November. Obama failed to protect Americans in the Middle East on the anny of our enemies greatest conquest. His administration failed to heed warnings, he failed to attend meetings, they all failed to listen and we have 4 dead Americans at Barry's feet. His fault...NOT a movie released in July, NOT a miniscule preacher in Florida and NOT Bush's fault. Not mine nor yours....HIS fault. But, we are left with him blaming celluloid abd anyone not named Obama. Sickening, and yet, the media continues to shovel his excuses and lies to the people. He needs to pay for his own negligence.
• Devils Advocate

  

  QuakerOats;1280884 wrote:
  
  
  
  

  
  
  You forgot the part that over 200 Marines were killed in Lebanon . The Reagan regime response: Cut and run . (And sell arms to Iran.)
• jhay78

  

  Footwedge;1281094 wrote:Just curious here. How do you feel about Richard Clark's book detailing George Bush's avoidance/indifference/ignorance in acknowledging an imminent attack on our homeland by Al Quada in 2001?
  
  In case you didn't know, Clark's job was to prevent terrorism in our country. He continuously warned our administration that an attack was certainly forthcoming, and that Bush wanted no discussions on the subject. He and his buds were already drawing up invasion plans in iraq.

  I'll tell you how I feel about Clark's book- a little too much "look at me and how much I tried to warn everyone" before 9/11. A little too much partisan hackery- (read the intro)- Reagan bad, Bush 41 bad, Clinton good, Bush 43 bad.
  
  He also blames CIA and FBI for not communicating well/often enough leading up to 9/11, but I'm sure that part doesn't matter to you.
  

  Footwedge;1281095 wrote:It's called blowback. Get the **** out their countries and you stop the terrorism. It didn't take Reagan long to figure this out in 1983.

  1. Al Qaeda was formed in 1991. What country/countries were we occupying before then that caused that terrorism?
  
  2. We have an embassy and consulate in Libya, not a Marine base. No American was there "occupying" anything.
  
  3. I'm confused- what caused 9/11 again? Our presence in "their countries" or Bush's negligence before 9/11?
• isadore

  QuakerOats;1280884 wrote:
  
  
  
  

  and in 1988 Libyan agents blew up PAN AM 103 bound for JfK airport killing killing all 243 passengers and 16 crew members.[SUP][2][/SUP] Large sections of the plane crashed into Lockerbie, in southern Scotland, killing a further 11 people on the ground. (178 passengers and 11 crew were Americans)
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103
• Belly35

  

  Hillary throwing Obama under the bus or just protecting her ass for later ... Jay where are you any comments?
  
  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/27/clinton-suggests-libyan-consulate-attack-was-work-al-qaeda-affiliate/#ixzz27dW4JewP
• Belly35

  

  Obama and his staff knew 24 hour after the attach that it was terrorism and continued to lie to the American public ... thank you Carney Carnival for being truthful and reporting the facts ...
  
  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/27/us-officials-knew-libya-attack-was-terrorism-within-24-hours-sources-confirm/
  
  Hey PT1 is this what you signed up for to be a liar, fraud the American people and have a few bumps murdered.... NOT MY PRESIDENT
• QuakerOats

  WSJ: The more we learn, the more Benghazi looks like a gross security failure...
  
  
• Footwedge

  jhay78;1281162 wrote:I'll tell you how I feel about Clark's book- a little too much "look at me and how much I tried to warn everyone" before 9/11. A little too much partisan hackery- (read the intro)- Reagan bad, Bush 41 bad, Clinton good, Bush 43 bad/

  Clark did not have kind words to say about Clinton. Obviously you never read his book either. Clark was apolitical, look it up. Clark's version has been colloborated by too many to count....from both sides of the aisle. The only partisan hackery going on around here is what you have spewed on this thread. Just a reminder...Obama oversaw 4 Americans killed by terrorists in ME lands. Bush oversaw 3000 Americans killed here in our homeland. Shame on you and anyone else that has such a polar and myopic view in comparing these two events.
  
  

  He also blames CIA and FBI for not communicating well/often enough leading up to 9/11, but I'm sure that part doesn't matter to you.

  Yes he did. But his focus was clearly on Bush's lack of concern, inspite of overwhelming evidence a catastrophic event was in the works. Did you enjoy the reading of "my pet goat" by the president that cool September day?
  
  
  

  1. Al Qaeda was formed in 1991. What country/countries were we occupying before then that caused that terrorism?

  Al Quada was formed in the late 80's as a direct descendent of the mujahadeen to whom our country funneled millions of dollars of weaponry to fight Russia in Afghanistan. Get it right. The earlier blowback has a lot to do with GB and the USA overthrowing the democratically elected Iranian president in 1953 and placing a US/Britain puppet in power, thus siphoning off billions of dollars of Iranian people's deserved revenue. Not to mention all of the military bases erected in that region. Blowback was initiated after that event...and has escalated. American exceptionalism that your party champions has consequences that you and your brand will never, ever understand. You people that find no culpability of US intervention in the ME affairs make me sick. Ignorance is no excuse.
  

  2. We have an embassy and consulate in Libya, not a Marine base. No American was there "occupying" anything.

  SMFH here. Reach much? Our occupation is all over the ME map. We starved to death 500,000 Iraqi women and children in the mid 90's and then we brutally murdered another million or so in a war based on a pile of neoconservative lies. And you...and people just like you actually believe that the US gas no cupability in the formation of terroristic organizations. Sad, sad, so sad. And fucking ignorant too.
  

  3. I'm confused- what caused 9/11 again? Our presence in "their countries" or Bush's negligence before 9/11?

  You are a lot more than "a little confused" on this subject. You Armegeddonites may get your wish quicker than you think. To answer your stupid question....the answer is both. And over 70% of Americans know that the answer is both.
  
  Now you, Oats, Hay and the rest of the neocons here can continue the circle jerk on how the film had nothing to do with these 4 American deaths.
• jhay78

  

  Footwedge;1281643 wrote:Clark did not have kind words to say about Clinton. Obviously you never read his book either. Clark was apolitical, look it up. Clark's version has been colloborated by too many to count....from both sides of the aisle. The only partisan hackery going on around here is what you have spewed on this thread. Just a reminder...Obama oversaw 4 Americans killed by terrorists in ME lands. Bush oversaw 3000 Americans killed here in our homeland. Shame on you and anyone else that has such a polar and myopic view in comparing these two events.

  The hyperbole and simple-mindedness in this statement is staggering. In all of Clarks' criticisms of Bush not once did he blame him for the 3000 deaths on 9/11. As for the rest of his work, he comes across as just a tad bitter and over-generalizes the blame on Republican administrations. But whatever.
  

  Al Quada was formed in the late 80's as a direct descendent of the mujahadeen to whom our country funneled millions of dollars of weaponry to fight Russia in Afghanistan. Get it right. The earlier blowback has a lot to do with GB and the USA overthrowing the democratically elected Iranian president in 1953 and placing a US/Britain puppet in power, thus siphoning off billions of dollars of Iranian people's deserved revenue. Not to mention all of the military bases erected in that region. Blowback was initiated after that event...and has escalated. American exceptionalism that your party champions has consequences that you and your brand will never, ever understand. You people that find no culpability of US intervention in the ME affairs make me sick. Ignorance is no excuse.

  That's an OK excuse for the 1979 revolution and the hostage crisis. But a sorry one for the existence of Al Qaeda. They have nothing at all to do with Iran.
  

  SMFH here. Reach much? Our occupation is all over the ME map. We starved to death 500,000 Iraqi women and children in the mid 90's and then we brutally murdered another million or so in a war based on a pile of neoconservative lies. And you...and people just like you actually believe that the US gas no cupability in the formation of terroristic organizations. Sad, sad, so sad. And ****ing ignorant too.

  Hyperbolize much? The peak of ignorance is believing that but for America there would be no terrorism or terrorist organizations. Carry on though . . .
• BoatShoes

  Even if it is true that the libyan attack on the consulate was a pre-planned terrorist attack...the suggestion being made here is that the protests all over the middle east...including the random burning of a Hardees...were not because of this video...when the evidence seems to suggest this was the case (as if poor muslims easily cajoled by terrorist radicals have shown restraint in the face of such instances in the past :rolleyes. But I'm on Ohiochatter where "evidence" has no standing in comparison to arbitrary intuition.
• jmog

  BoatShoes;1282048 wrote:Even if it is true that the libyan attack on the consulate was a pre-planned terrorist attack...the suggestion being made here is that the protests all over the middle east...including the random burning of a Hardees...were not because of this video...when the evidence seems to suggest this was the case (as if poor muslims easily cajoled by terrorist radicals have shown restraint in the face of such instances in the past :rolleyes. But I'm on Ohiochatter where "evidence" has no standing in comparison to arbitrary intuition.

  You can make that same statement for the White House in place of the OC since they knew almost immediately Libya was a terrorist attack but kept telling everyone it was about the video.
• jhay78

  

  BoatShoes;1282048 wrote:Even if it is true that the libyan attack on the consulate was a pre-planned terrorist attack...the suggestion being made here is that the protests all over the middle east...including the random burning of a Hardees...were not because of this video...when the evidence seems to suggest this was the case (as if poor muslims easily cajoled by terrorist radicals have shown restraint in the face of such instances in the past :rolleyes. But I'm on Ohiochatter where "evidence" has no standing in comparison to arbitrary intuition.

  LOL. Most of us are capable of differentiating between the Libyan attack specifically and the general unrest/rioting/protests in the Middle East. Nobody here has said the video had no impact on anything anywhere. That would be ludicrous.
  
  We're focused on Libya, the State Dept's cover ups and half-truths, Obama's refusal to say it was terrorism until over a week after the fact (has he even used the word terrorism in that time period?), and his insistence on an in-depth analysis of the video before the UN. All of which are disgraceful.