sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Watch this video by Brett Beier because he summarizes the timeline really well:

Yeah, I'd just like to point out that's advice no-one should ever take. Brett Beier lies for a living, and no-one should pretend otherwise.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Pro-tip:

If you are running an "Herp Derp Obama" thread and Frazzled isn't going all frenzied Dachshund in it, then there is probably not much substance to it.

Bummer...

Hey Frazzled... little HELP buddy?

 Seaward wrote:

Is it possible there was a protest and no one noticed? Yes. It is also possible there is a protest going on outside my house right now and I just haven't noticed it yet. Anything is possible. "Likely" is a whole other story.

 whembly wrote:

Back on topic...

 whembly wrote:
Is it because he's on Fox?

So... get any info on that?

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Pro-tip:

If you are running an "Herp Derp Obama" thread and Frazzled isn't going all frenzied Dachshund in it, then there is probably not much substance to it.

Bummer...

Hey Frazzled... little HELP buddy?

Within hours of last month's attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya, President Barack Obama's administration received about a dozen intelligence reports suggesting militants connected to al Qaeda were involved, three government sources said.

The Obama administration has strongly defended its public accounts of what happened in Benghazi, and said its understanding has evolved as additional information came in.

"At every step of the way, the administration has based its public statements on the best assessments that were provided by the intelligence community. As the intelligence community learned more information, they updated Congress and the American people on it," said White House spokesman Jay Carney.

Some officials said U.S. spy agencies tried to avoid drawing premature conclusions about how the violence began and who organized it.

"Unless you have very good reports that strongly suggest who was behind the attack for sure, it is prudent to be careful, because placing emphasis publicly, even tentatively, on any one group or groups too soon can lead everyone down the wrong path," said one official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
Republicans have sought to make the shifting stories told by administration officials about the attack, and inadequate security precautions at the U.S. diplomatic site in Libya, a major issue in the presidential campaign leading up to the November 6 election.

Two House Republicans said they would hold Congress' first hearing on the matter on October 10.

Intelligence officials pointed to the statement issued Sept. 28 by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) that raised additional concern about the administration’s apparent mishandling of intelligence. The ODNI statement said that “in the immediate aftermath, there was information that led us to assess that the attack began spontaneously following protests earlier that day at our embassy in Cairo.”

Officials say the ODNI’s false information was either knowingly disseminated or was directed to be put out by senior policy officials for political reasons, since the statement was contradicted by numerous intelligence reports at the time of the attack indicating it was al Qaeda-related terrorism.

Officials with access to intelligence reports, based on both technical spying and human agents, said specific reporting revealed an alarming surge in clandestine al Qaeda activity months before the attack in Benghazi.

Yet the Obama administration sought to keep the information from becoming public to avoid exposing what the officials say is a Middle East policy failure by Obama.

 Jihadin wrote:
Google up the pictures and look at the building and vehicle. Something is not right.

Spoiler:

No bullet holes in walls and the vehicle did not get hit by a RPG.

 Jihadin wrote:
You have one blood hand print from anybody. There's no sign of an attack. The report said RPG's and mortars. Yet the rooms does not look to have RPG hit or the mortar round punch through. There's no bullet holes in the walls or brass on the ground. There's no sign of a mass attack from protesters.

in a conference call with reporters Tuesday, two senior State Department officials gave a detailed accounting of the events that lead to the death of Amb. Chris Stevens and three other Americans. The officials said that prior to the massive attack on the Benghazi compound by dozens of militants carrying heavy weaponry, there was no unrest outside the walls of the compound and no protest that anyone inside the compound was aware of.
In fact, Stevens hosted a series of meetings on the compound throughout the day, ending with a meeting with a Turkish diplomat that began at 7:30 in the evening, and all was quiet in the area.

"The ambassador walked guests out at 8:30 or so; there was nobody on the street. Then at 9:40 they saw on the security cameras that there were armed men invading the compound," a senior State Department official said. "Everything is calm at 8:30 pm, there is nothing unusual. There had been nothing unusual during the day outside."

 Frazzled wrote:
Interestingly, government now saying it never said that the attacks were tied to protests, despite syaing they were tied to protests.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/10/state-department-denies-concluding-film-sparked-consulate-attack-in-libya/

djones520 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Interestingly, government now saying it never said that the attacks were tied to protests, despite syaing they were tied to protests.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/10/state-department-denies-concluding-film-sparked-consulate-attack-in-libya/

I did some investimagation, and this stumps me. The only angle I can see them arguing is that they're saying Susan Rice is not part of the State Department, since Obama upgraded her position to a cabinet level position.

I wanted to read the actual report, but I can't seem to find it on the State Department website. The news agencies seem to be cherry picking, so can't get the full thing.

 Seaward wrote:
The ease with which this is going to pass out of public consciousness is going to annoy me.

 Frazzled wrote:

WEll all they have to do is repeat the statement ten times and it will be come the truth. You won't see the MsM scratching their heads on that much.

djones520 wrote:

I did some investimagation, and this stumps me. The only angle I can see them arguing is that they're saying Susan Rice is not part of the State Department, since Obama upgraded her position to a cabinet level position.

 Frazzled wrote:
I'm saying one channel on cable doesn't mean jack.

...it’s hard to argue that the cover-up is worse than the “crime” of incompetence that led up to it. After all, four people died in that attack, and perhaps even a higher level of security might not have prevented it. It has become clear, though, that the State Department didn’t recognize that Benghazi and its environs had become a nest of the very terrorists we now fight in places like Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen, and other hot spots, and that this was no ordinary case for consular security. Instead of listening to people on the ground and acting to provide some kind of extraordinary security, the Benghazi mission was left to just “hope that everything would get better.”

 Easy E wrote:
Benghazi.... Fast and Furious II?

As in, the right will cling to it like angry weiner dogs, while everyone else just kind of shuffles on in a zombie like stare?

 Frazzled wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
Benghazi.... Fast and Furious II?

As in, the right will cling to it like angry weiner dogs, while everyone else just kind of shuffles on in a zombie like stare?

Since you mentioned wiener dogs. She Who Must Be Obeyed called to tell me she has renamed TBone "snackwhore" for his unceasing efforts in his bucket list to gain 12 lb before the C finally gets him.