Petraeus Says U.S. Tried to Avoid Tipping Off Terrorists After Libya Attack

[Freakazoid]

Agreed. Fox News has gone to extremes, as I am sure it usually does. I am sure Fox News, and MSNBC both are there to primarily feed the fear and anger in the far left and right.

I do think this couild have been handled much differently had they not made up a response, which is why, IMO, they brought much of this on themselves.

The problem is that FOX is basically the propaganda wing of the GOP. Regardless of how baseless a story is, FOX always reports it. As a result, other media outlets start reporting it so that they don't seem biased. This trend never dies because the GOP runs campaigns based on sensationalism and scandals, which sells.

From a Canadian perspective, your media is pretty scary.

[stephkyle7]

who can forget this Fox story.....

http://www.google.com/url?q=http://w...uhemtrvFUeh3vw

[Labgrownmangoat]

This is retarded. So it all came down to two options, eh? 1. Call it a terrorist attack, naming the groups suspected in being involved, or 2. Make up **** about it being about the video. Can't be anything else. Can't be any variation thereof. It must fit into a box that suits our particular political agenda.

No. Once again this is ********. And I love being painted in with 9/11 truthers and birhters. This could ahve been easily solved by just saying the truth without giving up too much informaiton.

"There was an attack against the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya, and it appears from the tactics and weapons used this was more than a simple spontaneous mob- at this time it appears to have been a planned, well coordinated attack. We are investigating who may have been involved , and how exactly it was able to have been carried out. As the invesitagation into this matter yields informaiton that we can share, we will make that information available. It is important for all of us not to reach to conclusions before we have all the information. We will commit every available resource to fully investigate this attack, and our respnse to it as quickly as possible. This heinous attack against a US consulate will not be forgotten. We are committed to finding those responsible and bringing them to justice."

There. Was that so hard? Polish that crappy little paragraph up and it would have served the WH better than the "whole load" we got from them. Are you really going to sit there and defend what was so blatantly repeated false statements about this? Even if someone fed him misinformation, its still false. If so, it only proves my point in the other thread. Obama can not, under any circumstance, ever do anything that might ever possibly bear scrutiny or criticism in the eyes of some in this forum. He can literally do no wrong. It is the one thing in this forum I have found really interesting. Every right leaning person in here has criticized W and many other republicans. I don't remember the last time I ever heard one left leaning individual in this forum ever so much as slightly criticize, or even question Obama. If I am wrong, I apologize, but I honestly don't remember seeing it.

This hearing was all about scrutinizing the President and his actions. You just don't like the reality that it has revealed.

As for criticizing the President, I personally have started several threads and made literally hundreds of comments doing exactly that. Remember my thread on assassinating American citizens, to provide but one example?

[Patsfan56]

This hearing was all about scrutinizing the President and his actions. You just don't like the reality that it has revealed.

As for criticizing the President, I personally have started several threads and made literally hundreds of comments doing exactly that. Remember my thread on assassinating American citizens, to provide but one example?

The hearing should have been about what information was known and exactly when, and what each respective agency did (or didn't do) in response to that information. As far as me not liking the answers, Its not for me to like or not like, Its for us to know what the **** happened on 9/11/12. I already don't like the results. Four people died. That's what matters to me.

[Labgrownmangoat]

The hearing should have been about what information was known and exactly when, and what each respective agency did (or didn't do) in response to that information. As far as me not liking the answers, Its not for me to like or not like, Its for us to know what the **** happened on 9/11/12. I already don't like the results. Four people died. That's what matters to me.

Many Republicans, and apparently you, decided before the investigation began that this "scandal" was worse than Watergate. They did this without a credible allegation of a crime having been committed, or credible evidence of a cover up having taken place. I rarely agree with pro-life Mormons, but one of them got it right this time.

Did you freak out and fling around baseless accusations when these other 13 embassy attacks took place since 2000? When many more Americans died in them? When the GOP cut funds for embassy security after most of them occurred? If not, what makes this attack so very much different from all those others?

[Patsfan56]

Many Republicans, and apparently you, decided before the investigation began that this "scandal" was worse than Watergate. They did this without a credible allegation of a crime having been committed, or credible evidence of a cover up having taken place. I rarely agree with pro-life Mormons, but one of them got it right this time.

Did you freak out and fling around baseless accusations when these other 13 embassy attacks took place since 2000? When many more Americans died in them? When the GOP cut funds for embassy security after most of them occurred? If not, what makes this attack so very much different from all those others?

First, it is worse than Watergate- people died. That automatically makes it worse.

Second, in 2000, I was a little busy in the Army, but I's venture back even furhter, back to Beirut in 1983. I never said Republicans were above scrutiny, and my record on Rummy, Cheney, W, and others should back that up.

I categorically reject this intense effort to catagorically label Benghazi as "much ado about nothing". Thats a load of ****. Funny how no one's talking about the relief of an aircraft carrier group commander, and four star general as part of this either.

Skip over this all you like. If it were W in the WH, I know damned good and well that you and several others would be all over this like a cheap suit.
Its a fact that help was requested- its a fact that military units in the region mobilized. Its a fact that the help requested didn't come. Its a fact that the president, VP, and UN Secretary all lied about the casue of the attack for over a week after we now know that they knew otherwise, and 60 minutes withheld portions of an interview that would ahve shown this even further.

Oh yes, it is a scandal. I stand by that. And its either within the CIA, NSA, Pentegon, DOS, WH, or any combination thereof. This is a cluster****. That much is obvious.

[flips333]

First, it is worse than Watergate- people died. That automatically makes it worse.

Second, in 2000, I was a little busy in the Army, but I's venture back even furhter, back to Beirut in 1983. I never said Republicans were above scrutiny, and my record on Rummy, Cheney, W, and others should back that up.

I categorically reject this intense effort to catagorically label Benghazi as "much ado about nothing". Thats a load of ****. Funny how no one's talking about the relief of an aircraft carrier group commander, and four star general as part of this either.

Skip over this all you like. If it were W in the WH, I know damned good and well that you and several others would be all over this like a cheap suit.
Its a fact that help was requested- its a fact that military units in the region mobilized. Its a fact that the help requested didn't come. Its a fact that the president, VP, and UN Secretary all lied about the casue of the attack for over a week after we now know that they knew otherwise, and 60 minutes withheld portions of an interview that would ahve shown this even further.

Oh yes, it is a scandal. I stand by that. And its either within the CIA, NSA, Pentegon, DOS, WH, or any combination thereof. This is a cluster****. That much is obvious.

it's a worse situation sure... but a bigger scandal or more evidence of coruption... no way. If anything this is evidence that they poorly assessed the situation not they they are corrupt.

For a politician to steal an election is the worst you can do from the standpoint of political ethics.

[flea]

it's a worse situation sure... but a bigger scandal or more evidence of coruption... no way. If anything this is evidence that they poorly assessed the situation not they they are corrupt.

For a politician to steal an election is the worst you can do from the standpoint of political ethics.

Iran-Contra was far worse.

[IndyFan]

i'm sorry, but I still don't see the scandal. Especially the Susan Rice part.

It is obvious the CIA knew it was a terror attack and therefore Obama knew it was a terror attack. To use a lawyer term, I'll stipulate that. But I just don't see any reason for the administration to lie. Other than someone saying, "Hey, I have an idea, let's just randomly lie about stuff. Just for fun." There is no reason for the Obama administration to lie unless, as they claim, they were trying to mislead the terrorists. I mean I just don't see any upside to lie about it. Both Iran-Contra and Watergate, the rational for the president to lie is obvious. In both cases the administration actively engaged in illegal activity. But in this case, it was a terror attack. Maybe the government of Libya had reason to lie, but not the US.

Sorry the GOP is counting on people's dislike of Obama to get them to make a leap to misbehavior.

[ManRamForPrez24]

i'm sorry, but I still don't see the scandal. Especially the Susan Rice part.

It is obvious the CIA knew it was a terror attack and therefore Obama knew it was a terror attack. To use a lawyer term, I'll stipulate that. But I just don't see any reason for the administration to lie. Other than someone saying, "Hey, I have an idea, let's just randomly lie about stuff. Just for fun." There is no reason for the Obama administration to lie unless, as they claim, they were trying to mislead the terrorists. I mean I just don't see any upside to lie about it. Both Iran-Contra and Watergate, the rational for the president to lie is obvious. In both cases the administration actively engaged in illegal activity. But in this case, it was a terror attack. Maybe the government of Libya had reason to lie, but not the US.

Sorry the GOP is counting on people's dislike of Obama to get them to make a leap to misbehavior.

I literally have never been able to grasp how this whole thing was such a huge scandal and how much of an atrocity Obama was committing, essentially over semantics. To this day, it still baffles me.

[flea]

I literally have never been able to grasp how this whole thing was such a huge scandal and how much of an atrocity Obama was committing, essentially over semantics. To this day, it still baffles me.

He's a Democrat. When a Republican shreds the Constitution, tortures people in violation of the Geneva Convention, and starts a war based on intelligence they know is false it's for national security.

[KnicksorBust]

i'm sorry, but I still don't see the scandal. Especially the Susan Rice part.

It is obvious the CIA knew it was a terror attack and therefore Obama knew it was a terror attack. To use a lawyer term, I'll stipulate that. But I just don't see any reason for the administration to lie. Other than someone saying, "Hey, I have an idea, let's just randomly lie about stuff. Just for fun." There is no reason for the Obama administration to lie unless, as they claim, they were trying to mislead the terrorists. I mean I just don't see any upside to lie about it. Both Iran-Contra and Watergate, the rational for the president to lie is obvious. In both cases the administration actively engaged in illegal activity. But in this case, it was a terror attack. Maybe the government of Libya had reason to lie, but not the US.

Sorry the GOP is counting on people's dislike of Obama to get them to make a leap to misbehavior.

It seems obvious enough to me as someone whose relatively new to following politics. Ryan-Romney spent so much time and effort trying to make Obama look impotent with his foreign policy.

Just one simple example that took me 60 seconds to look up: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAFHn7_BlHw

With debates right around the corner, a "spontaneous demonstration" sounds a lot less threatening to the general US public than a successful September 11th strke by Al Qaeda. Politically it would have been dangerous for for the Demoncrats if Romney had that ammunition at his disposal.

[Freakazoid]

He's a Democrat. When a Republican shreds the Constitution, tortures people in violation of the Geneva Convention, and starts a war based on intelligence they know is false it's for national security.

It's the same party that claimed that Obama made Petraeus resign so Obama could strip him of his security clearance so that Petraeus could not testify that Obama personally attacked the embassy.

[stephkyle7]

it does get PRETTY inventive , ill give them that...maybe they should be writing scripts for 20th century fox...no, no, no, Disney...they just bought Lucasfilm and plan to put out a new Starwars fim every couple of years aftre 2015.

Some of these twists and turns are more ingenious then ",no I ....am your Father!"

[IndyFan]

It seems obvious enough to me as someone whose relatively new to following politics. Ryan-Romney spent so much time and effort trying to make Obama look impotent with his foreign policy.

Just one simple example that took me 60 seconds to look up: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAFHn7_BlHw

With debates right around the corner, a "spontaneous demonstration" sounds a lot less threatening to the general US public than a successful September 11th strke by Al Qaeda. Politically it would have been dangerous for for the Demoncrats if Romney had that ammunition at his disposal.

Thanx for your prompt reply. This is a reason that makes some sense. I need to check out the time line, because the when in a campaign season makes a big difference.

I do have a couple of reservations about your theory, mainly because foreign policy was strong for Obama pretty much the whole campaign. Because of that, it seems logical he could take a hit there. Plus a terror attack would seems to mainly favor the president. The whole wrap yourself in the flag thing. But let me check the dates and how the campaign was going.