Libya fiasco expands

[HonestChieffan]

The Romney folks must feel that there really are gifts from above. Libya and the aftermath just gets more weird. Now the Obama folks are saying they didn't blame the "video" for the terrorist attack that wasn't done by terrorists on the Embassy that did ask for rmore protection but maybe didn't...and so on.

Hillary is looking at retirement forever and you can bet before long Obama will submarine her rather than take any blame.

This is an AP story, not Drudge or the Blaze. Just so Direck doesnt go off on sources again.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...10-09-18-50-07


WASHINGTON (AP) — The State Department said Tuesday it never concluded that the consulate attack in Libya stemmed from protests over an American-made video ridiculing Islam, raising further questions about why the Obama administration used that explanation for more than a week after assailants killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans.

The revelation came as new documents suggested internal disagreement over appropriate levels of security before the attack, which occurred on the 11th anniversary of the Sept. 11 terror attacks on the U.S.

Briefing reporters ahead of a hotly anticipated congressional hearing Wednesday, State Department officials provided their most detailed rundown of how a peaceful day in Benghazi devolved into a sustained attack that involved multiple groups of men armed with weapons such as machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades and mortars over an expanse of more than a mile.

But asked about the administration’s initial – and since retracted – explanation linking the violence to protests over an anti-Muslim video circulating on the Internet, one official said, “That was not our conclusion.” He called it a question for “others” to answer, without specifying. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to speak publicly on the matter, and provided no evidence that might suggest a case of spontaneous violence or angry protests that went too far.

The attack has become a major issue in the presidential campaign, featuring prominently in Republican candidate Mitt Romney’s latest foreign policy address on Monday. He called it an example of President Barack Obama’s weakness in foreign policy matters, noting: “As the administration has finally conceded, these attacks were the deliberate work of terrorists.”

[stonedstooge]

If The Blameless One has to sacrifice someone to get out from under this does he throw Hillary under the steamroller?

[mikey23545]

[mikey23545]

I don't know how many things we're going to see like this - mainstream media an absolute extension of the Democratic Party, until finally they find they will have to report on something or be found complicit in a conspiracy with the White House, as in this case.

[Comrade Crapski]

Originally Posted by mikey23545

I don't know how many things we're going to see like this - mainstream media an absolute extension of the Democratic Party, until finally they find they will have to report on something or be found complicit in a conspiracy with the White House, as in this case.

We need a seperation of media and state.

[ROYC75]

Originally Posted by qabbaan

They told more lies than truth about the whole affair. The things the UN ambassador was saying were simply lies. This should be a real scandal, or would be, if we had a press interested in reporting on it.

His whole presidency has been based on lies, but as liberals would say, naw, he just stretched the truth a little and kept some of his promises.

[patteeu]

The Libya coverup seems to have shifted the timing on this foreign policy scandal just enough to feed the 3rd POTUS debate perfectly. End of the line.

[HonestChieffan]

Originally Posted by patteeu

The Libya coverup seems to have shifted the timing on this foreign policy scandal just enough to feed the 3rd POTUS debate perfectly. End of the line.

Hillary needs to look behind her. The bus is on the road....

[qabbaan]

Originally Posted by HonestChieffan

Hillary needs to look behind her. The bus is on the road....

the White House came forward with a completely made up story about this being a response to the video, when they demonstrably knew full well at the time that was false. The state department just said in the past few days that they did not provide the idea to the White House that it was something other than terrorism. It was a completely false story meant to avoid embarrassment related to the White House and their feckless Mideast policy.

But nobody throws a Clinton under the bus. They are too smart for that. This was Hillary getting out in front of it, the State dept basically said through the media "you didn't hear that from us". She wasn't going to wait around for the White House to burn her, now that the story isn't going away.

[Chief Faithful]

Wait,...so Obama attacks Romney for giving his opinion before the facts were in and now Obama's defense is he spoke before the facts were in?

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by qabbaan

the White House came forward with a completely made up story about this being a response to the video, when they demonstrably knew full well at the time that was false. The state department just said in the past few days that they did not provide the idea to the White House that it was something other than terrorism. It was a completely false story meant to avoid embarrassment related to the White House and their feckless Mideast policy.

But nobody throws a Clinton under the bus. They are too smart for that. This was Hillary getting out in front of it, the State dept basically said through the media "you didn't hear that from us". She wasn't going to wait around for the White House to burn her, now that the story isn't going away.

While I agree with everything you say here about Clinton, there's a curious caveat to consider. The state department did get involved in the false narrative/coverup in the form of Susan Rice. The difference between Rice and Hillary is that Rice is a longtime member of Obama's inner circle.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Chief Faithful

Wait,...so Obama attacks Romney for giving his opinion before the facts were in and now Obama's defense is he spoke before the facts were in?

Actually, Obama spoke after the facts were in. He just ignored them and decided to lie instead.

[Chief Faithful]

Originally Posted by ROYC75

His whole presidency has been based on lies, but as liberals would say, naw, he just stretched the truth a little and kept some of his promises.

This is why people say Obama goes beyond lies because he attempts to deceive. Instead of being the great communicator Obama is turning out to be the great deceiver.

[Chief Faithful]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Actually, Obama spoke after the facts were in. He just ignored them and decided to lie instead.

The difference between being mistaken or lying verse being motivated to deceive.

[qabbaan]

Originally Posted by Chief Faithful

Wait,...so Obama attacks Romney for giving his opinion before the facts were in and now Obama's defense is he spoke before the facts were in?

They had the facts, they jus discarded them for a more election-friendly narrative.

[qabbaan]

Originally Posted by patteeu

While I agree with everything you say here about Clinton, there's a curious caveat to consider. The state department did get involved in the false narrative/coverup in the form of Susan Rice. The difference between Rice and Hillary is that Rice is a longtime member of Obama's inner circle.

Sure, and that is a distinction worth making.

My point was just that the Clinton's are the most politically astute people around. They know when to hold and when to fold.

Hillary is probably calculating around her department and its exposure to this, as well as her own desire to run against Romney in 2016.