Obama: "We Leave Nobody Behind"

[Mikeg]

Remarks by President Obama on Oct. 30, 2012:

"We leave nobody behind. We make sure that we respond as a nation and remind ourselves that whenever an American is in need, all of us stand together to make sure that we’re providing the help that's necessary."

Unless the Americans in need happen to be your Ambassador to Libya and his staff. Then you go to bed so that you're fresh for your re-election campaign trip to Las Vegas.

[gazhekwe]

You know, Mikeg, those kind of statements are so out there. There is nothing to indicate that happened, and even if the President does go to bed, he can be wakened in emergencies any time. The attack occurred from about 4 pm to 5 pm Eastern Time. By 4:54 pm a response team was on site looking for embassy personnel. I doubt very much the President went to bed during this time.

From CBS: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_16...ck-on-sept-11/

[rb336]

gazhekwe, these right wing sociopaths care nothing for fact. facts are their enemy

[Mikeg]

gazhekwe, these right wing sociopaths care nothing for fact. facts are their enemy

Ah yes, DetroitYes' version of
Attachment 16382
is quick to leave another one of his "droppings"

[Mikeg]

You know, Mikeg, those kind of statements are so out there. There is nothing to indicate that happened, and even if the President does go to bed, he can be wakened in emergencies any time. The attack occurred from about 4 pm to 5 pm Eastern Time. By 4:54 pm a response team was on site looking for embassy personnel. I doubt very much the President went to bed during this time.

From CBS: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_16...ck-on-sept-11/

Nowhere did I say that President Obama slept through the terrorist attack, I said, "then you go to bed...."

Normally the White House is quick to "spike the football" when the President takes charge in the WH Situation Room. Yet seven weeks later, as you say, "there is nothing to indicate what happened" in the WH Situation Room that afternoon and evening.

Your link points out that 14 hours later just before he left for Las Vegas, an apparently well-rested President Obama sat down with Steve Croft and admitted that the attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi was something more than just mob violence. Yet CBS did not include those comments when their piece aired several days later - even though [[or perhaps because?) the President had been publicly claiming in the meantime that this had been a spontaneous attack by a mob that was enraged over a movie trailer.

Who made the decision to deny the local response team their request for additional support to fend off the terrorist attackers? That request came before the President would have retired for the night. Either way, if he was not informed of the attack by his staff in the WH Situation room or State Department officials - or if he was informed of the attack and made no effort to get involved - it suggests a massive failure on the part of the Obama Administration to respond to a terrorist attack on US soil on the anniversary of September 11th.

The US public has the right to know what exactly happened in those 14 hours before President Obama first commented on the attack in Libya and why he and his WH staff continued to mislead the public by characterizing that attack as spontaneous mob violence for weeks afterward.

[gazhekwe]

It does not hurt to get the facts in front of those who can be influenced by them.

[MikeM]

That's desperation.

[oladub]

Another timeline. I don't claim to know which is correct; the recently generated timeline from the State Department, as reported by CBS or just misinformation we were hearing on the news at the time, as found below, probably put out there as our resident insult poster says, "by right wing sociopaths'.

Sept. 13: Clinton: "video circulating on the Internet that has led to these protests in a number of countries." "some seek to justify this behavior as a response to inflammatory, despicable material posted on the Internet."
In Libya, Wanis el-Sharef, then eastern Libya's deputy interior minister, says the attacks are suspected to have been timed to mark the 9-11 anniversary and that the militants used civilians protesting an anti-Islam film as cover for their action.
Sept. 14: Clinton:"We've seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with."
Sept. 15: Obama rejects the denigration of Islam.
Sept. 16: Susan Rice: Based on the administration's best information, she says, the Benghazi attack was a "spontaneous -- not a premeditated -- response" to the anti-video protests in Cairo. A small number of protesters went to the consulate "and then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons," she says. Rice calls the attack a "direct result of a heinous and offensive video that was widely disseminated that the U.S. government had nothing to do with." She says the U.S. has no information at the time "that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned."
In Libya, interim President Mohammed el-Megarif says: "It was planned, definitely. It was planned by foreigners, by people who entered the country a few months ago. And they were planning this criminal act since their arrival."
Sept. 18: Clinton "we are seeing the hand of extremists who are trying to exploit people's inflamed passions for their own agendas." She cites an assessment by National Intelligence Director James Clapper that the U.S. had no actionable intelligence that an attack in Benghazi was planned or imminent.
Sept. 20: Obama says what we've seen over the last week and a half "is an offensive video or cartoon directed at the prophet Muhammad. And this is obviously something that then is used as an excuse by some to carry out inexcusable violent acts directed at Westerners or Americans."
http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/10/30/4375806/who-said-what-and-when-about-the.html#storylink=cpy

[Det_ard]

The blindly uncritical Obama supporters remind me of the blindly uncritical Bush supporters when he ran for reelection in '04.

There's something fishy about how the WH has handled the incident in Benghazi and their subsequent framing of the issue. They were not hesitant to release information [[including very sensitive information) regarding the killing of Bin Laden, and the Stuxnet virus, where they thought it would reflect well on the administration. Their story on Benghazi on the other hand has been incomplete and inconsistent.

Yes, Fox has been leading the charge on this issue, but CNN took it up a couple weeks ago, and David Ignatius of the Washington Post is also asking questions. Obama's supporters aren't willing to look under the covers on this. Hence the similarity to Bush's supporters. Too bad they didn't learn from their opponents' mistakes.

[rb336]

^^and your right-wing goddess Condi Rice says you are wrong^^

[Det_ard]

You know nothing about my opinion of Condi Rice, and you sadly choose to turn a blind eye to narratives that don't fit your predetermined worldview. Your loss, Bushie V2.0.

[rb336]

You know nothing about my opinion of Condi Rice, and you sadly choose to turn a blind eye to narratives that don't fit your predetermined worldview. Your loss, Bushie V2.0.

When the narratives are patently false, which these are [[as conservative darling Condi pointed out), only a fool would put any stock in them

[noise]

Remember the Swift Vote Veterans?

[Mikeg]

Remember the Swift Vote Veterans?

Remember the 2010 mid-term election results?

[rb336]

this is what it really looks like, not the simple-minded crap Faux news and its allies spoon feed you

[oladub]

Rb, What's your point? Obama ran the Country into more dollars of debt than any other president period. As papasito pointed out, Obama tacked on more to the national debt in less than four years than Bush did in eight. I don't remember anytime, as a Senator, that Obama refused to continue funding the wars Bush started. Obama promised to leave Iraq immediately four years ago. It instead took him three years to honor the Iraq/Bush agreement and he tried to negotiate an extension of our troops' presence in Iraq. Obama didn't say anything while campaigning about doubling our troop strength in Afghanistan, expanding drone attacks in Pakistan, bombing Yemen, helping overthrow Khaddafi, sending a hundred troops into the Central Africa Republic, supplying Al Queda units in Syria, or encouraging the Islamist Spring across North Africa. The Bush wars became the Bush/Obama wars. More US troops have been killed in Afghanistan under Obama as under Bush. I don't see the red line on the graph getting thinner under Obama.

[Mikeg]

Jay Leno says:

'Don't Ask, Don't Tell Is Back - It's Obama's New Policy For Questions About Libya'

[Zacha341]

Say it ain't so... is Jay a right-winger toooo? ------

Jay Leno says: 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell Is Back - It's Obama's New Policy For Questions About Libya'

[rb336]

I don't think so. He makes similar comments about Romney. He supports green tech, too. Of all the late night gang, he might be the hardest to read politically. The Jimmies have both made statements in support of Obama. Dave has used Mitt as a punching bag all year. The HBO guys are fairly obviously voting Obama. Craig Ferguson might match Jay in being hard to read

[Zacha341]

I know.... that's what makes it interesting. Leno not of the 'dismissible' garden variety right-winger camp, yet saying some of the stuff he says. I find it refreshing that he's not feeling the obligation to 'egg shell' walk when it comes to politicians [[right and the left). That's the 'read' I get from him. Some of the presidents gaffs, policies and responses are too obvious to not speak on even if your a dem and strong supporter!!

Leno can and is allowed to roast president Obama and his policies a bit ------! in as much as his audience responses are rarely boos, but then they are his captive audience... so nothing remarkable there I suppose!

As I've said before should Obama go back into office, questions and concern regarding his policies and positions will remain top of mind, now from the dems, and for certain the indies. The deep-dish right wing factor will not be the lead of these questions as much. And like any president [[read politician) he has to be held accountable.

I don't think so. He makes similar comments about Romney. He supports green tech, too. Of all the late night gang, he might be the hardest to read politically. The Jimmies have both made statements in support of Obama. Dave has used Mitt as a punching bag all year. The HBO guys are fairly obviously voting Obama. Craig Ferguson might match Jay in being hard to read

[firstandten]

As I've said before should Obama go back into office, questions and concern regarding his policies and positions will remain top of mind, now from the dems, and for certain the indies. The deep-dish right wing factor will not be the lead of these questions as much. And like any president [[read politician) he has to be held accountable.

I believe what you will see happen if President Obama is re-elected is two things

1) Repubs especially House Repubs will be more willing to work with him
2) President Obama will be more willing to work around Repubs to see his domestic agenda thru.

If Romney gets in I see him having the same issues as Pres Obama .. coordinated obstructionsim from the Dems. The Dems will maintain control of the Senate.

[noise]

I'm not sure what the 2010 mid-term election results have to do with an increasingly distracted and fooled Conservative voting public...wait, maybe I do!

Jay Leno is the man we all turn to for political facts.

Nate Silver has Obama's chance of winning at 79%. Nate Silver is rarely incorrect.

[rb336]

Ola, there is far more to it than I expect you or papa to understand. Cut out factors that could not be controlled - Dubya's off-budget wars and tax cuts for the rich - and Obama's spending and contribution to the deficit actually went DOWN. What is so hard for you to understand about that? the only big hike in Obama's administration came from actually putting the cost of the wars on budget. The single biggest cause of the deficit increase is Dubya's tax cuts.

one more for you

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/oba...nferno-or-not/

Make it two more, this one from the right-wing WSJ's Market Watch:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/oba...2?pagenumber=1

[gnome]

This girl sums up my feelings

[Papasito]

No Conspiracy. Facts.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50133512n

Recently obtained memos show Ambassador Chris Stevens asked the State Department repeatedly for more security in Libya before he was killed in the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi. Sharyl Attkisson reports.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...past-august-2/

Oct 8, 2012 – ...But ultimately the SST left and “they just had to make do with less security,” Wood told ABC News.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-33816_16...ack/?tag=socsh

Some lawmakers are asking why U.S. military help from outside Libya didn't arrive as terrorists battered more than 30 Americans over the course of more than seven hours. The assault was launched by an armed mob of dozens that torched buildings and used rocket propelled grenades, mortars and AK-47 rifles.

Could the US have done more? They asked Retired CIA officer Gary Berntsen:

Retired CIA officer Gary Berntsen believes help could have come much sooner. He commanded CIA counter-terrorism missions targeting Osama bin Laden and led the team that responded after bombings of the U.S. Embassy in East Africa."You find a way to make this happen," Berntsen says. "There isn't a plan for every single engagement. Sometimes you have to be able to make adjustments. They made zero adjustments in this. They stood and they watched and our people died."
The Pentagon says it did move a team of special operators from central Europe to the large Naval Air Station in Sigonella, Italy, but gave no other details. Sigonella is just an hour's flight from Libya. Other nearby bases include Aviano and Souda Bay. Military sources tell CBS News that resources at the three bases include fighter jets and Specter AC-130 gunships, which the sources say can be extremely effective in flying in and buzzing a crowd to disperse it.

If we have questions being asked by big lib networks like CBS and ABC, there obviously has to be something wrong here.
If this happened with Dubya, you all would be stark raving crazy in a berzerk tyrade about how inept he was by not saving the lives of those Americans.
And Obama gets a free pass? Why?
Do we need a downed plane or a dirty nuke to go off before he takes these things seriously? How many Americans must die before Barack Obama is held accountable for not keeping Americans safe?

Intelligence travels fast in 2012. The White House was probably in knowledge of the incident within the first hour, two tops.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_16...in;contentBody

The president was reflecting the judgment of U.S. intelligence, which, according to one official, concluded in the hours immediately after the attack that it was an act of terror.

The ball was dropped here, and no matter how much you love Obama, the buck stops with him. Hold your leader accountable.