Infidels

[Hoss]

Is it too late for the Dims Republicans to slip Hillary in as their the Democratic candidate?

FIFY

[Gaspar]

This is just now breaking.  Two senior officials have confirmed that President Obama knew the Libyan attach was a coordinated terrorist effort and even labeled it as such internally, but covered it up.  I suspect he didn't want to cancel that very important fundraiser on the 12th in the battleground state of NV.

Excuse the source, but it's just now hitting the other outlets: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/27/us-officials-knew-libya-attack-was-terrorism-within-24-hours-sources-confirm/
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/fbi_still_not_allowed_in_us_embassy_5YwX4HbNjQkTPb8vmvJfEK

[swake]

This is just now breaking.  Two senior officials have confirmed that President Obama knew the Libyan attach was a coordinated terrorist effort and even labeled it as such internally, but covered it up.  I suspect he didn't want to cancel that very important fundraiser on the 12th in the battleground state of NV.

Excuse the source, but it's just now hitting the other outlets: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/27/us-officials-knew-libya-attack-was-terrorism-within-24-hours-sources-confirm/

Buried at the bottom of the article:

One intelligence official clarified to Fox News that there was not a "definitive" lead on who might have been responsible for the Libya attacks in the immediate aftermath, though officials had an idea of the suspects.
"It's inaccurate to suggest that within the first 24 hours there was a definitive calling card and home address for the perpetrators of the Benghazi attack. Potential suspects and data points emerge early on, but it still takes time to be certain who is responsible," the official said.

Not speaking publicly before the facts are known is usually considered a good thing, it's something that Romney would do well to learn.

[erfalf]

Not speaking publicly before the facts are known is usually considered a good thing, it's something that Romney would do well to learn.

But, knowing what he did (maybe he didn't know the specific perpetrator's names) and still out and out lying about the situation for over a week is alright with you?

[Townsend]

But, knowing what he did (maybe he didn't know the specific perpetrator's names) and still out and out lying about the situation for over a week is alright with you?

So you know that he was out and out lying to you?

[nathanm]

Ah, the clairvoyance. Apparently it's contagious!

[Townsend]

Buried at the bottom of the article:
Not speaking publicly before the facts are known is usually considered a good thing, it's something that Romney would do well to learn.

I'm not finding a mention of this on any of the respected journalism sites.  They must be making sure their stories are accurate so they don't have to put a fine print on it like Fox or the NY Post.

[erfalf]

So you know that he was out and out lying to you?

The Pres has been pedaling the "video" line, and that it was "spontaneous" for over a week. Is that not lying, considering his intel? What politically correct reason is there for this line?

[nathanm]

If you pick and choose which words to listen to, yes.

[Teatownclown]

He had stated from the outset it might have been a terrorist attack.

bfd

[swake]

But, knowing what he did (maybe he didn't know the specific perpetrator's names) and still out and out lying about the situation for over a week is alright with you?

So you are saying the president has a duty to tell the public everything he knows or suspects as soon as he learns about it, got it. That does not seem wise in the real world.

When exactly did Bush hold his news conference to tell the American public that we knew where Bin Laden was way back in 2001 and that he over ruled special forces plans to go and get him?
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18560_162-4494937.html

[erfalf]

So you are saying the president has a duty to tell the public everything he knows or suspects as soon as he learns about it, got it. That does not seem wise in the real world.

When exactly did Bush hold his news conference to tell the American public that we knew where Bin Laden was way back in 2001 and that he over ruled special forces plans to go and get him?
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18560_162-4494937.html

That is a big difference. Withholding information and telling false information are different, you do understand that right?

[Gaspar]

It was an attack on American soil that took the lives of Americans.  Delay, is the only purpose behind misleading the public.  The only motive for delay, was a multimillion dollar fundraiser that night in NV and two more durring the following days.  Had he attended these after a Terrorist attack on the United States, it would have been despicable.

Instead, he labels the attack as the fault of a US internet filmmaker, and perpetuates that until today.  Says the attack was just "a bump in the road." 

Figure out a way to defend that.  This cannot be a template for how we handle attacks against America.

[Townsend]

Instead, he labels the attack as the fault of a US internet filmmaker, and perpetuates that until today.  Says the attack was just "a bump in the road." 

You mean "Some say/some may say Instead, he labels the attack as the fault of a US internet filmmaker, and perpetuates that until today.  Says the attack was just "a bump in the road." 

[nathanm]

Figure out a way to defend that.  This cannot be a template for how we handle attacks against America.

I don't need to figure it out. I will commend Obama for not giving in to the shrinking violets who want to let terrorists dictate our actions and reactions, and instead letting the Libyan people deal with the attackers, which they are doing.