U.S. had early indications Libya attack tied to organized militants

Comments (24)
Tiu wrote:

Of course they were Al Qaeda militants. The deliberate timing of the release of the “insulting film” was given as cover by their US based neo-con allies.

Oct 02, 2012 9:25pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
pax_vobiscum wrote:

Liar-in-Chief strikes yet again.

Yeah I know, “..we won’t back-down from our resolve..” whatever the hell that’s supposed to mean.

Oct 02, 2012 9:37pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
soulice wrote:

The American people already know this…the question is, who do we hold responsible?

Oct 02, 2012 9:45pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
dbonacum wrote:

Once again, OBAMA LIED. PEOPLE DIED.

The blood on this administrations hands just keeps getting thicker and thicker, as do the lies and the cover-ups.

Another border agent died today, all the while obama a crew hide behind “Executive privilege”.

Oct 02, 2012 9:58pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Ollerus wrote:

While I wasn’t alive when it happened, history tells me that Nixon stepped down over Watergate. Someone remind me again how many died over that debacle??? Something tells me Obama won’t have any ‘heads rolling’ over this obvious and deliberate attempt to mislead the American people. Certainly as with everything else it seems, this ‘buck stops’ with someone else, someone not in this administration.

Disgraceful…

Oct 02, 2012 10:06pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
mdiddy wrote:

Was this a terrible misunderstanding or an intentional spin on the situation to cover failings? In either case, it is regrettable. I don’t want to blame anyone, I just want the truth

Oct 02, 2012 10:21pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Levendi wrote:

This administration lied and covered up the facts because of the upcoming election and the media has been a co-conspirator. If a Republican did this the media would be foaming at the mouth 24×7. What a disgrace. No shame to push through their agenda. This is the worst the middle east has been since the time of the Crusades and it’s under Clinton and Obama’s watch, yet not a cross word against them. ??????

Oct 02, 2012 10:32pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
econteacher wrote:

ollerus,
Many more Americans died under George II, did you call for his head? Under Reagan the embassy in Lebenon was attack and many died.
While any loss is tragic, taking an embassy in an unstable state is inherently dangerous. This is like being in the Army and no realize that your job is dangerous.
As to lying, no one lied. Again, no one lied. To wait till all evidence is in before shooting you mouth off is a good idea. Something Romney doesn’t seem to understand.

Oct 02, 2012 10:40pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Mark..AZ.MN wrote:

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, you should be Impeached!

Oct 02, 2012 10:57pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
bates148 wrote:

This is a disgrace. The media should also be accountable for this. They went along with Obama’s lies.

Oct 02, 2012 11:19pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
dualcitizen wrote:

Wow, they sure like to use the word “evolved” in this administration when they lie or flip flop don’t they? Oh wait, IT’S BUSH’S FAULT!

Oct 02, 2012 11:59pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
1964 wrote:

The US tolerated and supported the participation of al Qaida affiliated rebel fighters lead by al Libi in the Libya revolution. Shortly after Qaddafi’s death, the US killed al Libi, who by then was somewhere in Waziristan with a drone strike.

Surely, you would expect retaliation. The Libya embassy attack was the al Qaida equivalent of a drone attack: an unforeseeable attack. Surely there will be more such attacks if the US continues to use jihadis as paid mercenaries for its subversions in Muslim countries and then kills them when they are no longer convenient. Don’t howl when it hits the Americans. It isn’t more painful for them than it is for all the civilians who were killed in drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen Somalia and other countries. If the US uses drone strikes on un-expecting people in countries not at war – give the other side the same right to hit back in countries not at war, against the Americans. That’s how such attacks feel, for the other side as for the Americans.

Oct 03, 2012 1:04am EDT  --  Report as abuse
justamaz wrote:

Why do we have to be lied to by the Government? What are they trying to protect us from? Being paranoid of terrorists? Like Fast and Furious, we will continue to be left in the dark.

Oct 03, 2012 1:22am EDT  --  Report as abuse
220volts wrote:

It should also be noted, that the United States Marine Corps has the Constitutionally mandated task of protecting US Embassies, Consulates, Legations, and certain other US Diplomatic missions and functions. This duty is not asserted on a case by case circumstance or situational status to be decided by the President. It is a USMC duty set by law.
Therefore, it is a falsehood to impute the security failures in Benghazi to the White House. The responsibility for the murders of US personnel at the consulate in Libya lays directly at the feet of the chain-of-command between the State Department and the Foreign Service Office.
Politicians who attempt to benefit from this tragedy do no service to the nation by perpetuating these misconceptions and lies.

Oct 03, 2012 1:44am EDT  --  Report as abuse
sjfella wrote:

And once again the Obama shills remain silent.

Oct 03, 2012 1:49am EDT  --  Report as abuse
jb5music wrote:

The deliberate timing of the release of another headline about this debacle is corporate oil soap opera war propaganda. Work it baby. work it. Smoke stacks in China.

Oct 03, 2012 2:40am EDT  --  Report as abuse
ajsfca wrote:

220volts, the president is the commander-in-chief.

Oct 03, 2012 6:12am EDT  --  Report as abuse
MartinNYID wrote:

This is a non-story. Five guys in a pub can decide to become Al Quaeda. If the administration had blasted that on the airways without proof, it may not have been credible. This stinks of a right-wing smear, like the Iran Hostage engineering during the Carter campaign. Yellow.

Oct 03, 2012 6:12am EDT  --  Report as abuse
ajsfca wrote:

220volts, the president is the commander-in-chief. The current president seems to like to claim that authority, but ducks the duty and the responsibilty.

Oct 03, 2012 6:17am EDT  --  Report as abuse
jcfl wrote:

just to keep this in perspective, compare this after the fact hubbub to having an intelligence file on your desk that says bin laden planning to use commercial jets as missiles against the US, well ahead of the actual events. and then having this information sneered at and summarily dismissed. who took responsibility for that one? oh that’s right it was clinton 8 months after he left office. that one cost us $2.5 trillion and still counting 4 years after shrub left office.

Oct 03, 2012 8:29am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Denan wrote:

Tiu wrote: “Of course they were Al Qaeda militants. The deliberate timing of the release of the “insulting film” was given as cover by their US based neo-con allies.”

Two things: The “film” was released in July. And do you don’t seem to understand what the term “neo-con” (“neocon”) actually means.

Since when do AQ militants need, want or use a “cover”? AQ once again attacked America on 9/11 for their raison-de-jour whatever it might be. It’s who and what they are.

And your conspiratorial jibber-jabber would be pathetically comical if the matter weren’t one of life and death. As it stands, it’s just pathetic.

Oct 03, 2012 12:44pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Denan wrote:

220Volts: “It should also be noted, that the United States Marine Corps has the Constitutionally mandated task of protecting US Embassies, Consulates, Legations, and certain other US Diplomatic missions and functions. This duty is not asserted on a case by case circumstance or situational status to be decided by the President. It is a USMC duty set by law.”

The duty of the Marine Corps (or Corpse to our President…) is to protect sensitive American property contained in diplomatic missions and if/when necessary to destroy that information before it can fall into enemy hands. The Marines would of course battle attackers, but their *mission* is not the security of diplomatic personnel per se.

Responsibility for personnel security resides with the Secretary of State. The State Dept. has an entire force of security personnel it deploys when the SoS deems it necessary and the SoS is supposed to work with the nation’s government to ensure that they protect our diplomatic missions from attack.

They failed miserably in Benghazi.

Oct 03, 2012 12:56pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Rich_F wrote:

A US Ambassador was murdered along with 3 other Americans. The American people deserve to know the truth. We aren’t interested in our leaders perpetuating lies for political gain, appeasement or any other reason when the murder of our representatives and citizens occurs. We want the truth Obama!

Oct 03, 2012 2:01pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
xit007 wrote:

Anyone notice that all the Libya news headlines are not run openly on the front page but rather in the ticker of the latest headlines.
Many if not all of the other latest headlines are posted article on the front page. Reuters is selectively running news in spots – to favor the current administration… News Flash – this might work with know nothings but why can’t you just run the news and let the administration own up to what it is responsible for. Anyone have an answer for the lies and distortion in Benghazi….Guns in Mexico … do we have to go on…and on…give us a break..

Oct 03, 2012 2:28pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.