"What did the President know and when did he know it? That famous question from Watergate should resurface today as news breaks that President Obama and his administration knew 2 hours after the attack that led to the murder of Libyan Ambassador Christopher Stevens and 3 other Americans were terrorism and claimed by a known terrorist group."

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/the_rum...n-benghazi

Claiming credit for an attack does not necessarily mean they actually did the attack. Plenty of terrorist groups claim credit for all sorts of attacks; most of the time, they are trying to boost their image. Seems to me that there was a lot of chaos, mostly because of the uprising and rioting (which *was* caused by the anti-Muslim film), and the administration were trying to get all the facts before making a statement which blamed terrorism.

After the massacre in Norway, before it was made public that Anders Brevik was the suspect, a group called "Helpers of Global Jihad" claimed responsibillity for the attacks.
Verification is certainly importent in such events. I guess if the administration would have simply taken the islamists claim for the truth, only to later have it reveiled that it was the incorect terror group - it would have also been a disaster.
One may debate why it took the investigaton "so long" to know with certenty who was responsible. But seeing it as an argument, that they didn`t imediatly name the group that claimed responsibillity is a bit silly.

After the Madrid terror attacks, spokesmen of the conservative goverment in Spain imediatly, before anything about the suspects was known, said that Basque terrorist "must have been involved", which is one of the reosons why they lost the election after that attack.

To wait and investigate until things are clear, is better than making assumtions, or taking the claims of shady organisations for face value.

Don't worry Tino, you'll find evidence Obama really screwed the pooch intentionally on. Just not this.

Unless, of course, you consider immediately leaping to conclusions and agreeing to what terrorist groups tell you they did instead of doing a proper investigation and then announcing your findings so you don't look like an easily goaded loon. Which, in that case, would probably play well into Romney's hands too.

Everything Obama does in Republican land is wrong. There is no right solution.

(October 25, 2012 at 7:49 am)Tiberius Wrote: Claiming credit for an attack does not necessarily mean they actually did the attack. Plenty of terrorist groups claim credit for all sorts of attacks; most of the time, they are trying to boost their image. Seems to me that there was a lot of chaos, mostly because of the uprising and rioting (which *was* caused by the anti-Muslim film), and the administration were trying to get all the facts before making a statement which blamed terrorism.

I agree that a claim by a terror group isn't reason alone to believe it, but no, sorry, you don't get to ignore reality here. This was a pre-planned attack - it was not preceded by an uprising and rioting. If "getting all the facts" was the issue then they wouldn't have come out blaming a YouTube video.

Wasn't there riots simultaneously happening over the middle east with respect to "The Innocence of Muslims"?

(October 25, 2012 at 2:02 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: Unless, of course, you consider immediately leaping to conclusions and agreeing to what terrorist groups tell you they did instead of doing a proper investigation and then announcing your findings so you don't look like an easily goaded loon.

Like Tiberius, you too are ignoring facts. The proper investigation has not have concluded that this event was caused by a YouTube video, but that is what Obama administration claimed was the cause.

Did the Obama administration even blame the film on the attack? I've been looking for statements and as far as I can tell, they mention the protests and the film, but when referring to the actual attack on the embassy, they are either vague or call it an "act of terror".

If anyone has sources that show otherwise, I'd like to see them.

(October 25, 2012 at 6:23 am)Tino Wrote: "What did the President know and when did he know it? That famous question from Watergate should resurface today as news breaks that President Obama and his administration knew 2 hours after the attack that led to the murder of Libyan Ambassador Christopher Stevens and 3 other Americans were terrorism and claimed by a known terrorist group."

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/the_rum...n-benghazi

So what? Bush knew days before Katrina hit that it was coming and he still sat on his dumb fucking ass doing nothing.

Remember "you're doing a hell of a job, Brownie?"

(October 25, 2012 at 2:19 pm)Tino Wrote: I agree that a claim by a terror group isn't reason alone to believe it, but no, sorry, you don't get to ignore reality here. This was a pre-planned attack - it was not preceded by an uprising and rioting. If "getting all the facts" was the issue then they wouldn't have come out blaming a YouTube video.

Umm... You admit the reality of the situation was this was a pre-planned attack. But pre-planned by whom? By terrorists... Who didn't want us to spoil their fun and kept it a secret. You can expect a lot from government, but omniscience is not possible.