Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: It's all lies - Obama didn't know - Intel agencies warned U.S. Embassy in Egypt of possible violence

Posted 1 year ago on Oct. 1, 2012, 9:50 p.m. EST by Shayneh (-482)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I really wonder if Obama really knows what's going on in the world of intelligence reports he receives. This link explains why the US Embassy in Egypt was being warned about the video and of possible violence prior to September 11.

This information must have come across the desk of Obama but I guess he was in campaign mode and was more concerned about writing his speeches.

Obama is really on top of things when it comes to foreign policy isn't he -

Here's the link:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/17/us-usa-egypt-warning-idUSBRE88G1HG20120917

120 Comments

120 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by ZenDog (20543) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

WTF - You expect the President to be on top of every single group in Benghazi? I think that's why they have a Middle East desk in the intel analyst department.

You don't know what info they passed on to the President regarding possibilities in Benghazi regarding that video. You don't know who initiated the warning to the Egyptian embassy either. It could have been funneled from the Mid East desk up the chain and over to State, leaving it for them to send it or not.

You should go back to your crazy Larouche pack

[-] 2 points by SingleVoice (158) 1 year ago

Typical Obama supporter always has to blame someone else. The buck stops with the President. If this was still Bush, this coverup would be all over the media. Ambassador Stevens even wrote in his diary for months of his fear of a terrorist attack. Why was it so hard to admit that it was a terrorist attack and even after admitting it was a terrorist attack by his press secretary, the UN ambassador Rice was still blaming the video as well as the President in his UN speech.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20543) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

what coverup? Rather than begin screaming from the roof tops that a terrorist attack had taken place in Benghazi they waited for the evidence to come in. Once it was in they acted appropriately.

.

Again

why don't you read your own source?

[-] 1 points by SingleVoice (158) 1 year ago

“Based on information provided to the Committee by individuals with direct knowledge of events in Libya, the attack that claimed the ambassador’s life was the latest in a long line of attacks on Western diplomats and officials in Libya in the months leading up to September 11, 2012. It was clearly never, as Administration officials once insisted, the result of a popular protest,” the committee’s chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and subcommittee chairman, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, write. “In addition, multiple U.S. federal government officials have confirmed to the Committee that, prior to the September 11 attack, the U.S. mission in Libya made repeated requests for increased security in Benghazi. The mission in Libya, however, was denied these resources by officials in Washington.”

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20543) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

no source - so . . . what . . . . you make that up all on your own? or did you have help?

[-] 2 points by shooz (26667) 1 year ago

Can we get an auto ban for any links to breitbart?

It's an automatic link to bullshit.

[-] 1 points by SingleVoice (158) 1 year ago

It doesn't make it any less true.

[-] 0 points by shooz (26667) 1 year ago

Based on his track record, it couldn't be more false either.

[-] 0 points by SingleVoice (158) 1 year ago

Why don't you investigate it yourself.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

GR8 suggestion - send it in to jart.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20543) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

breitbart

nothing but a decayed fart

putrid and peeling

Should I hunt up the link for his views on OWS?

YOu right wing fucks aren't happy unless you hear the drum beat of xenophobia reverberating from the Presidential Pulpit.

I heard enough of that bushite already. In fact - it made for a great movie backdrop - V for Vendetta

Maybe that's what we really need, a vendetta you skank

YOu aren't happy the President waited for the facts to come in before making any declarative statements? Too bad.

kiss my ass

[-] 0 points by SingleVoice (158) 1 year ago

It doesn't matter who reports it. I first heard it on my local news. Then I looked into it because I didn't want to believe that our State dept would deny extra security after previous attacks and the ambassador's own fears and requests for it. That's why I also pasted links from capitol hill which is covering the investigation and a local newspaper. The Hill reports on events going on on the hill. The fact that breitbart is one of the few reporting that the consulate had been attacked in the months leading up doesn't make it any less true. It actually shows that most news outlets won't report on anything that makes their candidate or his admin look bad. CNN initially reported on the diary of Stevens who was afraid and had requested help. The state dept denied him any help. Is CNN lying too? Does the the Hill website also lie.

As usual, instead of a conversation, you resort to name calling. That's usually the sign of someone who's given up on any more intelligent information. Here's something new. Why don't you do some research instead of blindly believing everything you hear in the NYTimes or MSNBC. I prefer to get my information from multiple sources and draw my own conclusions. That's the way intelligent people make informed decisions.

My post was in response to yours that it was up to the ambassador to ask for more security. We find out that he did ask and was refused. Betsy Ross asks you a question and your response was "I have no idea - I haven't had time to peruse all of the available information on this topic. I would recommend the NYT - they often provide insight if you read carefully. wait - scratch that. From your other posts it's clear the task is beyond you."

It would appear that the task is beyond you, dog.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20543) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

Why don't you do some research instead of blindly believing everything you hear in the NYTimes or MSNBC. I prefer to get my information from multiple sources and draw my own conclusions. That's the way intelligent people make informed decisions. . . . . It would appear that the task is beyond you, dog.

Yeah-ya - thus speaketh the fool who insists breitbart is more credible than the NYT . . ..

from your earlier post:

It was clearly never, as Administration officials once insisted, the result of a popular protest,” the committee’s chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and subcommittee chairman, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, write.

That is an obvious distortion of the facts. It wasn't at all clear in the early hours after the attack who was responsible, whether it was carefully planned or not, and any suggestion otherwise is simply more partisan bullshit.

Now we know with certainty that it was indeed, a terrorist attack. Now it comes out there were previous attacks - something the news media had not reported prior to this latest incident, that I had seen.

if the ambassador had requested more security, and was denied, this becomes a matter for careful scrutiny - absent partisan BULLSHIT.

And the reason it requires careful scrutiny absent partisan BULLSHIT is because of the necessity to understand with utter clarity precisely what motivated such decisions and what the precise circumstances were at the time those decisions were made.

Partisanship implies agenda and with an established agenda one views events and ascribes motivation in an effort to further the established agenda.

YOur agenda seems quite apparent.

[-] 0 points by SingleVoice (158) 1 year ago

I think that your agenda is quite apparent especially since you make phone calls for the Prez. There are no distorted facts here just facts you refuse to believe. I guess the fact that the Libyan gov't warned the US about the attacks 48 hours before them makes no difference either. If Bush was still president, you would be screaming at the top of your lungs that the administration used a stupid video to distract from their lack of competence in handling the security of a consulate in a hot newly formed country on the anniversary of 9/11. You are the partisan one here. You can't see past your own agenda. And yes, the NY Times is as biased as you are. You need to open your horizons to other outlets and stop repeating the drool that that NYT and MSNBC dishes out to who they think are the blind sheep.

[-] 0 points by SingleVoice (158) 1 year ago

I don't what that has to do with the topic we were discussing. Focus.

You want to start a new topic? We've had 4 years of no mobility with this President so the NYT is correct. I didn't say they were wrong, I said they are biased. They only report what helps their agenda and not the whole truth.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20543) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

you are a lying repeliccan scumbag.

we are not going to double down on trickle down

go

away

[-] 1 points by SingleVoice (158) 1 year ago

I believe you are the one in attack mode. I've never seen you disagree with anyone "in a congenial manner". You are the one that resorts to name-calling when anyone disagrees with you and you give up the argument. With you, if you don't agree, you must be republican. There is no in between, just your view or the enemy, black or white, no gray. I've never resorted to name-calling with you or anyone. I welcome good arguments but not lies, talking points or misinformation.

As far as breaking up the banks, Dodd-Frank is watered down. We must contact our representatives in office and running for office in our communities and states with petitions, emails, visits and any other way possible to let them know that we want Glass Steagle back and no other watered down version. It's not that difficult especially at this time when these people are trying to be re-elected or elected. The difficulty is only in putting forth the effort to mobilize people in every community to push this. Instead of attacking people on this site, the time is better spent educating them and trying to get them to work in their communities for the the same outcome. The legislators are the important elections.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20543) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago
[-] 1 points by SingleVoice (158) 1 year ago

As usual, you have to resort to labeling people that don't agree with you and name calling because you have nothing intelligent to add.

Go make your phone calls for your chosen leader. The fact that you do that for free shows how far you are in the tank for him. When you have something unbiased, factual and intelligent to add to the conversation, let us know.

Meanwhile, let me see if I can get some movement on getting Glass Steagle reinstated instead of the watered down version that accomplishes nothing in the Dodd-Frank bill and has yet to be implemented after 2 years.

Breaking up the big banks and stopping the corruption between Wall St and gov't is what OWS was initially about. Why would anyone with a brain support an admin that has not moved forward on breaking these big banks up and gives in to his contributors. The Dodd-Frank bill got watered down because of the influence of Wall St and corruption in congress as well as the admin. Even if it finally gets implemented, it will do nothing to break up these big banks. Let's get back on message here and work together to get GS back into law.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20543) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

I'm perfectly capable of disagreeing with people in a congenial manner. It isn't that difficult.

When one examines the difficulty of getting even the Frank-Dodd measure through Congress it becomes clear that breaking up the banks will necessarily require a great deal more public participation - read unrest, agitation, work stoppages and labor strikes nationwide - than we have seen thus far.

Given the level of disinformation and other distracting bullshit I've seen on this forum alone, combined with your own personal attacks on me, and then see you bring forth evidence from someone as credible as

  • breitbart

that gaseous fart

naturally I have you pegged as yet one more right wing stooge intent on sucking Koch and dissemination of Alec positions.

what can I say . . .

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Dude-

The quote you posted is from another POST put together by brightsonsage which referenced an article in the New York Times- so you're quoting brightsonsage-NOT the NYT. Here's a link to the actual article IN the NYT if you'd like to read it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/us/harder-for-americans-to-rise-from-lower-rungs.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20543) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

NYT less credible than breitbart - that sayz it all.

[-] 1 points by SingleVoice (158) 1 year ago

I suppose the Hill is wrong too. Why don't you investigate it yourself. Obviously you are close-minded to anything that doesn't support your claims.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20543) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

breitbart

wtf are you doing here?

go

away

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

What are they citing as the reason for all of the OTHER attacks against the Benghazi consulate in 2012?

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20543) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

I have no idea - I haven't had time to peruse all of the available information on this topic.

I would recommend the NYT - they often provide insight if you read carefully.

.

wait - scratch that. From your other posts it's clear the task is beyond you

[-] -1 points by alva (-442) 1 year ago

there had been terrorists threats for months, AND there were previous terrorist attacks on the embassy in benghazi.

[-] -2 points by podman73 (-652) 1 year ago

Singles right your carrying obamas water and it looks bad when you do that because he's to blame for this.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20543) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

bullshit

It's much more likely that someone in the intel department failed to keep a close eye on the militias in Benghazi - or worse - determined that in the expected wave of unrest following the viral spread of that video a sacrifice of the Ambassador was best suited to our foreign policy goals.

Decisions just like that rarely cross the President's desk.

And in any case - I repeat:

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Seems like there was plenty of intel-some of it even on FACEBOOK for crying out loud-that Ambassador Stevens was in danger constantly throughout 2012 prior to Sept 11th. So who in the hell sent him TO Benghazi that day? Why would a man whose journal demonstrates that he is afraid for his life voluntarily FLY INTO Benghazi on Sept 11th???????

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20543) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

I have no idea. The fact remains this kind of shit has been going on far longer than the President has been in office. The sacrifice of law enforcement or state department personal is not something new to this administration.

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

So then this administration has not been on of "change" and different practices. But you're fine with that in this case.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20543) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

well of course not - but it may prove useful from time to time. Now I suggest you apply to the foreign office, and seek employment in an international hot spot.

: D

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

You don't apply-you get assigned.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20543) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

yeah-ya -

your reassignment is in the works.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by podman73 (-652) 1 year ago

Just makes you look bad when you carry his water. Down with the 1% just not the dem 1% that's what it looks like you are saying.

[-] 3 points by ZenDog (20543) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

i don't care what it looks like - I try to bring common sense to the issue of how we get to a place where reasonable legislative progress can take place.

[-] -1 points by podman73 (-652) 1 year ago

As long as its not rep progress? Hard to be a revolutionary when you carry dem water nothing common about that.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

you are revolutionary? or just revolting?

[-] -1 points by podman73 (-652) 1 year ago

Depends on who you ask, I'm neither actually. I just have a bad habit of pointing out bullshit when I see it. When your spouting bullshit that would make you unhappy.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20543) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

all of you righties are completely full of shit. Most of you know it too.

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Nothing like a blanket indictment of an entire group of people to "bring common sense to the issue of how we get to a place where reasonable legislative progress can take place." (Your words in quotes)

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20543) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

well it's true - you're a bunch of fucking zealots and rabid deniers of fact.

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Please show me the facts we are denying.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20543) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

you could start with the reuters report and then examine both the title and the interpretation given in the forum post.

it's bullshit.

Keep on reading - I've been doing my best to keep you fools honest.

[-] -1 points by podman73 (-652) 1 year ago

Try applying the same standard to you democratic blinders.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20543) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

well maybe if you fukers would stop using lies to discredit everything you don't like, some of us could. As it is, you fools keep the rest of us pretty busy.

I thought that was the whole point . . . .

[-] -3 points by JackTG (-194) 1 year ago

Is it true that you work for the democrats?

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20543) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

I wish someone were handing me a paycheck - but no, I'm not working for the dems.

I do volunteer at a phone bank once a week on behalf of the President's reelection.

[-] -3 points by JackTG (-194) 1 year ago

So, you're an Obama lover? Volunteering is worse than working because you do it for free, out of love. And, here I am, spending my days protesting against Obama with Occupy.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20543) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

Given the nature of your response I take it you are in fact one of those wingnut libe(R)tarians . . . .

I don't love the President - I do have tremendous respect for him. You on the other hand, appear to be just another fool

[-] -2 points by JackTG (-194) 1 year ago

I'm against all who are corrupted and part of the 1%. I'm an anarchist. An occupier.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20543) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

could be but you really don't sound like one.

[-] 0 points by JackTG (-194) 1 year ago

No, I am against corruption. This is the truth. But, if it makes you feel good, you can call me a "troll" instead of countering my arguments, that's OK.

[-] 3 points by shadz66 (17677) 1 year ago

You have no "arguments" ! You are "against corruption" - so what d'you want ?!! A Fkn Medal ?!!! WhoTF is NOT against "corruption", ffs ? Only the 'corrupters' would be for "corruption", right ?

ad iudicium ...

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Against Obama? not against the wall st 1% plutocrats?

[-] -1 points by JackTG (-194) 1 year ago

Obama is part of the 1%. He's corrupted like all the 1%.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Right. You already said you are against Pres Obama.

My question was are you not against the wall st 1% plutocrats who crashed the world economy and continue to prey on the 99% and our families?

Or Is Pres Obama the only one you are against? Is he the only 1% plutocrat? Maybe there are others?

[-] 0 points by JackTG (-194) 1 year ago

I'm against all the 1% and all those who help the 1%. Obama helps the 1%. Romney helps the 1%. Most politicians help the 1%. I'm against all these people. I favor a governmental system where the people lead, or where the government truly works for the people, and not the owners of big corporations.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

You appear to only attack Pres Obama. You haven't attacked any other 1% oligarch!

And you certainly haven't pushed any positive govt sys, where people lead, & works for the people.

You only have anti Obama partisan campaign attacks.

You don't kiddin anyone.

Do you support the effort by NY AG (with fed govt) to sue Jp Morgan/Bear Sterns?

How do you feel about the congress defunding the effort to prosecute wall st 1%'rs? (fr almost $200 million to $20 million) Who is responsible for that?

[-] -1 points by JackTG (-194) 1 year ago

You appear to only attack Pres Obama. You haven't attacked any other 1% oligarch! And you certainly haven't pushed any positive govt sys, where people lead, & works for the people. You only have anti Obama partisan campaign attacks. You don't kiddin anyone. Do you support the effort by NY AG (with fed govt) to sue Jp Morgan/Bear Sterns? How do you feel about the congress defunding the effort to prosecute wall st 1%'rs? (fr almost $200 million to $20 million) Who is responsible for that?

Read my comment here. I attack all those part of the 1%, not just Obama: http://occupywallst.org/forum/its-all-lies-obama-didnt-know-intel-agencies-warne/#comment-847989

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

You linked to the same comment!

Very clever. But not proof that you attack anyone else. In fact you don't.

It's ok. A lot of people come here to only attack one politician. I think it is just anti Obama partisan campaigning.

There are important issues that all pols have been guilty of passing, or not fighting against.

You didn't comment on my questions regarding prosecutiing wall st 1% plutocrats.

Let me ask another!

Do you think all our problems are rooted in pro 1% conservative policies and the weak dems who vote for them?

[-] -1 points by podman73 (-652) 1 year ago

Zen is just a dem lapdog he will never look honestly at his god. Don't think he will logically demand the same from his masters as he does everyone else

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20543) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

I don't suppose the economy has anything to do with that?

Or maybe it is the design of the intell briefing itself . . . .

on the morning of Thursday, April 10, 2003, Donald Rumsfeld's Pentagon prepared a top-secret briefing for George W. Bush. This document, known as the Worldwide Intelligence Update, was a daily digest of critical military intelligence so classified that it circulated among only a handful of Pentagon leaders and the president; Rumsfeld himself often delivered it, by hand, to the White House. The briefing's cover sheet generally featured triumphant, color images from the previous days' war efforts: On this particular morning, it showed the statue of Saddam Hussein being pulled down in Firdos Square, a grateful Iraqi child kissing an American soldier, and jubilant crowds thronging the streets of newly liberated Baghdad. And above these images, and just below the headline secretary of defense, was a quote that may have raised some eyebrows. It came from the Bible, from the book of Psalms: "Behold, the eye of the Lord is on those who fear Him…To deliver their soul from death."

This mixing of Crusades-like messaging with war imagery, which until now has not been revealed, had become routine. . . .

Read More http://www.gq.com/news-politics/newsmakers/200905/donald-rumsfeld-administration-peers-detractors#ixzz289S7D394

[-] 0 points by Shayneh (-482) 1 year ago

We are not talking about what Bush, Cheny or Rumsfeld did - nor are we talking in "past terms" - we are talking about what Obama didn't do and we are talking in "present terms".

So tell me why Obama keeps stating this wasn't a "organized attack".

What is really interesting about this whole debachle is they made a comment that there were "non violent protests" going on at that time and this was an "unplanned attack".

So let me ask - when you have "non-violent protesters" in the street and all of a sudden you have 30 so called "non-violent protesters" walk in with AK-47's, rocket launchers and gernades do you really think those 30 so called "non-violent protesters" just out of the blue decided hey

I'm going to take my AK-47 with me to the protest and maybe I will bring my rocket launcher just in case there may be a problem. Makes perfect sense doesn't it?

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20543) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

you fucking scumbags really piss me off. If you are going to condemn the President the very least you can do is get your fucking facts straight.

you fukinnimroids

.

**(CNN)** -- Comments by U.S. officials regarding the September 11 attack that killed four Americans in Benghazi, Libya, have provoked controversy among some critics.

Some Republicans [sic] have accused the administration of being less than forthcoming about the causes of the incident, saying the administration has focused on "The Innocence of Muslims," the inflammatory online video mocking the Muslim Prophet Mohamed as the explanation for the attack.

Here's a rundown of notable statements by administration officials, publicly and in interviews with CNN:

September 12 -- President Barack Obama:

"The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack. ... No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation."

September 12 -- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton:

"We are working to determine the precise motivations and methods of those who carried out this assault. Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior, along with the protest that took place at our embassy in Cairo yesterday, as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. America's commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear -- there is no justification for this, none."


.

September 12 -- White House spokesman Jay Carney, in response to questions about whether the attack was planned:

"It's too early for us to make that judgment. I think -- I know that this is being investigated, and we're working with the Libyan government to investigate the incident. So I would not want to speculate on that at this time."

.


.

September 20 -- Jay Carney:

"It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Our embassy was attacked violently, and the result was four deaths of American officials."

September 20 -- President Obama at a town hall meeting organized by the Spanish-language Univsion Network, responding to a question about the possible involvement of al Qaeda:

"What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests."

September 21 -- Hillary Clinton:

"What happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack, and we will not rest until we have tracked down and brought to justice the terrorists who murdered four Americans."

September 25 -- President Obama on ABC's The View," in response interviewer Joy Behar's question, "I heard Hillary Clinton say it was an act of terrorism. Is it? What do you say?":

"We're still doing an investigation. There's no doubt that (with) the kind of weapons that were used, the ongoing assault, that it wasn't just a mob action. We don't have all the information yet, so we're still gathering it. But what's clear is that around the world there's still a lot of threats out there." Obama also said "extremist militias" were suspected to have been involved.

.

As far as protesters bringing their fucking weapons to a protest rally - it's happened here.

.

fukin nimroids

z

[-] -1 points by Shayneh (-482) 1 year ago

The facts have already been presented - when did Obama finally concur that it was a terrorist attack? Apparently everyone knew before he did.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20543) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

wtf? Statements posted above are fairly clear, aren't they?

Difficulty reading perhaps? IF so, all further typing will surely be futile

[-] -2 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

What on earth makes you think that Obama's intelligence briefing documents look ANYTHING like Bush's? And we're not talking about briefs in document form handed to the President daily-we're talking about the weekly MEETINGS between the Intelligence leaders and the President that OBAMA RARELY ATTENDS!

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20543) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

really? How do you know what the fuck is being discussed? I don't see that clarification anywhere in the posting.

On the contrary:

  • why-is-obama-skipping-more-than-half-of-his-daily-intelligence-

did you get that?

  • -daily-intelligence-

from this link: http://occupywallst.org/forum/its-all-lies-obama-didnt-know-intel-agencies-warne/#comment-847043

Why don't you learn to read

.

fukinnimroids

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Losing track of your arguments are you?

Uneasy posted- "Intelligence reports he receives?

NO. He's been skipping them."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-is-obama-skipping-more-than-half-of-his-daily-intelligence-meetings/2012/09/10/6624afe8-fb49-11e1-b153-218509a954e1_story.html

Note link says "skipping MEETINGS"

Why did you leave that word OFF if you can read it? I said weekly which is my bad.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20543) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

because I was pointing out your incorrect assertion that the information indicated he was skipping his weekly meetings - which is not the case.

I didn't want to confuse you with too much information.

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

So then why did you include this crap regarding the DAILY DIGEST given to Bush?

"on the morning of Thursday, April 10, 2003, Donald Rumsfeld's Pentagon prepared a top-secret briefing for George W. Bush. This document, known as the Worldwide Intelligence Update, was a daily digest of critical military intelligence so classified that it circulated among only a handful of Pentagon leaders and the president; Rumsfeld himself often delivered it, by hand, to the White House. The briefing's cover sheet generally featured triumphant, color images from the previous days' war efforts: On this particular morning, it showed the statue of Saddam Hussein being pulled down in Firdos Square, a grateful Iraqi child kissing an American soldier, and jubilant crowds thronging the streets of newly liberated Baghdad. And above these images, and just below the headline secretary of defense, was a quote that may have raised some eyebrows. It came from the Bible, from the book of Psalms: "Behold, the eye of the Lord is on those who fear Him…To deliver their soul from death."

This mixing of Crusades-like messaging with war imagery, which until now has not been revealed, had become routine. . . .

Read More <http://www.gq.com/news-politics/newsmakers/200905/donald-rumsfeld-administration-peers-detractors#ixzz289S7D394>"

Please tell me how an excerpt about a DAILY DIGEST given to Bush every day clears up anything about Obama skipping his DAILY meetings?

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20543) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

I was pointing out past license taken by the Sec Def regarding the choreography behind the briefing.

That seems like a pretty ballsy move from a subordinate to their superior - I have no idea what might or might not prevent such nonsense today. I assume no one is going to present the current President with Biblical Citation as a means of reinforcing the message or the policy - but there are certainly other methods that might be applied -

I don't know that such measures are being applied - I was only pointing out the past record - and the possibility.

IF that happens to be the case - I think I'd skip it myself.

Practically speaking, the economy may be the biggest reason for his lack of attendance - but again, I'm not in the loop.

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

You seem to be implying that the Sec of Def during the Bush years was doing something the then president didn't approve of or mandate or ask for....with no evidence to back that up.

Note-if you read the article you responded to-it says that Bush was handed a printed daily brief to read and THEN he went to the meetings every day.

You also seem to be implying that Obama is attending so many other meetings regarding the economy that he doesn't have time for his INTEL meetings...or is it that you think he's so depressed about the economy he can't make it downstairs in the morning?

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20543) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

You seem to be implying that the Sec of Def during the Bush years was doing something the then president didn't approve of or mandate or ask for....with no evidence to back that up.

.

I just said it was ballsy - whether Bush approved or not I can't say. He may have.

As for the President's schedule - I have no information. I'm not included in the consultation. I imagine he keeps himself busy. He's a workaholic. How do you think he got the job?

[-] -2 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

For a workaholic he sure goes on a lot of vacations and plays a lot of golf.

He got the job because people voted for him. If you think Obama's work history demonstrates a "workaholic" mentality, then Romney must be blowing your mind.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20543) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago
[-] -1 points by Shayneh (-482) 1 year ago

It's interesting to note that Bush never missed a meeting - That just goes to show how much Bush was concerned with what was going on in the world with regard to major issues.

Obama on the other hand doesn't have time for it - and it has been showing within the last few weeks. Even now he shows no concerne

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Bush ignored the warning that "Al Qaeda was intent on striking inside us" during the summer of 2001. Instead of doing anything he went on a month long vacation.

And in so doing allowed the worst attack on US soil!

Pres Obama/intelligence may have failed at preventing an attack on our embassy but that pales in comparison to your boy Bush!

In any event this weak attack on Pres Obama hugely successful Foreign policy is just more anti Obama partisan campaign attacks.

The dems and Pres Obama are 1000 times better at using the US military.

We have reduced US military killings from 1 million+ under repubs to thousands. We can protest against the remaining military mistakes and get a dem to implement real change. Your repubs have already promised to expand, escalate, & spend more on defense.

The choice is easy.

You got nothing.

[-] 1 points by Uneasy (19) 1 year ago

Oh? Really? What SPECIFIC ACTIONABLE INTELLIGENCE was in that report?

Were there dates and times and methods describing how the attack would happen in the "summer of 2001"?

It's not like Bush had Bin Laden on a silver platter ready for assassination, unlike Bill Clinton/Sandy Berger did.

Hugely successful foreign policy by Obama? Hilarious! Howzat "Arab Spring" workin' out?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Bush failed to prevent the 9/11 attacks! Period! I don't buy the sniveling excuses that support that war criminal! Give it up!.

And didn't Bush LET bin Laden escape from Tora Bora? I thought Bush/neocons wanted to keep Bin Laden alive so they could continue the endless war on terror that allowed them to perpetrate the fear mongering that allowed them to attack any oil producing country, pass constitutional violations, combine many govt union jobs in Homelend security and strip their collective bargaining rights & much much more of the neocon agenda!

Can't push that evil agenda if Bin Laden is dead& the "terrorist threat minimized! Isn't that why Bush pulled out of Afghan after the gas pipeline deal was signed?

Arab spring is not Pres Obama policy. How we deal with it is by allowing the people of these countries to choose their own govts.

So you got a problem with that? Speak up! Neocon boy!

[-] -2 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Bush received the briefing that Bin Laden was intent on striking inside the US on Aug 6th, 2001 WHILE he was vacationing on his ranch in Texas. 36 days before the attacks occurred. (Obama AND all of the embassies in DANGEROUS areas of the middle east know that the Anniversary of Sept 11 comes every year. Which is why its so odd that an ambassador wasn't inside of a protected embassy or out of the region on that day...why WAS he there, and so unprotected....especially on THAT day?????)

After the attacks, it was discovered that the CIA and the FBI were not coordinating their intell-which is why the report of Aug 6th didn't contain more ominous warnings/details than it did. The Bush administration DID put all law enforcement agencies on alert-but NO ONE even conceived of a "new" form of hijacking in which the airplanes taken would be used as missiles themselves.

"Mr. Bush's anger after Sept. 11 that intelligence gathered on American soil and abroad was not being centrally analyzed and that the agencies were not working well together."

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/16/us/bush-was-warned-bin-laden-wanted-to-hijack-planes.html?pagewanted=2&src=pm

Please provide documentation of Obama's "hugely successful foreign policy".....I'd love to see it.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

We killed OBL, and ended Bushes illegal oils war in Iraq. We have prevented any major terrorist attack against the US, We have reduced US military killing from the repub 1 million+ to thousands. We have managed the Arab spring transition from despotic, brutal dictators to govts chosen by the people.

And using planes as weapons was not a new concept. So your weak attempt at excusing, & covering for the incompetent, war criminal republicans is just a reflection of you blind partisanship!

Bush was Pres when the US was attacked on 9/11. He does not get a pass for his failure.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

"We have prevented terrorist attacks"...Ok Bush. Nice line.

PS- 10k mercenaries and drones in Iraq isnt ending anything. Unless you really fall head over heals for talking points.

As far as OBL, next time the dollar hits lows like that, and silver is on a high, look for another diversion so that they can raise margin rates on precious metals 4 times in the next FIVE DAYS to supress metals and bring the dollar back up.

Im sure we caught the "global leader in terrorism" and decided to just put a bullet in his head. What a joke. If that was true, it would be the biggest intelligence blunder ever in the history of the CIA.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

"intelligence blunder"? what blunder?

So you are saying we haven't prevented terrorist attacks on the homeland? Are do you object because Bush uttered this defense?

You do not believe we've ended the Iraq war 'cause we have troops there? We have troops in 1000 different places! Are we at war with Japan, and Germany? No! You know the difference. Your anti Obama partisanship doesn't allow you to be honest and give him his proper respect & credit.

No credit for killing OBL? Are you suggesting we didn't kill him? Or just that is was a wag the dog distraction from economic problems? Kinda conspiratorial.

Your anti Obama partisanship is transparent.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

I dont like Obama, he has completely betrayed the position and our nation. I dont like Bush either, I will always place him as the worst ever, especially with that idiot grin he used to have.

I used to think Clinton was decent, till I started studying this gloablist move in our nation and realized he's just as guilty as the rest. Bush Sr was CIA, so anything he touched should be dubbbed shit (80-92).

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Cool. Everyone sucks except your3rd party guy.

Good luck with all your good efforts!

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

The ones that dont suck, in the D/R scam, get cast out. Its go with the flow or get the fuck out. Its a shame, because those two are destroying the future of our kids. The people havent created their own party in over 100yrs, it shows how complacent we are.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Oh well. Whatayagonnado!

Let me find a corner to crawl into!

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Or you could get out and campaign with some new groups/parties, and at least go down fighting.

But, I guess crawling into a D/R corner is always an option too.

If you cant beat em, join em, right?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I fight with many groups.

I have not surrendered my govt to the 2 parties either. I intend to force change through the system while the new sys from the bottom up, horizontally is being developed.

Good luck creating change with your 3rd party. I'm gonna fight to force the pols in power to serve the 99%.

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

We killed OBL but have not irradiated Al Qaeda.

The fact that there have not been any "major terrorist attacks" does not equate to stopping/thwarting any planned ones.

The Arab spring most likely removed one brand of despotic, brutal dictator and installed another. Let's wait and see how that turns out shall we?

So what exactly IS Obama's foreign policy? So far as I can see, it's give guns to friendlier terrorists to overthrow their government, which they then use against you, Ignore and denigrate our longest and ONLY ally in the Middle East while playing footsee under the table with our ally's enemies, and go to Vegas when your Ambassador's and others are killed by terrorists you continue to say aren't a threat.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

"irradiated"? huh? Well we have eliminated many more Al Qaeda leaders than that weakling Bush did! In fact we are in the process of eradicating Al Qaeda! And declaring an END to the war on terror.

No repub would do that because they love using fear and the endless war on terror to push their agenda, of constitutional violations, union busting by combining all fed workers into Homeland sec & removing collective bargaining rigghts and the right to strike, also repubs have misused the war on terror to push vote suppression voter id schemes.

The US foreign policy is to abandon the brutal dictators we have propped up (creating terrorists) and not interfering with the ME peoples govt choices.

That is the RIGHT thing. What do you suggest.? Invade!!!!???? Is that what you want?

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

"This information must have come across the desk of Obama but I guess he was in campaign mode and was more concerned about writing his speeches."


Its easy to accuse without proof - do you dare wait for the truth ?

[-] 1 points by SingleVoice (158) 1 year ago

They knew about the attack in Libya 48 hours before our Ambassador was murdered. They did nothing to beef up security. In fact, there was no security. The marines that died got involved because they happened to be there, not because they were assigned. There was no security. Steven's diary states that he was afraid of a terrorist attack leading up to the attack. Our state dept did nothing to protect him or our embassy staff. This has all been a coverup to keep Obama propped up before the election.

Another thing never reported since 9/11 was that the crowd was chanting Obama, Obama, we are all Usama. They were retaliating for the killing of bin Laden (which because of the election has become of part of the President's platform-"I killed Osama and saved GM") and retaliating on the anniversary of bin Laden's greatest achievement, 9/11. We have a president who doesn't meet for his daily security briefings, possibly doesn't even read them, leaves all of our embassies in the Middle East with no added security let alone minimal security during the anniversary of our enemies great achievement and the marines at the embassy in Egypt didn't even have live ammo. Why is no one being held accountable for the dereliction of duty of this president's administration to protect and defend those serving overseas and the coverup of events that happened. This is worse than watergate and Iran-Contra. No one was killed in either of those coverups. The administration as recently as this past weekend is still blaming a video that they are using as a scapegoat.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/libya-we-gave-us-threeday-warning-of-benghazi-attack-8145242.html http://www.npr.org/2012/09/25/161759775/cnn-defends-reporting-on-slain-ambassadors-diary http://www.businessinsider.com/tunisian-embassy-protesters-chanted-obama-obama-we-are-all-osamas-2012-9 http://www.inquisitr.com/330528/marines-at-us-embassy-in-egypt-were-not-given-live-ammo-usmc-blogs-claim/

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Actually the article is wrong. Ambassador Stevens was NOT being protected by active duty marines when he died. He was being protected by THE STATE DEPARTMENT.

"Marine Corps spokeswoman Capt. Kendra Motz said that Marines were not posted to the consulate, unlike the embassy in the capital, Tripoli."

"A senior administration official Wednesday called the Benghazi consulate “an interim facility,” which the State Department began using “before the fall of Qadhafi.” It was staffed Tuesday by Libyan and State Department security officers."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81134.html#ixzz28AHWKy92

So tell me, why was a US Ambassador in an unprotected consulate, in one of the most dangerous territories in the Middle East, with only State Department Security on September 11th ???? Especially in light of all the other attacks and hostilities that had occurred there in 2012 prior to Sept 11????

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/02/u-s-consulate-in-benghazi-bombed-twice-in-run-up-to-9-11-anniversary.html

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20543) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

with only State Department Security

He wasn't - as you just said. He also had Libyan security as well. AT least one of them was shot.

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

I deeply apologize-he had "Libyan" security as well. No active Marine protection.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20543) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

Blame repelican policy of privatization. We shouldn't be hiring private contractors to do a Marines job.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

A lot of those contractors are ex marines.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20543) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

A couple of the men who died were former seals.

Then they became mercenaries.

Far better it would be if the State Department hired them directly. I'm sure the government would actually save money . . .

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

I know some contractors like that, and they make about 150k tax free a year, all expenses paid for. Most in the military would love a paycheck like that haha.

The gov is moving to private armies because it saves them face. Like in Iraq, just plug in 10k mercenaries and few drones, and you can say you ended the war/occupation, but you really still have the strength there. The people dont do their homework, so their view of the gov goes up.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20543) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

The government is moving toward Mercenaries because fucking scumbag deregulationists are intent on stripping the government the means of defending the public against the oligarchic empires that have grown up in America - and one of the ways they do that is by draining financial resources from the public vault.

It's another thousand dollar hammer.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

I dont think its so much that as much as it is it makes for better PR, and managing public opinion has always been rule number one in all these "democracies"...

[-] 1 points by Shayneh (-482) 1 year ago

This Administration is so ignorant when it comes how to manage this country that Obama needs to be impeached.

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1266) from Milwaukee, WI 1 year ago

Good luck with that.

[-] -1 points by CitizenofAmerika (-71) 1 year ago

His worshippers don't care. They get free phones!

[-] -2 points by podman73 (-652) 1 year ago

There should of been armed guards protecting our people. Whoever the moron was that said no to that be it Obama or an underling is partly reap. For those deaths.

[-] 0 points by alva (-442) 1 year ago

this was supposed to be a false flag operation, stevens being taken prisoner and obama negotiating his release , just in time for the election. EXCEPT that the muslims didnt get the memo, they raped tortured and murdered stevens.

[-] -1 points by podman73 (-652) 1 year ago

That's what happened when you make a deal with the devil

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Our entire foreign policy is an absolute disaster in the ME, from teh moment we decided we were going to ride in and carve the place up as we saw fit.

Globalists have a hard time minding their own business.

[-] -1 points by podman73 (-652) 1 year ago

As do extremist.