So the people on the ground there that witnessed the attack , you don't trust Them? They have a political axe to grind?

@macdaddy: As you may be aware, 60 Minutes interviewed one of the people that claimed to be on the ground that night, with detailed information. Later that account was discredited and correspondent Lara Logan was forced off the air. So again...

So one idiot that was seeking attention discredits the heros that were there ....
Dude, you seek whatever reasoning you can find to help your president.....
I can't go through life with blinders on .....I will call a spade a spade when need be

@macdaddy: I thanked your post MD because I find it ironic you would say that. When asked on this board whether or not the U.S. should attack Syria you refused to answer. I'm glad to note you call a spade a spade. So do you care to answer the Syrian question now?

@rocket: He has not laid out a consistent narrative. It has been contradictory. Here it is simple....Why was the "video" story even an idea to be talked about, if it was known to be a terrorist attack from the beginning? Simple answer requested.

I answered it... Look back

@Fairlane67: The simple answer might be that the primary bureaucracies, WH, State, and CIA were not in agreement with each other before the "video" story went out. Secondly, it is highly possible they didn't know for fact certain whether it was a terrorist attack at that moment in time. Third, if it was then what group was responsible? I said in one of my previous post that the initial statements were premature in my view. But I opinioned their hand was forced by MItt Romney. Still they should have waited to say anything. That's just me.

Simple? So are you saying that the President did not know it was a terrorist attack from the get go?Edit* I believe as I read this again...you are confirming that yours and the Presidents statements, are contradictory as I have said.

@Fairlane67: I believe it's possible he did not. Keep in mind the President wasn't there. So he is depending upon advisors and the intelligence apparatus to tell him exactly what occurred. Also keep in mind that a President just cannot walk out in front of the nation and make a statement where there has been loss of life without all the facts. Because had he declared it was FOR SURE a terrorist attack then the next question would have been who did it? What was their motivation? Why didn't we know about it? And if we did know beforehand why weren't we prepared? And on it would have went.That's why in the Rose Garden, after many briefings I'm sure, he did mention the T word but in my view quite cautiously. And rightly so because investigations are still on-going within the government apparatus. And as I have said some of what they conclude might never be made public because it can't be.

I think you have confirmed my point. The President intentionally misled at the time...made up narratives trying to deflect for the election. And still will not own up to any responsibility, either directly or indirectly in connection to the lack of security measures, and the subsequent loss of life in this attack. The subsequent violation of civil rights inflicted on the video maker. And most importantly, the rights of Americans to know what their elected officials are doing when challenged with the job they have been elected to do.

Yep

@Fairlane67: I don't think I confirmed your point at all. And I don't agree with your narrative of the situation. So as people must do sometimes, we will have to agree to disagree-again. It's all good

The evidence confirms my point.

Yes it does .... But if you are a Obama goalie and apologist you can spin anything to your point if view eventually.....