E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSPresident Obama believes the violence in Libya was a terrorist attack, White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters today, the first explicit acknowledgement of the president's view on the nature of the attack.
"It is certainly the case that it is our view as an administration, it is the presidents view, that it was a terrorist attack," Carney said during a gaggle with reporters aboard Air Force One Wednesday morning.
His administration's view for about a week has in fact been that the attack was an act of terrorism, but the president himself has refrained from characterizing it as such, even when asked point-blank about it during an interview that aired Tuesday on ABC's "The View."
Asked by co-host Barbara Walters whether the attack was terrorism, the president responded, "There's no doubt that the kind of weapons that were used, the ongoing assault, that it wasn't just a mob action."
And during his remarks at the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday the president referred to the deadly Benghazi consulate attack as an “assault on America” but stopped short of calling it terrorism.
The president’s seeming reluctance to use the term “terrorism” was further highlighted by comments Libyan President Mohammed Magarief made to NBC’s Ann Curry during an interview that aired Thursday.
Magarief did not back down from labeling the attack as terrorism even while trying to walk a fine line.
“This is how I am calling it as…a Libyan official," he said. "But it is for President Obama, Secretary Clinton to describe the way they like and they feel right. I mean, you have your terminology. And we have our terminology. It's an act of terror."
Magarief also contradicted the White House and other administration officials on the nature of the attack saying that outrage over a controversial movie about the prophet Muhammad had “nothing to do with this attack.”
Today Carney repeated that the investigation into the Benghazi attack was “ongoing.” He continued that the administration has provided information “Not based on speculation, but based on what we know.”
Leave a Comment:
He lied from day 1. What did he accomplish besides putting us on a path to destruction.
Romney all the way!
The Libyan Attack wasn't an act of terror. It happened because the Obama Administration did not do anything to provide security for the ambassador and his aides. It was also because the U.S. Government allowed a film to be produced and released that offended Muslims.
Obama has been angling for a new group to attack the United States so he could easily get re-elected. Democrats did the same thing during the Clinton Administration by angering The Taliban, which resulted in the attacks on our country on September 11th and ended up with President Bush getting re-elected because of the outrage over the 9/11 attacks.
This is a president who is so desperate to get re-elected that he would risk the ambassador's life by not providing proper security and protection for the U.S. Ambassador who was serving this country in Libya.
I blame Obama, not terrorism and despite what that idiot in the White House is saying, this was not an act of terrorism but an act of anger from Muslims who were angry over that movie that criticized the prophet Muhammad.
Clinton "angered" the Taliban, by attacking Al Qaeda terrorist camps in Afghanistan, with cruise missiles, in response to the attacks on two of our East African Embassies, in which a large number of people were killed.
The lack of adequate security MAY HAVE BEEN an encouragement for the Benghazi attacks, but it was the terrorists who were responsible for the murders of four Americans, including our Ambassador.
Why would an attack on the U.S. now be helpful to an Obama re-election?
Limbaugh Logic.
Just another attempt to deflect attention from another Romney campaign failure.
@wolfe246: That is simply a preposterous conspiratorial assertion with no credible supporting evidence.
I am not an Obama supporter...but your post does nothing to sway voters away from his re-election.
Obama bin lying again.
this story matters. defending this nation is the most presidential thing a president does.
Obama is the kind of man that would stand by and try to reason with a bully all the while the bully was punching his front teeth out.
Why dont any of you liberals care that Obama is a coward?
The Obama Administration has killed more of the Al Qaeda leadership in three+ years, than the Bush Administration killed or captured in eight. Largely because he is willing to track them in what was a "safe haven" to them during the Bush Administration...i.e. Pakistan.
Very few wars are fought without the loss of a battle. Benghazi was a lost battle. We continue to win the war.
P.S. If you think Obama needs to be censured over Benghazi, then you must have been calling for the impeachment of Bush, the day after 9/11.
Took you all this time to figure it out? What a joke.
Whether it was a "spontaneous outburst of anti-American outrage" or a "coordinated terrorist attack" does not matter.
The fact that the Obama Adminstration did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about it is what chills me to the bone. Such inaction sends a signal to the world. It tells the enemies of the United States that they can carry out attacks against America and American interests around the world and there will be no repercussions.
In the darkest of times in America's history, we need a STRONG leader; a man brave enough to put America's interests first. What we have now is either a genuine coward, or a wolf in sheeps clothing. It's so hard to tell. But alienating many, if not all, of America's allies is a significant clue.
We've been hearing stories all over the news that Al Qaeda has morphed BEYOND the scope of Osama bin Laden. So much so, that by the time Navy seals caught up with him in Pakistan, he was no longer relevant to their cause.
And what did we learn from that surgical strike? We learned that Pakistan is not an ally, but an enemy of The United States. And what did the Obama Administration do about that?
...absolutely NOTHING.
I'm fearful that four more years of this nonsense will render the United States laughable as a world power.
What would you have done?
Simple explanation for Obama not wanting to call this a terrorist attack by Al Qaeda - this is the first attack of Americans on US soil by Al Qaedo since 9/11. He is NOT keeping us safer.
No...but, until I researched it, I would have made the same argument. Embassies and Consulates are protected by treaties between the Embassy's country and the host country, but are no longer considered "sovereign territory," in international law.
That does not excuse either the State Department or the Libyan government from failing to provide adequate security, which may have diverted or stopped the attack.
Let the investigation proceed and let the chips fall where they may.
Overall, and despite the horrific and sad death of four U.S. State Department personnel, including the Ambassador, we are "winning the war" against Al Qaeda, but Benghazi was a battle lost.
I guess the White House just thinks everyone is a dem. dumb and needs to be led! It took me about 15 seconds to realize that it was terror, how dumb is the White House, crazy Muslim extremists boy they love America. When will we defend our people, we are under attack!!!!
...
The administration knew within 24 hours that the assassinations were the result of a terror attack yet sent Susan Rice out to lie to America 5 ( five ) days later.
Maybe her lying is too harsh a statement.
At the very least, she may not have been told the truth herself and was sent out to spread the lies of the administration, honestly believing what she was saying was the truth.
In either scenario, the American people were lied to and a political coverup ensued.
And at the very best, Ms. Rice was thrown under the bus.
If the latter is true, I'm sure she feels she is a really special person in heirarchy of this administration.
notice also that the president has not, himself, said publicly the attack ans assassinations were the result of terror attacks. Get ready for the scenario, as in the case of Eric Holder, that HE WAS NOT TOLD.
...
Right after the attacks he was trying to lead us to believe it was all because of that film. Guess he finally had to see the reality and call it what it was. Remember his speech way back when he said that muslims would love and respect him and would do us no harm as long as he was president. Yeah, that really went well for him. They still hate us, and him.
The obama administration caught yet in ANOTHER lie! The liberals, and democrats are nothing but lying POS like their leader obama the dumbo. Cant wait until America is cleansed of this filth. Fact...if you libs/dems mouth is open 99% of the time BS lies are coming out.
Obama, and the rest of the Liberals are all cowards. America sees you for the weak people that you are.
Hmmm? Do you believe in your rights as an individual, States' Rights and Limited Government?
All Administrations lie to the American people, including this one. The incumbent is particularly adept at evading straight answers. If this were a Republican Administration, this web site would be demanding a Congressional investigation about what the President knew, and when he knew it. It is comical for any of the incumbent's supporters to stand behind him in this instance. This is nothing more than a feeble attempt to deceive the American prople.
Over what?
I see where Rush was preparing for Romney's defeat today, by laying the foundation for placing the blame on his listeners - i.e. they couldn't keep the faith, in the face of liberal media.
Stone6 - We have unfinished business.
The Gramm-Leach-Bliley act in and of itself did not cause the credit crisis that wrecked our economy. The amendment of a beefed up version of CRA probably did more.
The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 was not amemded to the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, it was a beefed up version. This required that lending institutions meet pass its anti-redlining test before it could merge. That was the entire reason for the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act
The derivatives market was unregulated and remains unregulated. Warnings were made during the Clinton administration.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/view/
Now work that with the Friends of Angelo who used their influence.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48081344/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/t/lawmakers-got-loan-deals-countrywide/
I'd agree that the lack of regulation in the derivatives markets is a problem and that Born was right. I've seen the Frontline piece. I don't exclude Clinton from some of the blame. However, that said, there have been numerous studies trying to find a casual link between the CRA and the subprime crisis and none has been found. That includes a dissenting report, by Republican economists, in the Final Report of the National Commission on the Causes of the Financial and DEconomic Crisis in the United States:
"As an example, non-credit derivatives did not in any meaningful way cause or contribute to the financial crisis. Neither the Community Reinvestment Act nor the removal of the Glass-Steagall firewall was a signficiant cause. The crisis can be explained without resorting to these factors." [Page 414].
I would agree with you that something along the lines of Glass-Steagall is needed and that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission should have more regulatory powers regarding derivatives, but the principal causes of the meltdown had to do with the factors I previously discussed (not having to hold paper at the initial lending level, poor risk management models, poor ratings, over leverage, etc., etc.
On the Countrywide VIP deals...both political Parties were involved...wrong, but doesn't strike me as being that unusual.
Gotta go run errands...will check back for a reply in 2-3 hrs.
Stone6
What I am really, really interested in is knowing how you and your fellow liberals lay the blame solely on George Bush when he did not pass any of those bills or deregulations.
You can play your video of him encouraging home ownership by the poor and I can play my videos of Barney Frank and Maxine Waters including the Congressional Black Caucus swearing there was no need for regulation.
You are mixing apples and oranges. For one thing, it wasn't just a speech saying how much he thought home-ownership contributed to a stable society (his Ownership Society philosophy). It was a specific program to develop, build and sell (with government help), 5.5 million new homes, over a ten year period, for low income minorities. I can quote you his speech, but it's easy to research by googling "Bush June 2, 2002 Speech in Atlanta."
The Frank, Waters, Watts, et al video is, I believe, from 2003. I've pointed out that in 2004, HUD was establishing more aggressive affordable housing goals for the GSEs. What that tells me is that the Bush Administration believed the GSEs were UNDER-PARTICIPATING in underwriting subprime loans. In 2003, I believe the Bush proposal was to move the GSEs under the Treasury Department giving them more direct control. There were OTHER reasons to be concerned: the accounting scandal, moral hazard, etc. Sub-prime loans were not a GSE problem at the time...nor, to my knowledge, is there any evidence to support the thesis that the Administration felt it was. A year later, the Administration was pressuring the GSEs to underwrite MORE sub-prime loans.
in other words, you are assuming a nexus between two unrelated types of regulation...the GSEs and the banks.
Who specifically? Greenspan, who though not under Bush, had been appointed by him. Congress had given Greenspan the power to regulate the front-line lenders, not subject to the CRA regs. He declined to exercise the power based on his libertarian ideas about market self-regulation.
Christopher Cox, former head of the SEC, who I believe testified that one of the worst decisions in his life was in allowing the investment banks to set their own leverage limits.
Former OFHEO Director Armando Falcon and his successor, James Lockhart. Paulson notes that one problem in putting the GSEs into conservatorship, ion addition to having to use his "bazooka" was the fact that Lockhart had only recently signed off on reports from the GSEs that attested to their "financial soundness."
Alphonso Jackson, Bush's Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, who took part in the establishment of HUD's affordable housing goals.
The Office of Thrift Supervision, that oversaw (in conjunction with the SEC) the investment bank holding companies.
The Office of the Comptroller and Currency, another bank oversight agency, that squelched a multiple States Attorney General's lawsuit against major banks for fraud and predatory lending, by invoking Civil War legislation giving them power over the States.
The assorted Administration economists and officials, who testified during the first part of 2008, after the Bear Srearns buy-out by JPMorganChase, that falling home prices were "just a correction." Or, "a blip in an otherwise strong economy," or "gthe fundamentals are sound."
Was the bubble intentionally created? I don't know, but it did result in a temporary economic stimulus, ion terms of revenue and employment. As long as that was occurring, it seems to me no one in the Administration wanted to be the one who asked the question begging to be answered: How can all of these poor people avoid these mortgages?
Finally...there is a big difference between claiming this was all Barney's fault and admitting that Republicans shared in the blame.
George Bush warned of a looming financial crisis in 2001. Here is the video that bears witness:
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&NR=1
He warned of a systemic failure in 2003
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&feature=grec_index
The shadow banking system is a financial system that exists outside the normal state regulations of regular banking systems. This system consists of instruments such as hedge funds, money market funds and structured investment vehicles.
For example, prior to the financial crisis, investment banks financed mortgages through off-balance sheet securitizations and hedged risk through off-balance sheet credit default swaps also known as derivatives
The volume of transactions in the shadow banking system grew dramatically after the year 2000. By late 2007 the size of the SBS in the U.S. exceeded $10 trillion and by late 2011 had increased to $24 trillion according to the Financial Stability Board.
BTW, Alan Greenspan was hired by Bill Clinton.
Idon't know a lot about this but I do know it was not started by George Bush and it is beginning to look like it will not be ended by Barack Obama.
Alan Greenspan was first appointed Federal Reserve Chairman by Ronald Reagan, in August 1987.
Bush (and others) complained of the moral hazard in having quasi-supported private corporations being "too big to fail" (which most notably applied to the banks). In other words, their shear size in terms of size of the real estate market they underwrote, would lead to tremondous pressures for tax-payer bailouts, IF they failed.
So, in that sense, Bush was right. However, in 2003, they were not that heavily invested in sub-prime mortgages, so while there was a "theoritical, philosophical concern" there was, at that time, no practical concern.
In fact, it was only following the Bush Administration's push on the GSEs, through HUD, that they increased their participation in the sub-prime market.
Representative Oxley (head of the House Committee on Financial Services - the Committee on which Frank was the ranking minority member until January 2007), in fact was prepared to bring legislation to the floor, strengthening the oversight authority of exisgting agencies over the GSEs, including caps on the types of loans carried in their portfolios, but could not find Republican support in the Senate or White House to support the legislation, presumably because of their support for a brand-new regulatory agency, under the Treasury Department. Oxley contributed the White House position as "ideologically rigid."
I've worked in both the private sector and government. During the Bush years, I saw instances of the same thing...an ideological position, that in fact was reinforced by actions that led to self-fulfilling prophecies, in regard to agency failures.
[One such instance was the Administration's desire to "privatize" certain agency functions because of the philosophy that the private sector could ALWAYS outperform government in quality and cost. In this case, the agency challenged the political decision and a third pafrty independent consultant was brought in to evaluate the agency proposal versus submitted private sector proposals. That evaluation determined the functions could be done better and at less cost than the private sector bids. Nevertheless, the agency was overruled by political appointees and the functions went to the private secrtor. It lasted about two years, before poor quality and cost overruns led the functions being returned to the agency and the suncontracts terminated. Now, some of this goes on in every Administration - Democratic or Republican - primarily in terms of "pay-offs" to political contributors. But, the Bush Administration was the first I'd experienced wherein it was so wide-spread and based on an ideological purity, so strong that it blinded appointees to reality.]
And, of course, Romney is now assembling pretty much the same team of neo-cons in foreign policy and supply-side economists on domestic policy.
P.S. I don't disagree with you about "shadow banking."
Bill Clinton nominated Greenspan to the Fed on January 4, 2000 which was in plenty of time to get his assistance in pushing through The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000
So what bill(s) did Bush sign that deregulated the banking industry? How was he involved in the shadow banking system? Who pushed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 through Congress.
So far Stone you have talked about philosophies and suspected intentions. We have actions in the form of bills and laws. We have lawmakers that were in charge of powerful committees that were in the pockets of some of the worst offenders of the sub prime scandal. But all the liberals want to do is blame Bush and cry about conservatives blaming Obama. And you quote a statement made by Bush way back in 2001 yet you can't pin any action to it
Bush is not any more to blame for the sub prime crisis than Obama.
Why do you hate Bush so much that you are willing to blame the world's worse problems on him without proof, and you have no proof.
And you liberals call conservatives dumb. Remember there are still derivatives that remain unregulated despite Dodd/Frank.
Obama has lied to the American public he has known since day one that this was terrorism in fact he knew it was terrorism when he sent Ambassador Rice out on the talk circut. This is unexceptable behaviour from any of our leaders and we the American people deserve better then this from Obama.
I hope you are ashamed of yourself NBC for not reporting on the lies of this president. You are doing a diservice to the country as a whole.
The reason Obama is trying to cover up the fact that this was an act of terrorism, for those of you who don't understand, is because he had intelligence reports on the dangers in Libya and had the opportunity to reinforce security on the embassy, yet he chose to do nothing! He is inept, apathetic, and only concerned with getting re-elected. He is a coward for not manning up to the fact that his administration made a mistake.
How do you know these things?
There may be one reason most of the media is in the presidents pocket. Whatever happened to the bill that was sitting in the FCC that would allow media moguls to own more media outlets (newspapers, radio stations, etc.) than currently now allowed by law? Didn't this administration appoint a new head of the FCC?