Why do Republicans claim that Obama lied about Libya?

[Isis is holding on to a fading flower]

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arch...n_ref_map=[]

" The U.S Consulate in Benghazi burns following an attack in September. (Reuters)

High-profile Republican politicians and their media surrogates are accusing President Obama and other top White House staff of "lying" to the public about last month's deadly assault on America's diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya.

This accusation not only misses the mark but also demonstrates how profoundly the accusers misunderstand how intelligence works. In fact, the White House's evolving timeline for what happened in Benghazi is proof of precisely the opposite of what the breathless accusers suggest -- it is a sign of a normal, healthy intelligence process.

To believe that the initial statements about what happened in Benghazi were a lie, one has to assume: (1) The administration had all the facts, even as the situation was evolving; (2) the administration chose to tell a deliberately false story about those facts; and (3) the story it told was consistent, with no administration official contradicting the official line. There is little evidence to support any of these three pillars of the Republican case against the White House.

To be clear, I don't have access to the raw or finished intelligence detailing the particulars of the Benghazi investigation. (If I did, I wouldn't be writing this.) But I did serve as a CIA analyst during the Bush Administration, and I authored dozens of finished products on terrorists and their strategies. I have seen how this process works. When intelligence from a conflict zone is assessed, the results are not clear, linear, or static. Rather, 21st-century intelligence analysis -- particularly when it is occurring in real-time and on something high-profile -- can be messy, obtuse and, above all, evolving..."

please read the article before you reply!

[wittymother973]

I'm a Libertarian, and Team O lied and covered up. Suck on that.

[awesomefb]

Cause they are not Repubs they are Governor Romney followers. As the saying goes, takes a liar to know a liar.

[Michael]

Because he did

[team]

Intelligence officials have already stated the administration was warned many times about security and refused to give more security to the embassy.

But how stupid does one have to be to believe it was "spontaneous" when they had rocket launchers?

[MaireBee]

Perhaps because he did. As did hillary and all his other lackeys.

[Just David]

Why does Hillary Clinton say her agency was not responsible? Because she's acknowledging he lied.




Even Jon Stewart, the most liberal democrat supporting yellow dog journalist anchor on TV says what Obama said was all lies and incompetence.

[kacey59]

There are three possibilities.. either he lied, is stupid, or wasn't doing his job... doesn't really matter as any of them are reason enough to get rid of him, but most people know he lied...

[sugar pine 91]

Umm not just Repubs say that. It is factual that Obama did not state the truth of what happened on setp 11, 2012. He didn't say anything. sometimes silence is worse. it was a terror attack when Al Qadae attacked our embassy in Libya. Obama never wanted to say it was an attack so Americans don't think it's a big deal.

[rightstuff]

I believe that the initial statements about what happened in Benghazi were a lie, one has to assume: (1) The administration had all the facts, even as the situation was evolving; (2) the administration chose to tell a deliberately false story about those facts; and (3) the story it told was consistent, with no administration official contradicting the official line. .