Benghazi
-
Unfortunately, THE important question in this entire affair is being lost in the steaming pile of partisan political bullshit that is Washington, D.C.
The "talking points" debate that is now going on in the hearings on whether is was over a video or was it terrorism or was it because someone was pissed off because they stepped in dog shit is irrelevant. The people are dead. Dead is dead. The Obama administration royally fucked up by not simply coming out and saying who was responsible for the attacks in the first place. Stupid, really. Did they think that the truth would not eventually come out?
As to why didn't they originally just tell the truth, I think it comes down to one simple answer from time immemorial: Politics.
Obama, like John Boener, like Mitch McConnell, like Harry Reid, like Nancy Pelosi, et al, care about one thing and one thing only: getting reelected.
Nothing else matters. Obama was trying to get reelected and the truth of the attack took away from the narrative that he got bin Laden, that al-Queda
is in its death throes, etc.
The side narrative of Special Forces being angry because they weren't allowed to go in and save the day (the Stand Down Order!!!) is a red herring.
Leon Panetta has already testified that the only available resources would have taken 9 hours to get to Benghazi.
The important question (at least to me) that is being ignored, or at best, tap danced around, is why was there not protection already in place?
Chris Stevens told his superiors at the State Dept. that security was sorely lacking and that the situation on the ground in Benghazi was very dangerous. Why wasn't something done to rectify the situation right then? Republicans say that it's because Obama is a Muslim and is protecting the terrorists. Democrats say it's because Republicans cut $100 million from the budget and they couldn't afford it. If we weren't protecting our diplomats because we didn't have the money, then why the fuck were they there in the first place?
Democrats who are saying that Republicans are trying to make political hay out of a tragedy conveniently forget their response to the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut in '83. The day after that attack Democrats were (rightly) demanding to know why the rules of engagement required the Marines standing guard at the check point to not have magazines in their M-16's. Reagans response was to invade Grenada.
We need to focus on the legitimate questions and cut out the juvenile Republican-Democrat "you suck", no, "YOU suck" bullshit.
It boils down to what our role is going to be in the Middle East. Yes, the Shah, Sadaam, Khadaffi, Asaad were/are brutal dictators who tortured their own people, used chemical weapons on their enemies, etc. On the other hand, the rebels, who people like John McCain are constantly saying we need to be supporting, are a bunch of wild-eyed religious fanatics who will be happy to take our weapons to overthrow the dictator-of-the-day and then turn our own weapons on us because we're infidels and non-believers in the one true religion..
So, who's it gonna be? Pick your poison.
I hold Republicans and Democrats in equal contempt. Rand Paul doesn't impress me either. Our elected "leaders" are sorely failing us.
Unfortunately, THE important question in this entire affair is being lost in the steaming pile of partisan political bullshit that is Washington, D.C.
The "talking points" debate that is now going on in the hearings on whether is was over a video or was it terrorism or was it because someone was pissed off because they stepped in dog shit is irrelevant. The people are dead. Dead is dead. The Obama administration royally fucked up by not simply coming out and saying who was responsible for the attacks in the first place. Stupid, really. Did they think that the truth would not eventually come out?
As to why didn't they originally just tell the truth, I think it comes down to one simple answer from time immemorial: Politics.
Obama, like John Boener, like Mitch McConnell, like Harry Reid, like Nancy Pelosi, et al, care about one thing and one thing only: getting reelected.
Nothing else matters. Obama was trying to get reelected and the truth of the attack took away from the narrative that he got bin Laden, that al-Queda
is in its death throes, etc.
The side narrative of Special Forces being angry because they weren't allowed to go in and save the day (the Stand Down Order!!!) is a red herring.
Leon Panetta has already testified that the only available resources would have taken 9 hours to get to Benghazi.
The important question (at least to me) that is being ignored, or at best, tap danced around, is why was there not protection already in place?
Chris Stevens told his superiors at the State Dept. that security was sorely lacking and that the situation on the ground in Benghazi was very dangerous. Why wasn't something done to rectify the situation right then? Republicans say that it's because Obama is a Muslim and is protecting the terrorists. Democrats say it's because Republicans cut $100 million from the budget and they couldn't afford it. If we weren't protecting our diplomats because we didn't have the money, then why the fuck were they there in the first place?
Democrats who are saying that Republicans are trying to make political hay out of a tragedy conveniently forget their response to the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut in '83. The day after that attack Democrats were (rightly) demanding to know why the rules of engagement required the Marines standing guard at the check point to not have magazines in their M-16's. Reagans response was to invade Grenada.
We need to focus on the legitimate questions and cut out the juvenile Republican-Democrat "you suck", no, "YOU suck" bullshit.
It boils down to what our role is going to be in the Middle East. Yes, the Shah, Sadaam, Khadaffi, Asaad were/are brutal dictators who tortured their own people, used chemical weapons on their enemies, etc. On the other hand, the rebels, who people like John McCain are constantly saying we need to be supporting, are a bunch of wild-eyed religious fanatics who will be happy to take our weapons to overthrow the dictator-of-the-day and then turn our own weapons on us because we're infidels and non-believers in the one true religion..
So, who's it gonna be? Pick your poison.
I hold Republicans and Democrats in equal contempt. Rand Paul doesn't impress me either. Our elected "leaders" are sorely failing us.
Couldn't agree more. Its hard to identify with either party right now. For some time, actually, but what's the alternative? An independent has absolutely no shot at winning an election, and neither side is willing to concede that, yes, they do suck. But both parties do.
As far as the other thing goes, I personally side with the dictators over there. Their society sucks you need a guy with an iron fist to maintain a hold on things. Otherwise that society immediately breaks out onto medieval anarchy and the heads roll.
-
Now he has to point out it was an "organized" attack? I can't keep up with all of the made up rules you have for discussing terrorist attacks.
As for, "I'm criticizing them for telling Rice to tell everyone a video was to blame when they didn't know that for sure."
But that's not what happened. So stop doing that. They were giving their best sense of the information at the time. No one knew anything for sure. They hadn't completed the investigation yet. Nor did Rice definitively say how the attack occurred. You think they could have settled it by talking to the right people more. Maybe so. I still don't know which semantic detail has you so upset, or why you think it's such a big deal that we didn't know the exact details for another few days.
The initial CIA draft of the talking points specifically named the Al Queda group responsible and mentioned that the CIA warned of a possible attack. These correct talking points were rewritten 12 times and Rice read the final version that left out all mention of the CIA's warnings and the mention of the Al Queda group. So much for "best sense of information at the time". Like I said before, they ignored the Al Queda evidence in favor of pushing a Youtube video narrative.
It's the full story that was posted above. The first 3 paragraphs refute everything you have been saying.
And if you are really having trouble figuring out why I distinguished a planned out attack from a spontaneous riot by saying it was "organized" then it's not that you are wearing liberal tinted glasses, it's that you don't understand how the English language works.
The initial CIA draft of the talking points specifically named the Al Queda group responsible and mentioned that the CIA warned of a possible attack. These correct talking points were rewritten 12 times and Rice read the final version that left out all mention of the CIA's warnings and the mention of the Al Queda group. So much for "best sense of information at the time". Like I said before, they ignored the Al Queda evidence in favor of pushing a Youtube video narrative.
It's the full story that was posted above. The first 3 paragraphs refute everything you have been saying.
And if you are really having trouble figuring out why I distinguished a planned out attack from a spontaneous riot by saying it was "organized" then it's not that you are wearing liberal tinted glasses, it's that you don't understand how the English language works.
No, no, and no. Again, you're breezing over the explanations in favor of your theory. Why did they take the mentions of the groups out? We know this from Petraeus. It's also in this story. That's not "ignoring" so they can push a "narrative" - that's doing exactly what the intelligence agencies asked them to do. That's why they were taken out in the final draft, not so they could push a narrative.
Additionally, why did they go out and suggest that the attack was opportunistic and grew out of the video protests? Because that's also what they told them to say. It's right at the top of the draft.
You keep missing the obvious. When you get booked on these Sunday shows in a situation like this you go to the agencies and you ask them to put together their best available info. That's what happened here - the agencies got together and hammered out the talking points. Then she went on the Sunday shows and said them. That information turned out to be inaccurate.
What part of that is troubling for you?
What was to be gained be pushing the "narrative" you believe they pushed?
-
The initial CIA draft of the talking points specifically named the Al Queda group responsible and mentioned that the CIA warned of a possible attack. These correct talking points were rewritten 12 times and Rice read the final version that left out all mention of the CIA's warnings and the mention of the Al Queda group. So much for "best sense of information at the time". Like I said before, they ignored the Al Queda evidence in favor of pushing a Youtube video narrative.
It's the full story that was posted above. The first 3 paragraphs refute everything you have been saying.
And if you are really having trouble figuring out why I distinguished a planned out attack from a spontaneous riot by saying it was "organized" then it's not that you are wearing liberal tinted glasses, it's that you don't understand how the English language works.
No, no, and no. Again, you're breezing over the explanations in favor of your theory. Why did they take the mentions of the groups out? We know this from Petraeus. It's also in this story. That's not "ignoring" so they can push a "narrative" - that's doing exactly what the intelligence agencies asked them to do. That's why they were taken out in the final draft, not so they could push a narrative.
Additionally, why did they go out and suggest that the attack was opportunistic and grew out of the video protests? Because that's also what they told them to say. It's right at the top of the draft.
You keep missing the obvious. When you get booked on these Sunday shows in a situation like this you go to the agencies and you ask them to put together their best available info. That's what happened here - the agencies got together and hammered out the talking points. Then she went on the Sunday shows and said them. That information turned out to be inaccurate.
What part of that is troubling for you?
What was to be gained be pushing the "narrative" you believe they pushed?
No, no, and no. Again, you're breezing over the explanations in favor of your theory. Why did they take the mentions of the groups out? We know this from Petraeus. It's also in this story. That's not "ignoring" so they can push a "narrative" - that's doing exactly what the intelligence agencies asked them to do. That's why they were taken out in the final draft, not so they could push a narrative.
Additionally, why did they go out and suggest that the attack was opportunistic and grew out of the video protests? Because that's also what they told them to say. It's right at the top of the draft.
You keep missing the obvious. When you get booked on these Sunday shows in a situation like this you go to the agencies and you ask them to put together their best available info. That's what happened here - the agencies got together and hammered out the talking points. Then she went on the Sunday shows and said them. That information turned out to be inaccurate.
What part of that is troubling for you?
What was to be gained be pushing the "narrative" you believe they pushed?
"When it became clear last fall that the CIAâs now discredited Benghazi talking points were flawed, the White House said repeatedly the documents were put together almost entirely by the intelligence community, but White House documents reviewed by Congress suggest a different story."
It was the State Department that ordered the all mentions of the terror group to be removed. The CIA wanted them there, hence why they wrote about it. You are confusing the CIA and the State Department.
The CIA wanted the best information put out on the Sunday shows, the State Department cut that part out. They didn't get together and work it out. The CIA wrote down everything they knew and the State Department deleted what didn't fit the video narrative.
"In an email to officials at the White House and the intelligence agencies, State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland took issue with including that information because it âcould be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either? Concerned âŚâ
The paragraph was entirely deleted.
Like the final version used by Ambassador Rice on the Sunday shows, the CIAâs first drafts said the attack appeared to have been âspontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairoâ but the CIA version went on to say, âThat being said, we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qaâida participated in the attack.â The draft went on to specifically name the al Qaeda-affiliated group named Ansar al-Sharia."
The CIA left out nothing. The State Department left out anything they disputed it was from the video.
-
Dste Ace: Can I interest you in becoming an independent who favors libertarianism philosophy?
Dste Ace: Can I interest you in becoming an independent who favors libertarianism philosophy?
I'm registered Democrat because you have to be if you want to vote in a primary in WV. Most politicians here are registered Democrat even though they are really Republicans.
My political views are a bastardized version of Republican, Democrat, and Libertarian.
I'm conservative on abortion--not for it. Liberal on birth control--don't understand Republicans who are militantly anti-abortion but at the same time their heads explode if you suggest sex education and birth control for teenagers. Libertarian as to the gov't staying out of my personal life--and that includes the bedroom. What consenting adults do behind closed doors with their own farm animals is their own business.
Couldn't agree more. Its hard to identify with either party right now. For some time, actually, but what's the alternative? An independent has absolutely no shot at winning an election, and neither side is willing to concede that, yes, they do suck. But both parties do.
As far as the other thing goes, I personally side with the dictators over there. Their society sucks you need a guy with an iron fist to maintain a hold on things. Otherwise that society immediately breaks out onto medieval anarchy and the heads roll.
I'm with you on the dictators. Yeah, the Shah was a real prick whose secret police would (literally) shove broken bottles up peoples asses. Sadaam and his sons enjoyed raping women in front of their husbands and forcing sons to rape their mothers. On the other hand you didn't have to worry about crazy motherfuckers detonating car bombs and/or themselves and killing innocent people in the name of Allah.
-
No, no, and no. Again, you're breezing over the explanations in favor of your theory. Why did they take the mentions of the groups out? We know this from Petraeus. It's also in this story. That's not "ignoring" so they can push a "narrative" - that's doing exactly what the intelligence agencies asked them to do. That's why they were taken out in the final draft, not so they could push a narrative.
Additionally, why did they go out and suggest that the attack was opportunistic and grew out of the video protests? Because that's also what they told them to say. It's right at the top of the draft.
You keep missing the obvious. When you get booked on these Sunday shows in a situation like this you go to the agencies and you ask them to put together their best available info. That's what happened here - the agencies got together and hammered out the talking points. Then she went on the Sunday shows and said them. That information turned out to be inaccurate.
What part of that is troubling for you?
What was to be gained be pushing the "narrative" you believe they pushed?
"When it became clear last fall that the CIAâs now discredited Benghazi talking points were flawed, the White House said repeatedly the documents were put together almost entirely by the intelligence community, but White House documents reviewed by Congress suggest a different story."
It was the State Department that ordered the all mentions of the terror group to be removed. The CIA wanted them there, hence why they wrote about it. You are confusing the CIA and the State Department.
The CIA wanted the best information put out on the Sunday shows, the State Department cut that part out. They didn't get together and work it out. The CIA wrote down everything they knew and the State Department deleted what didn't fit the video narrative.
"In an email to officials at the White House and the intelligence agencies, State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland took issue with including that information because it âcould be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either? Concerned âŚâ
The paragraph was entirely deleted.
Like the final version used by Ambassador Rice on the Sunday shows, the CIAâs first drafts said the attack appeared to have been âspontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairoâ but the CIA version went on to say, âThat being said, we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qaâida participated in the attack.â The draft went on to specifically name the al Qaeda-affiliated group named Ansar al-Sharia."
The CIA left out nothing. The State Department left out anything they disputed it was from the video.
"When it became clear last fall that the CIAâs now discredited Benghazi talking points were flawed, the White House said repeatedly the documents were put together almost entirely by the intelligence community, but White House documents reviewed by Congress suggest a different story."
It was the State Department that ordered the all mentions of the terror group to be removed. The CIA wanted them there, hence why they wrote about it. You are confusing the CIA and the State Department.
The CIA wanted the best information put out on the Sunday shows, the State Department cut that part out. They didn't get together and work it out. The CIA wrote down everything they knew and the State Department deleted what didn't fit the video narrative.
"In an email to officials at the White House and the intelligence agencies, State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland took issue with including that information because it âcould be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either? Concerned âŚâ
The paragraph was entirely deleted.
Like the final version used by Ambassador Rice on the Sunday shows, the CIAâs first drafts said the attack appeared to have been âspontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairoâ but the CIA version went on to say, âThat being said, we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qaâida participated in the attack.â The draft went on to specifically name the al Qaeda-affiliated group named Ansar al-Sharia."
The CIA left out nothing. The State Department left out anything they disputed it was from the video.
Once again, you're ignoring Petraeus in favor of the theory you prefer. You're also ignoring the other part of this story which mentions the reasons they were taken out - so as not to interfere with the investigation.
Until you produce someone like Petraeus who says there was no reason but politics to change these talking points you don't have anything. But that's going to be hard to do since Petraeus is already on record saying the reason these mentions were left out was to assist the investigation.
Other than that, you've got nothing more than the usual interagency squabbling and an embarrassed press secretary.
-
"When it became clear last fall that the CIAâs now discredited Benghazi talking points were flawed, the White House said repeatedly the documents were put together almost entirely by the intelligence community, but White House documents reviewed by Congress suggest a different story."
It was the State Department that ordered the all mentions of the terror group to be removed. The CIA wanted them there, hence why they wrote about it. You are confusing the CIA and the State Department.
The CIA wanted the best information put out on the Sunday shows, the State Department cut that part out. They didn't get together and work it out. The CIA wrote down everything they knew and the State Department deleted what didn't fit the video narrative.
"In an email to officials at the White House and the intelligence agencies, State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland took issue with including that information because it âcould be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either? Concerned âŚâ
The paragraph was entirely deleted.
Like the final version used by Ambassador Rice on the Sunday shows, the CIAâs first drafts said the attack appeared to have been âspontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairoâ but the CIA version went on to say, âThat being said, we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qaâida participated in the attack.â The draft went on to specifically name the al Qaeda-affiliated group named Ansar al-Sharia."
The CIA left out nothing. The State Department left out anything they disputed it was from the video.
Once again, you're ignoring Petraeus in favor of the theory you prefer. You're also ignoring the other part of this story which mentions the reasons they were taken out - so as not to interfere with the investigation.
Until you produce someone like Petraeus who says there was no reason but politics to change these talking points you don't have anything. But that's going to be hard to do since Petraeus is already on record saying the reason these mentions were left out was to assist the investigation.
Other than that, you've got nothing more than the usual interagency squabbling and an embarrassed press secretary.
Once again, you're ignoring Petraeus in favor of the theory you prefer. You're also ignoring the other part of this story which mentions the reasons they were taken out - so as not to interfere with the investigation.
Until you produce someone like Petraeus who says there was no reason but politics to change these talking points you don't have anything. But that's going to be hard to do since Petraeus is already on record saying the reason these mentions were left out was to assist the investigation.
Other than that, you've got nothing more than the usual interagency squabbling and an embarrassed press secretary.
Once again, you're ignoring Petraeus in favor of the theory you prefer. You're also ignoring the other part of this story which mentions the reasons they were taken out - so as not to interfere with the investigation.
Until you produce someone like Petraeus who says there was no reason but politics to change these talking points you don't have anything. But that's going to be hard to do since Petraeus is already on record saying the reason these mentions were left out was to assist the investigation.
Other than that, you've got nothing more than the usual interagency squabbling and an embarrassed press secretary.
There was no reason to eliminate everything about it being a terrorist attack. If they really just wanted to act dumb for the terrorists who attacked, they would have said it could have been the protestors, it could have been a militant operation by terrorists, but ultimately that's all we have at this time. Instead they completely deleted everything about Al Queda and claimed that they knew the protestors were responsible. They didn't decline to go into basic details in order to protect the investigation. The went deep into details that weren't true. There's a huge difference.
Nuland's email stating that evidence should be hidden to protect the State Department seems to be pure politics. And Jay Carney admitted the 12 drafts were changed under direction of the State Department. The CIA was happy with their first draft. The State Department is when the push to start removing details began.
-
Actually, NO. Petraeus was shocked at seeing that the WH and State Dept deleted references to terrorism.
The intel version was BLUNT about the reasons being terrorism. The State Dept, and obviously, Obamao, authorized
politically friendly changes, and sent those friendly changes to Rice. And, Obamao tried to fly with them on Letterman.
It was to protect the WH and State Dept from accountability. The State dept memo even admitted it.
Bigtime scandal now. They were lying to save their butts. Accountability is a must, to prevent this from happening again,
and to hold liars and those responsible for denying those at Benghazi a rescue. And yes, rescue was available. Obamao and Clinton
did it out of political expediency.
Obamao's Watergate.
**********************************************
CIA director David Petraeus was surprised when he read the freshly rewritten talking points an aide had emailed him in the early afternoon of Saturday, September 15. One day earlier, analysts with the CIAâs Office of Terrorism Analysis had drafted a set of unclassified talking points policymakers could use to discuss the attacks in Benghazi, Libya. But this new versionâââproduced with input from senior Obama administration policymakersâââwas a shadow of the original. -
Even the BBC editor admits it's a blow up scandal now.
-
Once again, you're ignoring Petraeus in favor of the theory you prefer. You're also ignoring the other part of this story which mentions the reasons they were taken out - so as not to interfere with the investigation.
Until you produce someone like Petraeus who says there was no reason but politics to change these talking points you don't have anything. But that's going to be hard to do since Petraeus is already on record saying the reason these mentions were left out was to assist the investigation.
Other than that, you've got nothing more than the usual interagency squabbling and an embarrassed press secretary.
Once again, you're ignoring Petraeus in favor of the theory you prefer. You're also ignoring the other part of this story which mentions the reasons they were taken out - so as not to interfere with the investigation.
Until you produce someone like Petraeus who says there was no reason but politics to change these talking points you don't have anything. But that's going to be hard to do since Petraeus is already on record saying the reason these mentions were left out was to assist the investigation.
Other than that, you've got nothing more than the usual interagency squabbling and an embarrassed press secretary.
There was no reason to eliminate everything about it being a terrorist attack. If they really just wanted to act dumb for the terrorists who attacked, they would have said it could have been the protestors, it could have been a militant operation by terrorists, but ultimately that's all we have at this time. Instead they completely deleted everything about Al Queda and claimed that they knew the protestors were responsible. They didn't decline to go into basic details in order to protect the investigation. The went deep into details that weren't true. There's a huge difference.
Nuland's email stating that evidence should be hidden to protect the State Department seems to be pure politics. And Jay Carney admitted the 12 drafts were changed under direction of the State Department. The CIA was happy with their first draft. The State Department is when the push to start removing details began.
Nuland's email stating that evidence should be hidden to protect the State Department seems to be pure politics. And Jay Carney admitted the 12 drafts were changed under direction of the State Department. The CIA was happy with their first draft. The State Department is when the push to start removing details began.
Nuland is a career State official who served as deputy foreign policy advisor under Dick Cheney and is married to Robert Kagan. Do you know who Robert Kagan is? He co-founded the Project For a New American Century. He's one of the original neo-cons. If she's playing politics, she must some sort of double agent worthy of Hollywood.
She's not playing politics. She's playing bureaucratic infighting. And if you think this is the first time this has ever happened you haven't spent a day in Washington, or ever read a newspaper.
As for this: "If they really just wanted to act dumb for the terrorists who attacked, they would have said it could have been the protestors, it could have been a militant operation by terrorists, but ultimately that's all we have at this time."
....Wha?? That's pretty much exactly what they said!
MS. RICE: So weâll want to see the results of that [FBI] investigation to draw any definitive conclusions. But based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassyâ âsparked by this hateful video. But soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in thatâ in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent.
BOB SCHIEFFER: But you do not agree with him that this was something that had been plotted out several months ago?
MS. RICE: We do notâ we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.
MR. SCHIEFFER: Do you agree or disagree with [the previous guest, the president of Libyaâs general national congress] that al Qaeda had some part in this?
MS. RICE: Well, weâll have to find out that out. I mean I think itâs clear that there were extremist elements that joined in and escalated the violence. Whether they were al Qaeda affiliates, whether they were Libyan-based extremists or al Qaeda itself I think is one of the things weâll have to determine.
-
"joined in" ???
There were no protests about the video outside of Benghazi.
And, they had rocket launchers, machine guns.... well armed.
That is pre-planned.
Coverup. Whitewash. Damage Control. Protecting the "success" image of this
president's regime.
I mean, seriously. Clinton has all the reason in the world to cover up the word "terrorism" on her and Obamao's watch -
she is protecting her chances of running for president herself.
There are even more "whistleblowers" who want to testify.
And Obamao just went to Mexico, and blamed American guns for the violence there, AFTER the "Fast and Furious" scandal?
And they are scandals. They are not driven by the media, that's a major diminishing factor. Another is misdirection and cover-up.
But that boat is sinking despite the patches.
-
Libya's President Magarief said from the start that it was a planned attack. It's hard to trick terrorists into thinking we are clueless when he was publicly telling everyone what happen right after it happened.
Everything quoted at the bottom is directly from the link below.
"An anti-Islam film that sparked violent protests in many countries had "nothing to do with" a deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi earlier this month, Libya's president told NBC News."
"Magarief said there were no protesters at the site before the attack, which he noted came in two assaults, first with rocket-propelled grenades on the consulate, then with mortars at a safe house."
"It's a pre-planned act of terrorism," he said, adding that the anti-Islam film had "nothing to do with this attack."
Of course this is what Rice had to say:
"The Obama administration initially maintained that the attacks were directly linked to protests over the film. Speaking on NBCâs âMeet the Pressâ on Sept. 16, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice said: âWhat happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, prompted by the video.â
-
I have little use for Geraldo...but he says:
-
I have little use for Geraldo...but he says:
I have little use for Geraldo...but he says:
The claim has no merits at this point in time, but would give an obvious motive as to why pretty much everyone involved (aside from the 3 whistleblowers) tried keeping the details as murky and low key as possible. And not that terrorists needed a specific reason to target Americans, but this would be an added incentive with a very specific target.
And thinking about it, if the terrorists put that much time, effort and resources into a different type of attack, I'm sure the could have done much, much more harm. So it would make sense that a motive other than mass casualties could have been in play for this attack.
And in pretty much every other situation like this, Obama was open about helping the rebels. He took a much more passive role with Syria, so maybe he didn't change his attitude about arming rebels, he just did so in secret.
Pure speculation and mere coincidences are probably just as likely, but I don't see major holes in the basis of the claim.
-
Libya's President Magarief said from the start that it was a planned attack. It's hard to trick terrorists into thinking we are clueless when he was publicly telling everyone what happen right after it happened.
Everything quoted at the bottom is directly from the link below.
"An anti-Islam film that sparked violent protests in many countries had "nothing to do with" a deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi earlier this month, Libya's president told NBC News."
"Magarief said there were no protesters at the site before the attack, which he noted came in two assaults, first with rocket-propelled grenades on the consulate, then with mortars at a safe house."
"It's a pre-planned act of terrorism," he said, adding that the anti-Islam film had "nothing to do with this attack."
Of course this is what Rice had to say:
"The Obama administration initially maintained that the attacks were directly linked to protests over the film. Speaking on NBCâs âMeet the Pressâ on Sept. 16, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice said: âWhat happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, prompted by the video.â
Libya's President Magarief said from the start that it was a planned attack. It's hard to trick terrorists into thinking we are clueless when he was publicly telling everyone what happen right after it happened.
Everything quoted at the bottom is directly from the link below.
"An anti-Islam film that sparked violent protests in many countries had "nothing to do with" a deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi earlier this month, Libya's president told NBC News."
"Magarief said there were no protesters at the site before the attack, which he noted came in two assaults, first with rocket-propelled grenades on the consulate, then with mortars at a safe house."
"It's a pre-planned act of terrorism," he said, adding that the anti-Islam film had "nothing to do with this attack."
Of course this is what Rice had to say:
"The Obama administration initially maintained that the attacks were directly linked to protests over the film. Speaking on NBCâs âMeet the Pressâ on Sept. 16, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice said: âWhat happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, prompted by the video.â
At some point you're going to have to face the fact that this is what she was told was the best available intelligence was at the time, and she's overstating the certainty of that assessment (she did a better job on Face the Nation), and to stop posting everyone you can find who said it was clearly a terrorist attack from the start. That's not how this works. You're working backwards from what we know now and substituting it for what we knew then.
Unless you're suggesting that we really should have taken the newly installed Libyan president's word for it and called it a day, it really doesn't matter what he thought. It matters what our intelligence agencies thought. When Susan Rice is getting ready to go on those shows she doesn't call Mohammed Magareif, does she? So posting his thoughts is not relevant here, or to this "scandal."
-
She was going by the best intel >> ??? WHAT?
She was going by the intel that was "CHANGED by Obamao's and Hillary's STATE DEPT.
So, she was going by a politically expedient watered down version of what the intel said in it's original talking points.
-
-
ROF,L..... !
The Obamao regime is throwing anybody they can under the bus. Petraeus has nothing to lose
by telling the TRUTH.
Here. The truth is, big scandal. Just wait for more testimony: (oh, btw, the comments are really
interesting, too, at the end)
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/12/curl-watch-out-petraeus-benghazi-scandal/
-
Here is the evolution of the talking points.
http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/Benghazi%20Talking%20Points%20Timeline.pdf
You'll notice the first version is the CIA's. And it says that the best available information they have is ....what?
"We believe based on currently available information that the attacks in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex. This assessment may change as additional information is collected and analyzed and currently available information continues to be evaluated."
So even if no one at State revises those talking points, that's still what the CIA was willing to put to paper at the time. You guys would like to believe that they desperately wanted to scream to the world that this was terrorism, dammit! The only problem with that is that 1) it isn't true and 2) it's not much of a scandal even if it were true. But it isn't.
-
Libya's President Magarief said from the start that it was a planned attack. It's hard to trick terrorists into thinking we are clueless when he was publicly telling everyone what happen right after it happened.
Everything quoted at the bottom is directly from the link below.
"An anti-Islam film that sparked violent protests in many countries had "nothing to do with" a deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi earlier this month, Libya's president told NBC News."
"Magarief said there were no protesters at the site before the attack, which he noted came in two assaults, first with rocket-propelled grenades on the consulate, then with mortars at a safe house."
"It's a pre-planned act of terrorism," he said, adding that the anti-Islam film had "nothing to do with this attack."
Of course this is what Rice had to say:
"The Obama administration initially maintained that the attacks were directly linked to protests over the film. Speaking on NBCâs âMeet the Pressâ on Sept. 16, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice said: âWhat happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, prompted by the video.â
At some point you're going to have to face the fact that this is what she was told was the best available intelligence was at the time, and she's overstating the certainty of that assessment (she did a better job on Face the Nation), and to stop posting everyone you can find who said it was clearly a terrorist attack from the start. That's not how this works. You're working backwards from what we know now and substituting it for what we knew then.
Unless you're suggesting that we really should have taken the newly installed Libyan president's word for it and called it a day, it really doesn't matter what he thought. It matters what our intelligence agencies thought. When Susan Rice is getting ready to go on those shows she doesn't call Mohammed Magareif, does she? So posting his thoughts is not relevant here, or to this "scandal."
At some point you're going to have to face the fact that this is what she was told was the best available intelligence was at the time, and she's overstating the certainty of that assessment (she did a better job on Face the Nation), and to stop posting everyone you can find who said it was clearly a terrorist attack from the start. That's not how this works. You're working backwards from what we know now and substituting it for what we knew then.
Unless you're suggesting that we really should have taken the newly installed Libyan president's word for it and called it a day, it really doesn't matter what he thought. It matters what our intelligence agencies thought. When Susan Rice is getting ready to go on those shows she doesn't call Mohammed Magareif, does she? So posting his thoughts is not relevant here, or to this "scandal."
It may or may not have truly been the best information known, but the truth was out there for the taking and it was passed over or down right ignored. Magareif is probably the best friend we have in any Muslim country right now. Even he admits he is only in power because of the US, and he lived in the US for about 30 years. He tried to help us out by making it clear that it was an insurgent attack. According to him a protest never even happened. This is the first true friend we've had in the region in who knows how long (maybe besides turkey). We don't even have to pay him to pretend to like us, he actually does like us. And we ignore him....
One of the whistleblowers requested to be interviewed by the original review board. He was denied....
Hicks was in contact with the State Department, but it never occurred to them to ask him what happened.
I never claimed we use Libya's President's word and his word only in the investigation. But to ignore him and others is absurd. If the people who were actually in a position to know what happened were listened to, Rice wouldn't have had to spread the false claim and Clinton would not have had to say it doesn't make a difference.
And then on top of that, the State department slowly got all mention of a terrorist attack removed from the talking points. So it went from a possibility of the attack being because of a video based on an investigation that ignored people who were actually there, to the State Department deleting everything that didn't have the video as the root of the problem for Rice to tell the American people. And that sounds fine and dandy to you?
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better đ
Register Login