by Jack
Imagine for a moment that you didn’t know a democrat from a ground hog, then you were informed about the Benghazi incident and you were asked to make a judgment call. At the very least you would question the time-line of events and the false information that went with it. That much is a given – it’s a matter of common sense. But, it amazes me how many people (dems) get defensive if questions are asked or they just blithely ASSUME everything they hear coming from the White House is correct, even though President Obama was caught in a deception (the Rose Garden lie). This has led us to a somewhat confusing story about an amateurish cover-up with a major sex scandal thrown at the last minute. Makes one wonder what’s next?
The investigation to date reveals that within the first 24 hours everyone within the intelligence community in Washington knew what we were dealing with and that the White House was going public with the wrong story. The simple answer here is politics…it’s about vying for partisan advantage during the heat of an election…and truth took a backseat.
It was an inconvenient truth that needed suppressing until after Nov. 6th, that’s all. They needed to buy time and this is the same reason the White House sat on the info they had on Gen. Petraeus’ affair. Now it all gets to be sorted in a Congressional hearing. What a bunch of clowns and to think half of America voted for this guy?
Today during the hearing Gen. Petreaus admits there were two stories right from the start. There was the official story and then there was what really happened. The latter is what the Obama Adminstration has been fighting to conceal because it will hold certain bureaucrats accountable, including himself.
The deception and gross mishandling of the attack that took 4 American lives deserves some justice. The people who made the decision not to respond to the pleas from those under attack need to be fired, and possibly impeached if the trail leads to Obama. It sure looks like Obama lied to us and if it comes out he called off the rescue that’s enough for an impeach in my book, but that’s just me. Congress may have another idea. We’ll soon see.
As a side note… did you hear how Gen. Patraeus was able to communicate with his bimbo? lol This part is really clever, in fact it’s a method al Qaeda had used. Petraeus would log into his fake name Gmail account, write an email and save it as a draft. Mrs. Broadwell would then log into that same email account, read the draft, and leave a draft of her own. That way, the two were able to correspond without actually having to send any data from point a to point b.
The Petraeus’ affair began to unravel once Mrs. Broadwell began sending anonymous threatening letters to Mrs. Jill Kelley, a friend of the Petraeus family. Kelley subsequently turned to a friend of hers in the FBI and once they began peeling back a few more layers of the onion, they noticed that Broadwell was also communicating with a private Gmail account that belonged to Petraeus.
This story is far from over, stay tuned.
On a completely unrelated note …
Ruger To The Rescue
http://tdn.com/news/local/woman-pulls-gun-on-man-who-exposed-himself-at-lake/article_66bab166-2f9a-11e2-9af1-0019bb2963f4.html
Republicans cut the budget for embassy security by millions. How are they going to defend this? Thanks again Issa.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-forget-about-big-bird/2012/10/09/5f9a411c-1258-11e2-ba83-a7a396e6b2a7_story.html
And we’re supposed to disband the Tea Party caucus while Boehner and Issa keep selling out Americans?
“Today during the hearing Gen. Petreaus admits there were two stories right from the start. There was the official story and then there was what really happened.”
Where’d you get that? Out of your own head, I’m afraid, cause there’s nothing like it I’ve read in any reports of the testimony.
” … but that’s just me. Congress may have another idea. We’ll soon see.
A solid insight if ever there was one. You know, soon, the Republicans in Congress are going to have to drop all this conspiracy stuff for a total lack of evidence. You should be preparing yourself. We don’t want anybody going off the deep end.
This was reported by Catherine Herrige Fox News (sp?) as told to ? forget his name, who works in D.C. it was reported on the news today. The other guy, who’s name I can’t recall at the moment will be testifying. Seems like he was a Senator or Congressman… sorry, if I remember it I will let you know. But, I didn’t make it up Libby…I know, I know, you are so accustomed to your President making stuff up it must seem like everybody does it… sorry.
Jack, that’s exactly why you shouldn’t get your news from FOX–they make stuff up all the time.
Patreaus confirmed that Rice was acting on the best information they had at the time, and that the response was not political. They did choose not to reference Al Qaeda at first, but that was because of national security reasons, not politics.
http://news.yahoo.com/petraeus-believed-terrorists-behind-libya-attack-145946656–politics.html
WASHINGTON (AP) Ex-CIA Director David Petraeus told lawmakers Friday that classified intelligence showed the deadly raid on the U.S. Consulate in Libya was a terrorist attack, but that the administration withheld the suspected role of specific al-Qaida affiliates to avoid tipping off the terrorist groups.
The recently resigned spy chief explained that references
to terrorist groups suspected of carrying out the violence were removed from the public explanation of what caused the attack so as not to tip off the groups that the U.S. intelligence community was on their trail, according to lawmakers who attended the private briefings.
Petraeus also said it initially was unclear whether militants infiltrated a demonstration to cover their attack.
The retired four-star general addressed the House and Senate intelligence committees in back-to-back, closed-door hearings as questions persist over what the Obama administration knew in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks and why their public description did not match intelligence agencies’ assessments.
After the hearings, lawmakers who questioned Petraeus said he testified that the CIA’s draft talking points written in response to the assault on the diplomat post in Benghazi that killed four Americans referred to it as a terrorist attack. But Petraeus told the lawmakers that reference was removed from the final version, although he wasn’t sure which federal agency deleted it.
Democrats said Petraeus made it clear the change was not done for political reasons during President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign.
“The general was adamant there was no politicization of the process, no White House interference or political agenda,” said Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif. “He completely debunked that idea.”
Doug Ross has taken the time to create a twin timeline of events in DC and events in Benghazi. Find it here:
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2012/11/twin-timeline-what-was-happening-in.html
CBS has never been accused of being right wing. Sharyl Attkisson, of CBS News has done the job of a reporter in this reportshe worked inside sources and stayed away from politicians:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57544026/sources-key-task-force-not-convened-during-benghazi-consulate-attack/?pageNum=1&tag=page
You should read her whole report before deciding between Peter King’s or Harry Reid’s versions of the testimony of Petraeus.
You should also read the article linked below by Claudia Rosette and Accuracy in Media on November 5th:
http://www.aim.org/guest-column/benghazi-and-the-missing-obama-911-timeline/
These articles clearly demonstrate that the administration treated the event casually or carelessly. Decisions that needed to be made were not made…teams that have always been in place for events just such as this were not prepared or not deployed as they were when the embassy in.
Please note that none of these sources are FOX News, Rush Limbaugh, or the Tea Party.
National Review is a right wing publication. ON November 1st this question was asked on the Corner blog: “Why Was the Answer No in Benghazi?”
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/332168/why-was-answer-no-benghazi-bing-west
My opinion is that the election was more important…and information about what happened was covered up or concealed so as to protect President Obama and his election quest. There are many unanswered questions.
As it turns out an excellent news source at FOX News, Greta Van Susteren has listed a few:
Re: “Jack, that’s exactly why you shouldn’t get your news from FOX–they make stuff up all the time.”
Q) What does that snide and juvenile canard have anything to do with the original post?
A) Nothing
Pure, unadulterated, Chris doing his usual childish pissant snark. (How is that for finding “common ground”, making friends and influencing people?)
Completely beside the points made. (By the way the charge that Fox News “makes stuff up all the time” is pure unadulterated bullshit from a jackass with a chip on his shoulder. To be sure, Fox News does get things wrong, but not any more — and my bet is considerably less — than any other news network.)
“Petraeus told the lawmakers that reference was removed from the final version, although he wasn’t sure which federal agency deleted it.”
So? Uh, duh on what federal agency. What difference does it make? A federal agency under the control of the Obama administration. Like the White House itself, perhaps?
The canard from Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif. “The general was adamant there was no politicization of the process, no White House interference or political agenda. He completely debunked that idea.” is a total crock. But, hey, Chris believes anything he hears from a Rat politician. Petraeus’ testimony far from proves that, except to dunderhead Obama brown shirts who wish it so.
That Petraeus testifies that he did not see any White House interference or political agenda does not mean that it did not happen. He merely was not privy to the policy so gapingly laid out by Susan Rice.
Think about it. Don’t be a nauseating suck up like Chris who clings to anything he can get his hands on.
Re: “National Review is a right wing publication.”
Since when was a conservative publication “right wing”? You are falling into the left wing manipulation and preoccupation with defining the terms of discourse. I bet Chris got a laugh on that one. Do the extremist left ever attempt to qualify themselves with such language? Nope.
The National Review has some of the best minds doing political analysis on the planet. Yes, they are in the right side of the political arena. So what? They are still some of the best political writers and analysts on the planet. Compare them to KOS, Puffington Host, or Media matters and get back to me.
The only reason I take exception is that I am sick to death of the right using language that sucks up to the left. As if the left can define what is right or mainstream. They cannot even define themselves.
Thank you both Tina and Jack (Ladies first). Benghazi should be foremost on the minds of ALL. While the White House is busy trying to muddy the waters of truth, and it is not clear yet how the Obama administration failed protecting American lives, it is clear they did fail the four Americans who needlessly lost their lives while Obama slept. So now their plan is to release one version after another until facts get so convoluted Americans will get tired of trying to find out the truth.
Pie: “Since when was a conservative publication “right wing”?” You are falling into the left wing manipulation and preoccupation with defining the terms of discourse. I bet Chris got a laugh on that one.”
Pie I wear both conservative and right wing monikers with pride. After all, the “right wing” holds the same principles on which our nation was founded. I couldn’t care less what Chris thinks.
“Do the extremist left ever attempt to qualify themselves with such language?”
The principles of the left are progressive…which is socialist/Marxist/fascist…which is what makes them extreme, at least in terms of America. They claim the progressive moniker proudly. (They used liberal for awhile but its been tarnished a bit so I put the two together quite often just to keep things straight). Yes they claim the moniker but pretend it is all American…such a lie!
“The National Review has some of the best minds doing political analysis on the planet.”
Agreed. I’ve been reading it for close to thirty years…miss WFB though.
You are right that we have to get out in front and define terms like “right wing” as being associated with the Constitution, whereas the left’s principles don’t even come close. It’s a big hill to climb because the extreme left have used the principles of tolerance (freedom in PC drag) and fairness (equality in PC drag) to corrupt understanding.
Its one of the reasons I’m here.
My hunch is that Obama did not sleep through Benghazi nor did intelligence, security requests, and information get clogged up at some bureaucratic level.
I suspect that Obama himself made some very bad decisions and then sought to obfuscate the mess with a false narratives starting with the stupid video narrative. He and his inept administration continue with more false narratives.
“So now their plan is to release one version after another until facts get so convoluted Americans will get tired of trying to find out the truth.”
Absolutely.
After the whitewash of Fast and Furious I expect the same for the Benghazi debacle.
News out this morning:
http://www.washingtonguardian.com/what-obama-knew-benghazi
The administration didn’t just leave classified information out of the talking points for Susan Rice. The administration constructed an alternate storyline, publicly made criticism of Islam a crime more dastardly than the terrorist muders (jailing an American in the process), and continued the deceit for weeks. Was it to protect the President’s bid for the WH? Was it also an act of appeasement or empowerment for extremist Islamists? Was it a smart response in terms of protecting Americans and the world from this extremist element? Was it nakedly political?
The administration had good reason to keep classified information out of the talking points. There was no need to float the spontaneous video story and then spend three weeks wagging its finger in front of the world about criticizing Islam.
An admission of Terror involvement was made, securing the site and conducting an investigation was not. Why?
American citizens were left to “try to make it on their own” in a life and death situation. Why?
Our readers should seek answers to these questions (and others) for themselves.
Excellent report Tina. We’ve got to hold them accountable. -jack
Pie, I absolutely agree with you. The more that comes out the more our worst fears are confirmed. -jack
Harold, I love the fact that so many of us are piling on to this story and won’t let it go away. We deserve the truth and the victims deserve justice. -jack
I must be missing something because everything I have read about the Petreus testimony says that he identified it immediately as AlQuaeda but that was removed from release to cover up the fact that we had penetrated them and were monitoring their communications. That makes sense to me. I expect that National Security trumps the public’s right to know. I also expect our intelligence agencies to be positive about what they know. We do not need another disastrous lied-into war like Iraq.
It has also been confirmed that the Obama state department submitted a request to increase embassy security and the Republican congress cut their funding request by millions. This is provable and I watched one of the committee members admit to this on CNN.
I don’t understand what we are expecting to find out? As far as I can tell the more that comes out about this the worse Republicans look. John McCain certainly hasn’t done us any favors over this.
I thought it very strange that Obama would get on a plane to Las Vegas the day after four Americans were killed in Libya, but now see it was just a part of the orchestrated cover-up to get him out of town. Fits right in with his not attending all of those daily intel. briefings. Easier to say youre not responsible with the vale of distance to protect you.
According to the below article they may just get away with it too with the help of the left-leaning media to declare it a non-issue.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/11/17/media-Declares-libya-scandal-over?utm_source=BreitbartNews&utm_medium=facebook
“In the Name of National Security, Media Declares Libya a Non-Scandal”
“After yesterday’s closed-door testimony of David Petraeus on the Hill, we now know for a fact that for two weeks the Obama Administration repeatedly and relentlessly lied to the American people about what they knew was the truth behind the September 11 anniversary attack on our consulate in Libya. Unfortunately, we also now know that they’re going to get away with it.
Within 24 hours of a coordinated assault that left four Americans dead, then-CIA Director David Petraeus was convinced the intelligence proved a local Libyan militia affiliated with al-Qaeda was responsible, and said so in his report.
Then the Petraeus report was edited (probably by Eric Holder’s Justice Department) to remove the terror angle and pile the blame on a spontaneous protest over a YouTube video. Over the course of two weeks, this blatantly false Narrative would only grow and sharpen, even though all knew it was a lie — and by “all,” I mean the White House, the terrorists, the media, and anyone with an IQ above room temperature.
In other words, what critics of the White House narrative knew to be true months ago, has now been verified. There’s no longer any dispute that for two weeks the White House knew Benghazi was an act of terror and that for two weeks everyone from President Obama to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice to White House spokesman Jay Carney to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton repeatedly told us something the Administration knew wasn’t true.
And still, the media and Democrats dont care, because.
the administration refrained from saying it suspected that the perpetrators of the attack were Al Qaeda affiliates and sympathizers to avoid tipping off the groups.
[N]ames of groups suspected in the attack including Al Qaedas franchise in North Africa and a local Libyan group, Ansar al-Shariah were removed from the public explanation of the attack immediately after the assault to avoiding alerting the militants that American intelligence and law enforcement agencies were tracking them[.]
That’s reporting from The New York Times — the same New York Times that during the Bush Administration published every piece of classified information leaked to them that might undermine the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
But now, apparently, blatantly lying in the name of national security — with a lie that just happens to be convenient to the president’s reelection bid — is okey-doke with The New York Times and the Democratic Party and almost all of the media.
Let’s just take a moment to appreciate how absolutely brilliant this is. Using the rationale of “national’ security” as an excuse for a two week pre-election cover up is pure genius. It’s total bullshit, but that doesn’t mean it’s not genius bullshit.”
From Tina’s Washington Post link:
“Those briefings also raised the possibility that the attackers may have been inspired both by spontaneous protests across the globe on the 11th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks…”
In other words, the breifings raised the possibility that the attackers were motivated by the anti-Islam video. This was a logical assumption, because a) angry Muslim extremists were violently protesting this video in Cairo and many other cities, and b) several of the attackers on the scene in Benghazi said that they were motivated by the video.
So why do Tina and others here continue to claim that the administration “lied” when they said that the attack may have been motivated by the video?
“The administration constructed an alternate storyline, publicly made criticism of Islam a crime more dastardly than the terrorist muders (jailing an American in the process),”
This is grossly irresponsible of you, Tina. You know that the “American” in question was a felon who was arrested because he violated his parole. Why do you leave that out? Because it doesn’t fit your narrative.
The administration did not make “criticism of Islam” a crime. The president made it very clear at the UN that our society tolerates free speech no matter whom it offends, and that while the video was distasteful, it did not justify violence. You are totally misrepresenting his response, twisting it into the very opposite of what he actually said.
“Was it to protect the President’s bid for the WH?”
I’ve never seen one person explain how this was supposed to help Obama’s election chances; they just say it, even though it makes no sense. Especially since Obama won anyway even with all the ginned up controversy over Benghazi. Clearly, it didn’t make any difference to the election whether this was a terrorist attack or a spontaneous uprising. And why would it?
“Was it also an act of appeasement or empowerment for extremist Islamists?”
If pledging to hunt down the people responsible for an act of terror against the U.S. is “appeasement,” then I gotta say, Obama is doing it wrong. His policy of assassinating Islamist extremists without trial also can’t be doing much to appease or empower them. Obama doesn’t have an “appeasement” strategy, and he never has; that’s a false narrative created to make his presidency look weak. (You know, that thing Democrats were called traitors for doing to Bush.)
Princess: “I expect that National Security trumps the public’s right to know.”
Apparently, that’s only when there is a Republican in office.
Incompetence or deliberate? You decide —
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/11/19/ugly-truth-about-benghazi-and-team-obama/
Princess you need to get up to ALL the facts. Yes money was cut but if you had listened to the hearing Lamb reported when asked was there enough money to cover the extra security and enough money to fix the building that had a big gapping hole in it and was sub standard for the ambassador to be at. Her answer under oath “Money was not a problem.”
Why don’t you question why Obama or anyone send these men to a place that wasn’t safe, why did the president only set up unskilled Libya forces and a few of our marines. This was a dangerous area…the ambassador asked on several occasions for more security DENIED….they denied them aid that night – FOUR men needlessly and it is all being covered up.
Do so real research…ARE YOU OK WITH WHAT HAPPENDED? AS AN AMERICAN I’M NOT!