Posted by Jack
State Dept. was there to buy back ground to air Stinger Missiles they had previously given to rebel forces, report says.
Stevens’ mission in Benghazi, they (whistleblowers) will say, was to buy back Stinger missiles from al-Qaeda groups issued to them by the State Department.
Hillary Clinton still wanted to proceed because, in part, as one of the diplomats said, she wanted “to overthrow Gaddafi on the cheap.”
This left Stevens in the position of having to clean up the scandalous enterprise when it became clear that the “insurgents” actually were al-Qaeda – indeed, in the view of one of the diplomats, the same group that attacked the consulate and ended up killing Stevens.
What’s the deal with the link?
I would love to read more about this.
Soon as the facts become known we’ll bring them to you Toby!
Here’s the latest and possible first new whistleblower.
Exclusive: Hillary’s Benghazi ‘Scapegoat’ Speaks Out:
“Raymond Maxwell, the only official at the State Department’s bureau of Near Eastern Affairs to lose his job after the attacks, tells Josh Rogin that he’s been scapegoated by Hillary Clinton’s team.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/20/exclusive-hillary-s-benghazi-scapegoat-speaks-out.html
And here’s some more that is finally coming out
http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2013/05/21/pjm-exclusive-ex-diplomats-report-new-benghazi-whistleblowers-with-info-devastating-to-clinton-and-obama/
I believe this is basically the same story coming from Roger Simon.
I reported this either as a story or in comments some months ago…can’t recall the source at the time. I’ll see if I can find the original story.
On October 25, 2012 Catherine Herridge and Pamela Browne of Fox News asked, “Was Syrian weapons shipment factor in ambassador’s Benghazi visit?”:
In January 2013 CNS News:
Katie Kieffer wrote about this at TownHall on April 29, 2013.
Drip, drip, drip?
A related article at Breitbart Big Peace by Chuck Pfarrer, former Assault Element Commander at SEAL Team Six, “Why Benghazi Matters” is worth reading. If you can read his account and still maintain this was the result of a spontaneous protest you are certifiable!
I have to ask again, why hasn’t this site reported on the Benghazi e-mails released by the White House last week? This was undoubtedly a huge part of this story, and conservatives have been asking to see these e-mails for months. Then once they’re revealed, you have nothing to say about them?
You did report on the initial ABC News story where Jon Karl claimed to have “obtained” the White House e-mails, but it turned out Karl lied; he had never seen the e-mails, and was actually quoting summaries of the e-mails provided by a source, and those summaries were inaccurate.
http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/14/cnn-exclusive-white-house-email-contradicts-benghazi-leaks/
Karl’s story quoted the e-mails as showing that the State Department wanted the talking points changed in order to direct criticism away from themselves. But the actual e-mails do not specifically name the State Department, and show that several agencies wanted the talking points altered, for a variety of reasons, including the desire not to tip off the terrorist group suspected as being responsible for the attack.
Every version of the talking points entertained the possibility that the attack was part of a spontaneous demonstration.
“If you can read his account and still maintain this was the result of a spontaneous protest you are certifiable!”
Yes, and also made of straw. No one in the administration still contends that this was the result of a spontaneous demonstration; however, as you have been shown numerous times, that was certainly a possibility at the time of the attack, as various news agencies quoted various witnesses (and participants) in the attack as stating that the video was the motivation.
“New Details About Benghazi Surface”
You keep saying that. And it turns out to be diddly. And nobody’s paying any attention.
I thought that last election would have persuaded you of the necessity of loosing yourselves from the echo chamber that is … not even Fox News … you have retreated further still into Breibartdom.
And you have not learned, it seems.
After reading the claims made here, am I to assume that exposing secret CIA operations is now an acceptable tactic in conservatives’ targeting of political enemies?
Oh, wait. That’s nothing new.
CHRIS, EXACTLY WHAT NATIONAL SECRETS DID CONSERVATIVES EXPOSE? If you’re talking about the alleged missile buy-back program, we’re still waiting to find out if that was true. And there’s no evidence that was a conservative that leaked the information. But, even if it was, why should it be secret? There’s no national risk involved, this was allegedly a program to cover up for somebodies stupidity, selling Stinger missiles to the enemy! That should never be a classified secret, it should be a scandal…that is outrageous, it’s one of the dumbest things I’ve ever heard of, if true. Everyone should be upset over such a thing, left and right.
“we’re still waiting to find out if that was true”
Where was it first reported? Your article gave no source or link, except for a spam one that you’ve since deleted. You often report stories without citing where you got them from and that brings you a credibility problem.
Chris it takes no effort to find a source for this story, it’s on the net, why don’t you do it if you are that concerned? If I post a link you’ll just say their wrong, why should I bother and especially since I said we’re still waiting to see if the story is correct? What’s to be learned from citing a source? Unless you think I just made it up, is that what this is about? Easy enough to find out…
Fair enough, Jack.
Now can someone here please adress the released White House e-mails? How is it that you have nothing to say about such a huge part of the story? The e-mails totally contradict conservatives’ claims that the talking points were changed for political motivations, and show that agencies at every level believed it was appropriate to tie the spontaneous demonstrations about the anti-Islam video in other parts of the world to the Benghazi attack.
Okay Chris, I went looking for “White House emails Benghazi” and I found this, it was released on the wires 8 hours ago…but, I’m wondering how does this put to rest any questions raised by conservatives or republicans in Congress, if that was your point????
The United States White House released roughly a hundred pages of emails on Wednesday related to the September 11, 2012 attack on the United States diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya. The assault killed four US personnel, including US Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens. The documents show conversations the administration had in preparing to discuss the attacks publicly.
The emails show conversations between the White House, the US State Department, and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) over what the government should say about the attack. They show the CIA director at the time, David Petraeus, disagreed with the choice of information delivered by United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice on September 16, 2012 during appearances on Sunday talk shows because he wanted to see more detail on the attack released, “No mention of the cable to Cairo, either?… Frankly, I’d just as soon not use it then.” he said in an email.
Along with the emails was a handwritten document made by Petraeus’s deputy, Mike Morell, after a meeting at the White House. It appears that Morell eliminated references to al-Qaeda, Libya-based Islamic extremists, and a warning to the Cairo embassy about a potential demonstration by jihadists lead by the brother of al-Qaeda leader Ayman al Zawahiri. While some talking points of the demonstration remained intact on the document, any mentioning of Islamic extremists were deleted at a deputies meeting at the White House the next day.
An email by then-State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland also expressed reservations about the disclosure of information about the attacks because of the opportunity it would give congressional Republicans means to undermine the White House. The email, sent by Nuland on September 14 at 7.39pm to the White House, State Department and CIA, stated “The line of ‘knowing’ there were extremists among the demonstrators will come back to us at podium”.
Republicans had asserted the White House was engaged in a cover-up, ignoring the role of an al-Qaeda inspired group in the attack and suggesting instead the assault was the result of a demonstration by a group against an American-produced anti-Islam film.
http://boundarysentinel.com/news/white-house-releases-benghazi-emails-24837
Which emails boy, seems we heard there was a mess o them missing..
“Okay Chris, I went looking for “White House emails Benghazi” and I found this”
Wait, do you mean to tell me that you didn’t even know the e-mails were released until just now, when I told you?
Given how closely you have been following this story, I find that amazing. This was big news last week…but maybe it wasn’t treated as such by the sources you rely on, who all want to make Benghazi into some kind of scandal, and don’t report anything that might contradict that narrative?
“but, I’m wondering how does this put to rest any questions raised by conservatives or republicans in Congress, if that was your point????”
It should put the rest the notion that the “spontaneous protest” theory was simply a false narrative invented by the White House, since every version of the talking points mentioned that possibility. David Patreaus wanted the talking points to mention the protests in Cairo more than they did. It should also put to rest the notion that references to terrorists were eliminated because of political reasons. The e-mails show that the primary reason was to avoid tipping off terrorists.
Chris, that’s not what I got…how do you explain this portion, “An email by then-State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland also expressed reservations about the disclosure of information about the attacks because of the opportunity it would give congressional Republicans means to undermine the White House. The email, sent by Nuland on September 14 at 7.39pm to the White House, State Department and CIA, stated “The line of ‘knowing’ there were extremists among the demonstrators will come back to us at podium”.
Looks like some serious political spin to me.
Chris pretends there is something to Breibartdom. I must speak to him about that.
Chris: ” however, as you have been shown numerous times, that was certainly a possibility at the time of the attack, as various news agencies quoted various witnesses (and participants) in the attack as stating that the video was the motivation.”
Big whoop! You have been shown that the leader of Libya told the WH and State Department that it was an Al Qaeda group two hours after the attack and he was right. Even if there was speculation about the video and uncertainty about the involvement by al Qaeda that would suggest talking points for the Sunday shows along the lines of an unconfirmed group rather than insistence that the attack was the result of a spontaneous protest about a hateful video that got out of control. They wanted that story to sell and that’s why Rice was sent out to do the Sunday shows. Her remarks were anything but spontaneous or truthful. Her appearance was pure drama just like the multimillion dollar film the State Department made to apologize and further sell the idea that the attack was basically provoked (justified) because of a big meanie (hater) in America.
Also the emails indicate Patraeus objected to the revised talking points:
They also show that Victoria Nuland, “expressed concern that any mention of prior warnings or the involvement of al-Qaida would give congressional Republicans ammunition to attack the administration in the weeks before the presidential election. Fighting terror was one of President Barack Obama’s re-election strong points.”
Obama’s election was more important than telling the truth to the American people and quite possibly defending the Americans in Benghazi!
Chris we remember your ever so righteous expressions of indignation on this blog during the Bush administration. Wiggle and squirm! It won’t help. Obama just looks bad and so does Hillary. Her statement to Congress was dreadful. Obama’s absence throughout the ordeal makes him look like a total dunderhead…to put it kindly.
Libby, put a sock in it.
President Bush on his worst day was 100 times better than this idiot. He and his staff are spinning lies so fast they’re biting them in the body part their brains have become lodged in.
New TV ad – “Hold Obama Accountable for Benghazi”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtZBC35gYCo&feature=player_embedded
Jack, Nuland also said this:
“On that basis, I have serious concerns about all the parts highlighted below, and arming members of Congress to start making assertions to the media that we ourselves are not making because we don’t want to prejudice the investigation.
In that same vein, why do we want Hill to be fingering Ansar al Sharia, when we aren’t going that ourselves until we have investigation results… and the penultimate point could be abused by Members to beat the State Department for not paying attention to Agency warnings so why we want to feed that either? Concerned…”
So yes, Nuland did express political concerns, but first she said that she did not want to “prejudice the investigation.” This squares with testimony from David Patreaus, who said that the names of terrorist groups “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,” as well as an e-mail from the CIA’s general counsel that said naming specific terrorist groups could “conflict with express instructions from NSS/DOJ/FBI that, in light of the criminal investigation, we are not to generate statements with assessments as to who did this.”
So were political concerns taken into account? Yes. But is that enough to make this a “scandal?” Only if those concerns were the only reason for the talking points being changed. You’ve been arguing that the only reason we were told this was a spontaneous demonstration was to get Obama re-elected. Tina even wrote, “Obama’s election was more important than telling the truth to the American people and quite possibly defending the Americans in Benghazi!”
But it seems we have enough evidence now to know that that wasn’t true. There were legitimate national security reasons, put forward by several different government agencies, for the talking points to be changed. No one wanted this connected to specific terrorist groups, and everyone thought it appropriate to tie this into spontaneous protests elswhere in the Muslim world. The conspiracy theory that the changes to the talking points were simply engineered by Obama in order to help his campaign turn out to be just that: a conspiracy theory.
Chris then assuming that everything you have just reported to us is factual, and there is no damning evidence, Benghazi should fold-up quietly and simply go away. Nothing to see here folks, move along!
Let us all note this moment in time, you telling us to move along and me bouncing up and down, looking over shoulders, probing the cone of silence, trying desperately to get a whiff of the facts, facts now known only to the most inner circle.
If I am correctly following your position on Benghazi, you have declared there was no wrong-doing, no self-serving politics, no hidden agendas and obviously no cover up. That all was well and as it should be. However, the republicans in Congress have basically tried to make this into something for their gain. They’ve wasted a lot of time and money trying in vain to find what never existed.
Does that pretty much sums up your position Chris?
If so, and you DO prevail, you will be granted one big I told you so with all the rights and privileges therein! However, me being the older and slower, well, I’m still behind….I’m not prepared to render a not guilty of all charges verdict. I’m still stuck in the wait and see phase. I’m still suspicious of some sort of nefarious dealings and I’ll go so far as to admit I think there is reason to suspect a coverup, or at the very least scandalous bungling.
Without prejudice, I wish the best possible outcome of the Benghazi investigation for the sake of the nation.