by Chris
So, in addition to the flaws in the 60 Minutes report I pointed out previously, it turns out there were many more. The report has been pulled, and CBS and Lara Logan have now apologized for relying heavily on “Morgan Jones” (real name Dylan Davies), a security contractor who claims to have been at the Benghazi embassy that night, but who previously claimed to his employers and the FBI that he couldn’t get anywhere near the compound.
Now, it’s possible that Davies was lying to his employers and the FBI and told the truth on 60 Minutes, but 60 Minutes had a journalistic responsibility to vet his claims and at least disclose the fact that his accounts have been inconsistent. They also had an obligation to disclose that Davies’ upcoming book was published by Simon and Shuster, a CBS-owned company-but they didn’t do that, either.
Threshold Editions, a conservative imprint of Simon and Shuster, has now pulled Davies’ book from the shelves in light of the author’s dishonesty.
After the 60 Minutes report aired, conservatives-including this website-basically went on a victory tour, saying that for an arm of the left-leaning mainstream media (sic) to raise questions about Benghazi validated their previous reporting on the non-scandal. FOX News and even congressional Republicans heaped praise on the report, despite its immediately apparent flaws, such as those I detailed in comment #14.
Now it turns out one of the key witness used to further the “scandal” narrative is a proven liar.
Interestingly, this blog has yet to report on CBS’ decision to withdraw the report.
“A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting its shoes on.”
PS Editors note: Chris, thank you for the update. As you know we can’t be in all place all the time, but we strive to stay abreast of the news and your contribution in this case was helpful as it saved me from reporting it.
Thanks for posting this, Jack and Tina. While we have many, many differences, one thing I have always respected about you both is your willingness to post articles by people on the opposite side of an issue as yourselves.
Chris we strive to be fair, but obviously we have our bias just like you, so we know we will make mistakes from time to time. You provided us with fair balance this time and we must respect that.
Yes Chris, thank you for bringing this story to our front page. It appears this man’s only purpose in writing a book was to use the incident to enrich himself. If so, how unfortunate.
Considering my position as a conservative the most unfortunate thing about this deceit is that the contractor has tarnished efforts to uncover the truth about what happened in Benghazi as well as the motivations for the failure to properly secure the building and the false video story that was repeated by Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Susan Rice and others.
Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, and Glen Doherty died unnecessarily on that anniversary attack. The apparent disengagement that night by the nations President, the video cover story, the cavalier response made by Clinton in hearings (What difference does it now make?), and the reluctance by the government to immediately conduct a proper investigation are all troubling actions taken by our government following the anniversary attack on our embassey.
We continue to wait for answers that may never come.
Let us not allow this to distract from what is important: The deaths of four Americans, the failure by the State Department to properly secure the building or leave the country as England did, the failure to conduct a proper investigation, and the fabricated story that was apparently created to fool the people prior to an election.
Tina, I have refuted your “fabricated story” charge too many times to count. Numerous reports from on the ground in Benghazi indicated that the attackers were motivated by outrage over the anti-Islam video. There were protests all over the Muslim world that very same day over the video. Every single version of the talking points, including the first draft of the CIA’s, connected the Benghazi attack to the other protests. From the CIA’s Office of Terrorism Analysis:
“The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations 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. diplomatic post and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.”
http://www.weeklystandard.com/sites/all/files/images/hayestp.img_assist_custom-497×1400.jpg
References to Al-Qaeda were taken out in order to avoid compromising an investigation. A few weeks after the initial reports, the administration corrected the record and no longer claimed that the attackers were motivated by the video.
There was no “cover-up.” And Republicans have never been able to explain what the administration intended to cover up anyway. How would claiming that the attackers were inspired by the video help the president? It makes no sense.
Yes, the embassy was not properly secured, and that is wrong. But the same thing happened under both Reagan and Bush, and no one–not Republicans, not Democrats–called for impeachment over those security failures, which claimed more lives than the attack in Benghazi.
“the cavalier response made by Clinton in hearings (What difference does it now make?),”
You’re taking her words out of context. Her full statement was not at all “cavalier,” as she expressed that her main priority was bringing those responsible to justice, rather than analyzing their motives:
“With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator. Now, honestly, I will do my best to answer your questions about this, but the fact is that people were trying in real time to get to the best information. The IC has a process, I understand, going with the other committees to explain how these talking points came out. But you know, to be clear, it is, from my perspective, less important today looking backwards as to why these militants decided they did it than to find them and bring them to justice, and then maybe we’ll figure out what was going on in the meantime.”
Asking questions is reasonable. Asking questions that have repeatedly been answered, and ignoring those answers because you don’t like them, is not. The Benghazi scandal-mongers are not genuinely interested in finding the truth; if they were, they’d take evidence into account that doesn’t contradict their narrative. The goal is not to find the truth, it’s to target political enemies.
LOL
This is not an isolated incident welcome to the Citizens United media machine. Where they bait with conspiracy theories from the right begging for those donor dollars.
Most of the country knows what info is correct on the subject.
Again this is true for most of the Tea Party scandals. Issa wasting tax dollars, a shutdown to raise money, and then they hit the airwaves screaming about spending. LOL They are the big money wasters.
Veterans Day where we have neglected vets coming home to find out Iraq was a phony war to try and privatize Iraq’s oil. Our Citizens died, came home injured and taxpayers got stuck with the bill.
Mr Cheney is afraid to go to Canada for fear of being arrested for war crimes.
Time for people to cut it out and get real.
Chris: “I have refuted your “fabricated story” charge too many times to count.”
Correction, you have argued that the charge is false. I disagree as do many others with knowledge of the events so drop the phony superior attitude, please, it clutters up the discussion.
On the Sunday political shows following the attack Susan Rice appeared several times to posit the “official story” that the attack was spontaneous and the result of a protest over this video that got “out of hand”…a blatant attempt to spin the story for public consumption. There were protest going on and nobody was paying the least bit of attention to them until they could be used as an excuse for what happened.
Scurity Blogs, CNN:
If he knew, the President and Hillary knew. Rice either knew and agreed to be the front man for the fabricated story or she didn’t know and was simply used. I think she was in on it.
Daily Beast:
ABC News:
Time:
McClatchy:
Reuters:
Human Events:
Sorry Chris the story about the video just doesn’t hold up as the number one talking point after a 911 anniversary attack when it was already known that Al Qaeda had planned an anniversary attack, that the area was very dangerous for Americans, that security was too low. The administration could have just said it was still under investigation that Sunday morning…there was no reason to blame the video except as an excuse or cover up.
I maintain there is more to this story than meets the eye; the behavior of the President, Hillary Clinton and others is very troubling to this citizen.
Chris: “Asking questions is reasonable. Asking questions that have repeatedly been answered, and ignoring those answers because you don’t like them, is not.”
Chris they are asking questions because they are not getting answers that make sense or that offer a believable situation. They ask questions because the administration, and Hillary with her fainting spells and headaches, is fooling no one. They ask questions because it is their job to do so.
Evading questions is Hillary’s forte…we’ve been down this road with her before. Her attitude is in general cavalier, she could give a rip, and yes that is my opinion.
Obama is an observer to his own presidency…he campaigns; he does not lead or govern.
This incident stinks…period!
Watch Trey Gowdy rip the media over Benghazi.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=A1jeJmeeMjs
Tina: “There were protest going on and nobody was paying the least bit of attention to them until they could be used as an excuse for what happened.”
That is factually untrue. As I have shown, the CIA believed that the attack was linked to the anti-video protests in Cairo. And those protests were already becoming big news even before the attack on Benghazi. For you to say that “nobody was paying attention to them” shows only that you were not paying attention.
Tina, do you think the CIA was “in on it?” You haven’t addressed the fact that the CIA believed the attack was connected to the video protests in Cairo, as did every other agency involved in drafting the talking points. Doesn’t that weaken your charge that the administration just used the video as an “excuse” to spin the story? If not, then why not?
You also still haven’t explained what, exactly, the administration hoped to cover up. What did they have to gain?
Chris: “And those protests were already becoming big news even before the attack on Benghazi.”
How did you first hear about the video?
“For you to say that “nobody was paying attention to them” shows only that you were not paying attention.”
I repeat…when did you first hear about the video?
“You haven’t addressed the fact that the CIA believed the attack was connected to the video protests in Cairo, as did every other agency involved in drafting the talking points.”
My problem Chris is that there are others from those agencies who say otherwise. There are common sense aspects that don’t add up. For instance why would America place these men in a dangerous situation without also giving them extra security? Why did we have men in the region without adequate provision to come to the rescue if they ever were in trouble? Why especially on the anniversary of 911, with knowledge of so many attacks going on in the region, were we not prepared for anything. You see Chris, I am looking at this from the perspective of what I know America has done under leaders who gave a rip about the men and women who protect and serve this nation. I wonder why that hasn’t occurred to you.
I suggest you listen carefully to the questions asked by Trey Gowdy in the video Peggy posted. He is apparently asking them of media who also show they don’t give a rip by their indifference and by their willingness to play politics instead of practivcing good journalism.
“You also still haven’t explained what, exactly, the administration hoped to cover up. What did they have to gain?”
Hello. Anybody home? There is a large element of intrigue and/or incompetent leadership hovering around this. There was also the coming election. And finally Hillary Clinton’s life long ambition to be the first woman president. All of the people involved at the top have personal ambitions that come first!
Peggy excellent find. Do you have any idea who Gowdy was addressing? His questions fit both for the press and for investigators.
“What did they have to gain?”
Oh, geez. She doesn’t know, and doesn’t care. It all just feeds some deep-seated, paranoid, partisanism over which the poor woman has no control.
We got caught with drawers down, security-wise. It’s happened before, and will happen again.
But all this hyper-mania-malevolent-conspiracy seeking behavior … is just weird. And the longer it goes on (without turning up anything other than fraud), the more like “wolf crying” it gets to be.
Tina, strategy-wise, you don’t want to wear out the game before the woman even gets the nomination.
As I stated at the time, I didn’t watch the 60 Minutes story because if they could devote a year to uncover the details of Benghazi why couldn’t they have done the same about the details of Obama back in 2007?
This story was nothing but smoke and mirrors for the very start. The guy was BS, 60 Minutes as usual is BS. It was meant to pull a “Chris”, they took a murky story, tossed in some turds and stirred to make it really messy. It is all about making Obama and Clinton slip away as usual.
I have heard the guy approached Foxnews and they turned the story down. I mean come on, they spent a whole year on this thing and then in less than 2 weeks had to walk it back? LOL sure!
Tina: “How did you first hear about the video?”
I’m not sure. The Cairo protests started before the attack on Benghazi, so it’s possible that I heard about the video before the attack.
But the question isn’t really relevant. You won’t stop saying that “no one” has heard of the video before the White House put out the story. But that’s obviously untrue. The protesters in Cairo and other Muslim cities had heard of the video–that’s what they were protesting before the Benghazi attack. Some involved in the Benghazi attack had heard of the video, and expressed outrage that was documented by reporters on the ground. The CIA had heard of the video, and expressed the belief that it was the motivating factor in the attacks.
So your claim that “no one” had heard of the video until the administration made a big deal of it is still ridiculously false, regardless of when I or any other average U.S. citizen had heard of it until that point.
“My problem Chris is that there are others from those agencies who say otherwise.”
But the official documents by every single agency, that were examined by those at the very top, DO express the belief that the video was the motivating factor. There are always voices of dissent. The point is that it makes no sense to view this as some kind of administration cover-up. There are too many actors and agencies involved that all drew the same conclusion. To say that the video narrative was just a “cover story” invented by the White House is false, and runs counter to the available evidence. It wreaks of paranoia and an unwillingness to accept basic facts. To an conspiracy theorist, all contrary evidence is just proof of a cover-up.
“For instance why would America place these men in a dangerous situation without also giving them extra security? Why did we have men in the region without adequate provision to come to the rescue if they ever were in trouble? Why especially on the anniversary of 911, with knowledge of so many attacks going on in the region, were we not prepared for anything.”
These are all valid questions, but as I previously stated, they are also questions that could have been asked about *every embassy attack ever.* But you’ve never asked those questions before. You didn’t ask them about any of the embassy attacks under Bush or Reagan. Both of those presidents had more embassy deaths than Obama. You never blamed either of them for the attack of its aftermath. Can you give me solid, evidence-based reasons as to why that is fair? Not just assertions–actual evidence?
“You see Chris, I am looking at this from the perspective of what I know America has done under leaders who gave a rip about the men and women who protect and serve this nation. I wonder why that hasn’t occurred to you.”
Because…you’re clearly not doing that. You didn’t even know that Reagan and Bush had more embassy deaths under their watch until I told you. Those deaths were treated as tragedies, not excuses to invent some kind of scandal. Reagan WAS heavily criticized by some, even within his administration, for not providing adequate security at embassies where dozens died. But it didn’t provoke calls for impeachment. If you’re going to compare leaders based on events like the attack on Benghazi, then you’d have to explain WHY you think those other leaders did so much better than Obama, even though there were more embassy attacks and deaths under their leadership.
“Hello. Anybody home? There is a large element of intrigue and/or incompetent leadership hovering around this. There was also the coming election. And finally Hillary Clinton’s life long ambition to be the first woman president. All of the people involved at the top have personal ambitions that come first!”
You realize none of the above constitutes an explanation, right? HOW would making up a story about the video help cover up accusations of incompetent leadership? HOW would it influence the election? HOW does it have anything to do with Clinton’s possible presidential aspirations?
I could not care less about the 60 Minutes story. My interest lies only in the events surrounding the Benghazi massacre outrage, the despicable and specious video cover story, and the insane abandonment of an embassy by the Obama administration.
Interesting that a caviling FAIL from Chris gets front page from Post Scripts. The 60 Minutes story IS NOT the issue.
Quite so Pie, quite so.
Pie Guevara: “the despicable and specious video cover story, and the insane abandonment of an embassy by the Obama administration.”
Again:
The video was not a “specious cover story.” Every single agency involved in the talking points, including the CIA, believed that the video played a role in the motivations for the attack.
And the embassy was not “abandoned.” Help was sent. Numerous high-ranking military personnel have explained that more help could not arrive on time.
There’s no conspiracy here. Just a tragedy.
Screw the 60 Minutes “non-story” and Chris’ predictable, pathetic, politically motivated and false water hauling crap narrative —
http://washingtonexaminer.com/examiner-editorial-let-the-benghazi-five-testify-about-the-attack/article/2538829
Chris: “…so it’s possible that I heard about the video before the attack.”
I’m not buying it.
“The protesters in Cairo and other Muslim cities had heard of the video–that’s what they were protesting before the Benghazi attack.”
The protests could also have been staged to use as an excuse. It has no real relevance and yet it was used as the primary explanation for the attack to the public. A pointed effort was made to blame a stupid American basically and dismiss al Qaeda. They wanted us to believe it was just a protest that got a little out of hand. And look how well it worked on gullible you?
The attack was NOT spontaneous; it was planned. Al Qaeda doesn’t need an excuse. The anniversary of 911 is excuse enough. This explanation doesn’t hold water…it’s pathetic.
“But the official documents by every single agency, that were examined by those at the very top, DO express the belief that the video was the motivating factor.”
Oh well, as long as its the official from the top explanation in every single agency that must mean there is no politics going on here. Gosh my bad!
“You didn’t even know that Reagan and Bush had more embassy deaths under their watch until I told you.”
we aren’t talking about embassy deaths. We are talking about the behavior of this administration before, during, and after the fact. We are talking about incompetence, indifference, and failure. We are talking about leaving Americans to die that could have been made more secure with a little effort and better planning. Benghazi isn’t the only example but it is the most dazzling example of total crap leadership (I can’t think of words low enough to express my disdain)
” You didn’t even know that Reagan and Bush had more embassy deaths under their watch…”
There is no comparison. Neither Reagan Nor Bush would send a spokesperson out to make phony explanations. These men were responsible leaders.
I will not answer your final questions…they are as ignorant, or naive, as your belief in the video explanation.
“There’s no conspiracy here. Just a tragedy.”
A tragedy is when a family dies as their house burns to the ground due to an electrical fire in the middle of the night with all them tucked safely in their beds.
This could have been prevented with competent leadership. The English recognized the danger and took their people out. More American security would have made a difference and total sense in this situation…they have more people guarding the embassy in France for heavens sake!
The entire thing makes me ill as does your apparent cluelessness.
#11 Tina
No, sorry I don’t know for sure who he was speaking to. Couldn’t find any videos of the others speaking. It looks like it was held in a press room at the Capital, therefore, he would be talking to the press.
Re #17 Chris : “There’s no conspiracy here.”
Who said anything about conspiracy, chump? Certainly not me. This is about detachment, incompetence, and pathological serial lying. If there is any conspiracy you are part of it. To cover up the detachment, incompetence, and abject lies of the Obama administration.
The embassy, which begged for increased security, was abandoned and the resulting massacre is testament to that. Get a clue and cease your idiotic cavil. Or don’t.
Thank you Pie, great job!
It’s obvious to anyone with a brain that the video was the main reason why those “RANDOM’ street protesters attacked our embassy.
How does ANYONE know it WASN’T the insulting anti-Islamic You Tube video, answer: THEY DON”T!
See, the FIRST 12 versions of the talking points refused to mention the very Insulting anti-Islamic video, NOW THAT’S A PROBLEM
BUT Why is the date September 11th significant, can anyone explain that to me?
This is such a pathetic attempt to take down our squeaky clean Obama.
Either way it couldn’t have been B. Obamas fault, he was on to Las Vegas to an extremely important fundraiser during the attack time-line. So he’s in the clear.
And besides: Benghazi doesn’t even come close to how bad Watergate was, so maybe we should just get over it.
After all The questions have been asked and answered repeatedly, but wait even though they may have been asked, has the truth been received yet? I doubt it!
The only thing we know for sure is that four Americans were left behind to fend for themselves aginst 150 plus militants and died needlessly, and for no apparent defensible reason!
Toby,
In case you were wondering who Chris is aping, it is one of his George Soros funded sources and advisers “Media Matters” that provides him his marching orders.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/11/11/Media-Matters-Benghazi
Learn about the progressive propaganda and disinformation arm of the Democratic Party, “Media Matters for America” here —
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7150
“… was abandoned and the resulting massacre is testament to that.”
Alas, three deaths does not a “massacre” make. See, this is the sort of hyperbole that would weaken your factual position … if you had one, that is.
“Alas, three deaths does not a “massacre” make” ….unless you are one of the three, then it does!!!!
Tina: “I’m not buying it.”
Again, it doesn’t matter. Your question was irrelevant to whether or not the administration cooked up a phony story. It doesn’t matter when I first heard about the video. It matters when the protesters and the CIA first heard about the video.
“The protests could also have been staged to use as an excuse.”
…
I honestly am not sure what you mean. Staged by whom? Are you implying that the protests in Cairo were staged by Al Qaeda, and the video excuse was made up by them, in order to provide cover for the attack in Libya? Or are you saying that our own government staged the protests?
You realize neither of those theories make sense and both are certifiably insane, right?
“It has no real relevance and yet it was used as the primary explanation for the attack to the public. A pointed effort was made to blame a stupid American basically and dismiss al Qaeda. They wanted us to believe it was just a protest that got a little out of hand. And look how well it worked on gullible you?”
Again, Tina: this was the explanation provided by every single government agency, including the CIA. Now again I ask you: do you believe the CIA was in on the plan to lie about the video in order to provide cover for Obama?
“Oh well, as long as its the official from the top explanation in every single agency that must mean there is no politics going on here. Gosh my bad!”
What it means is that your theory that the video was blamed in order to give cover to Obama loses a lot of traction. Not every single agency has an interest in providing cover for Obama.
“we aren’t talking about embassy deaths. We are talking about the behavior of this administration before, during, and after the fact. We are talking about incompetence, indifference, and failure. We are talking about leaving Americans to die that could have been made more secure with a little effort and better planning.”
And again, you could launch all those same charges against past presidents who didn’t provide enough security to prevent embassy deaths. But you didn’t. Why?
“Neither Reagan Nor Bush would send a spokesperson out to make phony explanations.”
That is literally one of the most historically ignorant things you have ever said. And you recently said that the U.S. won in Vietnam.
“I will not answer your final questions…they are as ignorant, or naive, as your belief in the video explanation.”
Are you talking about these questions?
“HOW would making up a story about the video help cover up accusations of incompetent leadership? HOW would it influence the election? HOW does it have anything to do with Clinton’s possible presidential aspirations?”
Tina, those questions are crucial to your entire case! If you can’t answer them, YOU HAVE NO CASE.
Harold: “See, the FIRST 12 versions of the talking points refused to mention the very Insulting anti-Islamic video, NOW THAT’S A PROBLEM”
It’s not a problem, it’s a lie. I just quoted the first draft of the CIA’s talking points which clearly say that the attack was “spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. embassy in Cairo.” The protests in Cairo were in response to the video, as everyone not living under a rock knows.
Can someone–anyone–explain to me why the CIA, and every other agency involved in the talking points, would lie in order to provide political cover to the president? And what kind of cover this was supposed to provide? And how you think all of this was engineered? It actually would require a massive conspiracy.
No one here is willing to explain how you think this worked or why, perhaps because you know doing so will make you look stupid. It’s very easy to launch bogus smears and attack people for allegedly committing heinous attacks, without clarifying by what means you think these actions could have possibly occurred.
Benghazi-gate really is just birtherism all over again.
No one was murdered at Watergate.
Chris arguing again with you about that obscure video holds no interest for me.
What does is new information that Chris will love because it features three…count em three…intelligence reports:
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-viewpoint/111213-678928-three-key-reports-flagged-dangers-at-benghazi.htm?p=full“>IBD:
For the crap weasels with selective memories, the Obama administration was hyping the video nonsense a full week after it was well known that the video misinformation campaign was completely bogus.
The investigation of the Benghazi scandal continued yesterday with CIA operatives testifying behind closed doors before congress. Those damn “birther” house members just won’t move on!!!
Also for the stupid lying crap weasels with selective memories and specious narratives, the talking points were cleansed of any mention of Al-Qaeda by the administration.
Emails reveal how accuracy was scrubbed out of Benghazi ‘talking points’
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/16/emails-reveal-how-accuracy-was-scrubbed-out-of-ben/?page=all
The above should have read “Also for the stupid lying weasels with selective memories and specious narratives, the talking points were cleansed of any mention of Al-Qaeda by the administration which inserted the false video narrative into the CIA talking points.
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan E. Rice, repeatedly blamed the attack on the anti-Muslim YouTube video — an assertion not in any version of the talking points generated by the CIA.
I am impressed by facts that are known, not the twisted cavils of misinformation generated by snotty, turd tossing fools.
Chris,the problem WAS the lie, each and every version. Please tell me and others who doubt the creditability of the WH because of ALL the recent disclosures the following;
Come on put it on the line, explain
WHY FOUR AMERICANS WERE LEFT TO FEND FOR THEMSELVES, and died because of the complacent and maybe even complicit attitude of this administration.
The events leading up to those deaths, just might be a CYA over, let’s say some arms being sent to Syria for the rebels, and maybe Russia was digging into it and was upset? I don’t know, what I do know is FOUR AMERICANS ARE DEAD, and liberals everywhere are covering for a person who puts more importance on fund raising, then the lives of Americans serving abroad.
I have heard enough of your ‘Video was to blame”; yeah sure,”my aunt Lucy”, I am not buying that lie either, this was a failure of a President to perform his responsibility to protecting those he put in harms way.
Pie: “U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan E. Rice, repeatedly blamed the attack on the anti-Muslim YouTube video — an assertion not in any version of the talking points generated by the CIA.”
Why do you keep saying this?
The first draft of the CIA talking points said the attack was inspired by the protests in Cairo. Subsequent drafts said the same thing. It is well known that the protests in Cairo were motivated by the video. Of that there has never been any question. So while the CIA talking points never explicitly mention the video by name, it is very clear that they drew the connection.
What part of this remains unclear to you?
Harold:
“Come on put it on the line, explain WHY FOUR AMERICANS WERE LEFT TO FEND FOR THEMSELVES, and died because of the complacent and maybe even complicit attitude of this administration.”
They were not left to fend for themselves. Help was sent. I’ve gone through all of this already.
“I have heard enough of your ‘Video was to blame”;”
God, your reading comprehension sucks. I have not said that the video was to blame. At this point we know that’s not true; the administration conceded that point over a year ago.
What I’ve explained is that *this was the initial conclusion of every single government agency that looked into the matter.*
That basic fact should make you skeptical of the “Obama election cover-up” narrative. But it won’t.
I believe the FBI and CIA both admitted they were watering down the press release to protect each other.
Hello the CIA had an operative working in the Building. Walking arms! And we all know the CIA never tells us any truth!
Enough of the Tea Party wasting tax payer dollars for ISSA’s fake investigations for fun
Bottom Line all that Citizens United money has taken main Stream media into 24/7 get the money mode. CBS did it and knew what they were doing. They wanted some of that good ol right ring donor money!
The CIA the CIA the CIA and again the CIA
Amazing how people complain about the money in politics but follow the propaganda like sheeple
I still say Michael Hastings was on to something and that was probably the FBI that ended his life….My Opinion there.
What Chris writes is an attempt most likely to silence some points that don’t add up factually as presented by the WH and it’s loyal team of talking heads.
Once more he shows his immaturity to have a discussion about misinformation as it is released by the WH, by using condescending statements
From your post #4: ‘Numerous reports from on the ground in Benghazi indicated that the attackers were motivated by outrage over the anti-Islam video’, If you were not trying to inject that idea into your defense of the WH lies, what was it purpose and why was it included in the opening paragraph. Then you go on to write and CYA your above statement with a CIA release that states: “The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously”. All of which reads like a WH press release where they try a new avenue next and see what sticks to the wall.
Also in post #34 Chris once more references the video,: ‘So while the CIA talking points never explicitly mention the video by name, it is very clear that they drew the connection”.
Chris, maybe it’s you who is causing the problem with your writing style and state the context of what your trying to spin with your constant defense of the current WH.
So when reading your post, I see a pattern of innuendoes that the video did indeed cause the attack on our people, and I will add, while the WH just sat on their hands knowing the importance of 9-11
Possibly someone will uncover the true facts and make them public to hold the WH accountable,. Unfortunately enough of the above press fodder and misdirection will have already contaminated the “30 second sound bite” minds of those liberals wish to herd to the polls with promises of utopian handouts through larger and unaccountable Government, much like this administration promotes,
Most all your reply (s) to any post here read more like releases much the WH uses to depict (spin) the events, all of which have lead to the current WH factual creditability failure
If your intent is on trying to spin facts away from the truth just to support Obama and your Liberal ideology, you are wasting my time as well as that of other concerned people posting here. And you have this unique quality of picking what you consider the most rebuttable portion of anyone’s post, to try and discredit honest concern and questions. In doing so you avoid answering any other part of concerned questions posted, the ones that doesn’t bolster your propaganda.
I would venture by now that most readers read through your attempts of political spin.
And once more I suggest you temper your rebuttal posts. You have become most juvenile in your constant character attacks. As we have shown prior
“From your post #4: ‘Numerous reports from on the ground in Benghazi indicated that the attackers were motivated by outrage over the anti-Islam video’, If you were not trying to inject that idea into your defense of the WH lies, what was it purpose and why was it included in the opening paragraph.”
I thought I was being clear, Harold. We know now that the Benghazi attackers were not motivated by the video and were not connected to the Cairo protests. The White House has acknowledged as much. But AT THE TIME, that was seemingly the belief of every single government agency which reviewed the situation.
Again: I am not saying that the video was the motivation. I am saying that the U.S. government had evidence at the time that the video was the motivation. They later realized they were wrong, and corrected the error. That’s not a “scandal.” There is no evidence of a “cover-up.”
“Then you go on to write and CYA your above statement with a CIA release that states: “The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously”. All of which reads like a WH press release where they try a new avenue next and see what sticks to the wall.”
OK, so what exactly are you saying here? Are you saying that the WH directed the CIA to lie for them, and the CIA complied? Is that the charge you are making?
Why can’t anyone here just come out and say that? That’s obviously the implication; it’s the only way your arguments make sense. Are you refraining from making this clear because you know you don’t actually believe it?
“Chris, maybe it’s you who is causing the problem with your writing style”
Sorry, no. I’ve been as clear as possible. Your last comment included several sentences with no periods at the end, misuses of “your,” and ends in the middle of a sentence. You really want to criticize my writing style?
Chris, are you being intentionally obtuse or is this just another one of your extended and tedious cavils?
What part of “The talking points were sent to U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan E. Rice, who was chosen to be the face of the administration for the first post-attack Sunday talk shows. That Sunday, Sept. 16, she repeatedly blamed the attack on the anti-Muslim YouTube video — an assertion not in any version of the talking points.”
Yes, the CIA did originally falsely state that “the attacks were inspired spontaneously by the protests in Cairo” but never made a specific mention of the anti-Muslim video as a talking point.
The exchange of emails not withheld from Congress clearly indicate that the talking points were not merely a product of the CIA but a product of the White House as well. Obviously you cannot bring yourself to consider the very realistic scenario where security bureaucrats appointed to office by Obama had an influence on how the talking points were developed and then expunged of any mention of terrorists.
Ultimately, representatives of the CIA capitulated to the White House line outs and pressure from the State Department so any mention of terrorists was expunged. Does this tell you nothing?
We may never know the whole truth because the administration refuses to release to the congressional investigative body all of the pertinent emails. Moreover, conversations outside of the emails will likely never be given the light of day.
I think Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, declaring White House press secretary Jay Carney “paid liar” more accurate than you will ever admit to.
Lastly, had this sort of debacle occurred in the Bush 43 Administration, you and your fellow Obama apologists would be all over it like white on rice. So spare me your faux poses.
The above is a little rough, but I think any readers can fill in the blanks for What part of … (do you not understand) and other errors.
What is a “talking point” but a devised group of sentences put together by politicians to explain without detail and meant to cover, sooth, or misdirect.
The reason for sending Susan Rice out to ALL of the Sunday talk shows was to start the story rolling. They did not want the details of what happened to be what people were talking about. they wanted it to look like an unfortunate spontaneous event…so sorry…but certainly not the administrations fault.
They used to get away with this stuff when all there was was ABC, CBS, NBC, AND CNN.
No more!
IBD reported yesterday the following:
I find it impossible to believe that the CIa or any other intelligence agency first reported on the video as the cause UNLESS there was something going on they wanted to cover up…one way or the other this is not something we should just ignore or drop.