New Website Vows to Show You the Benghazi Documents the ‘White House Doesn’t Want You to Read’
-
Recent Posts
Archives
Categories
- Art (88)
- Behavior and Psychology (20)
- Business, Industry and Finance (63)
- Constitution and Law (370)
- Consumer Affairs (4)
- Culture (17)
- Deep State (5)
- Economy (3)
- Education (238)
- Environment (74)
- Fraud Alert (8)
- Global Issues (1)
- Health and Medicine (149)
- History (8)
- Humour (94)
- Military (115)
- Morals and Ethics (149)
- News Media (11)
- Police, Crime, Security (215)
- Politics and Government (144)
- Religion (91)
- Science and Technology (19)
- Veterans' Issues (13)
- World (12)
Recent Comments
- ClayPidgeon on Scam Calls from the American Police Association
- Michael Davis on Life In Chico and Other Places Infected by Bums
- Patricia Lieder on Scam Calls from the American Police Association
- Dawn on Thaddeus Kerns Boy Aviator
- scott sproat on Scam Calls from the American Police Association
Recent NorCal Blogs Posts
LOL unreliable sources
Epic Fail! Try the actual public records on file. No Beck and fake GOP. Beck is a paid CIA Troll.
Hopefully, those who believe Benghazi is just a “phony” scandal will take the time to review the documents which show the attack did not start from a protest over a video. The president of Libya even identified by name the terrorist group on 9/12, the same day the attack ended.
Also, have to honor President Regan’s birthday today with this video. Wish we had him in the Oval Office today.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvg7lRsCVJ8&feature=player_embedded
With all due respect Dewey the official House report is a reliable source. The investigations are being conducted by several House committees that are made up of both Democrat and Republican members. The official summary of the report concludes:
This scandal cries out for a special prosecutor investigation. Eric Holder will not call for one. He is not serving the people and upholding his oath of office. He is a radical partisan aligned with the President and putting protecting the President above the interests of the people and the nation.
I’d be interested to know what your version of “actual public records on file” would be. Care to share your “official records” with our readers?
Peggy: “Hopefully, those who believe Benghazi is just a “phony” scandal will take the time to review the documents which show the attack did not start from a protest over a video.”
Peggy, *everyone* knows this now. No one is arguing that the attack was started from a protest anymore. The White House said as much only a few weeks after the attack.
What is relevant is whether or not the administration BELIEVED that the attack started from a protest. Given that *this is what the CIA told them,* as shown by the Senate Report, there is no reason to suspect that the White House knew otherwise.
“The president of Libya even identified by name the terrorist group on 9/12, the same day the attack ended.”
And there were other sources who said that they weren’t so sure. If you read the CIA talking points you will see evidence of confusion over whether that group was involved and the extent of their involvement.
Again: this was an intelligence and security failure. They have happened before. The Senate Report contradicted many of the House Report’s findings, and found no evidence of a cover-up. They did provide plenty of recommendations for how to stop something like this from happening again. Amazingly, “impeach Obama” wasn’t one of them. If we want to honor those that died we need to drop the theatrics and seriously look at the suggestions so that we can prevent future tragedies.
Peggy “the President didn’t know” is the “dog ate the homework” excuse of the century!
Right up there with the dishonesty that we could keep our insurance and doctor.
We are talking about the Commander-in-Chief! The person everyone involved looks to for guidance and leadership. The person who disappeared on the night of the attack after issuing orders for someone else to make the hard decisions..the three A.M. call came and our President turned over and went back to sleep..the next morning he flew off to fund raise!
If the President “didn’t know” it’s because he wasn’t engaged enough to get reports from all sources, including his commanders and generals, the leader of Libya, and Department of State (Hillary). If he didn’t know he wasn’t paying close enough attention to the briefings even before the attack! If he didn’t know its because the election took priority to the safety of one of his ambassadors and those who served under him!
The attack alone should have had him grilling everyone about how and why this happened.
It is unreasonable to conclude that he would have chosen to sign off on the Susan Rice Sunday talk show talking points if it didn’t include the probability that it was a terror attack perpetrated by al Qaeda because by then he would have had all of this information…had he given a $&*#!
Is he incompetent to serve or was he thinking he could pull off a lie to help Hillary in her bid for President?
I don’t see how it could be anything else but both of these.
This isn’t theatrics. It is very serious and not just because of what happened but because the President’s commitment to protect the nation is under serious doubt.
Dewey, thank you for showing your hardline preference to remain ignorant while proudly wearing a big D on your forehead.
If you had taken the time to check out the links you would have found they were the actual documents from the hearings in DC. The GOP just put them in a more user friendly format for individuals interested in obtaining the information and The Blaze posted the link on their Blog.
It’s really funny Obama, whom I’m sure you voted for, said he’d be the most transparent president and you attack the GOP and Beck for providing the very information he doesn’t want people to see.
Who’s the troll Dewey? You’re pathetic.
Chris, The information I’ve read says General Hamm and Panetta met with Obama about an hour after the attack began. Hamm told Obama it was a terrorist attack by an al Qaida group during that 30 minute meeting and not a video.
The president of Libya told Greg Hicks during the attack or on 12/12 the al Qaida group was a spin off group from al Qaeda. When Susan Rice came out with the video talking points on the Sunday talk shows the president of Libya was so upset he’s the reason the CIA weren’t allowed entry to inspect the Benghazi facility.
Here’s a Canadian article that lays it out pretty well.
“Newly declassified documents reveal that high-ranking members of the Obama administration were aware that the September 11, 2012 assault on the American consulate in Benghazi was a “terrorist attack” only minutes after the battle began.
In classified testimony given on June 26, 2013 to the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation, Gen. Carter Hamm, former head of the United States Africa Command (AFRICOM) revealed he was the one who broke the news to former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. According to declassified testimony obtained by Fox News, Hamm testified that he learned about the attack only 15 minutes after it began at 9:42 p.m. Libya time. Thus, the administration’s carefully crafted narrative that the attack was based on a video has once again been revealed for the lie it always was.
“My first call was to General Dempsey, General Dempsey’s office, to say, ‘Hey, I am headed down the hall. I need to see him right away,’” the General told lawmakers. “I told him what I knew. We immediately walked upstairs to meet with Secretary Panetta.” Hamm characterized the ability to meet with both men so soon after the attack occurred as a fortunate “happenstance” because “they had the basic information as they headed across for the meeting at the White House.”
That meeting had been pre-scheduled with the president for 5 p.m. EST. A Defense Department (DOD) timeline notes that the meeting occurred one hour and 18 minutes after the attack began, and even as the battle at the consulate was ongoing. The DOD also revealed that an unarmed drone arrived over the battlefield during that time. As both men revealed in subsequent testimony, the meeting with the president lasted approximately 30 minutes—after which they never heard from anyone in the White House again.
Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-OH), an Iraq war veteran and Army reserve officer, pressed the General more forcefully on the nature of his conversation with Panetta and Dempsey. He expressed his concern “that someone in the military would be advising that this was a demonstration” rather than a terrorist attack. Hamm noted their was some “preliminary discussion” of the point, but emphasized that they were aware of what was really going on. “But I think at the command, I personally and I think the command very quickly got to the point that this was not a demonstration, this was a terrorist attack,” he testified. Hamm also reiterated that “with General Dempsey and Secretary Panetta, that is the nature of the conversation we had, yes, sir.”
Hamm, Dempsey and Carter were not the only ones aware that a terrorist attack was occurring. The declassified transcripts show that key officers, along with several channels of command throughout the Pentagon and its combatants commands, were equally quick to label the assault a terrorist attack.
Wenstrup took the approach with Marine Corps Col. George Bristol, commander of AFRICOM’s Joint Special Operations Task Force for the Trans Sahara region, that he did with Dempsey. Bristol testified he was in Dakar, Senegal when the Joint Operations Center called to tell him about “a considerable event unfolding in Libya.” Bristol called Lt. Col. S.E. Gibson, an Army commander stationed in Tripoli, who informed Bristol that Ambassador Stevens was missing and “there was a fight going on” at the compound. “So no one from the military was ever advising, that you are aware of, that this was a demonstration gone out of control, it was always considered an attack on the United States?” Wenstrup asked Bristol. “Yes, sir. … We referred to it as the attack,” he replied.
Full article here.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/60445
If the president of Libya, Greg Hicks, General Hamm and possibly Panetta all knew it was an al Qaida linked terrorist attack just minutes before a meeting with Obama is it not logical they would have told him the attack was NOT the result of a video?
Tina: “We are talking about the Commander-in-Chief! The person everyone involved looks to for guidance and leadership. The person who disappeared on the night of the attack”
I have seen you make this claim here multiple times, but I have never seen you provide any evidence for it.
Please prove your assertion that Obama “disappeared” the night of the attack before making it again.
“the next morning he flew off to fund raise!”
Funny, you never complained about Reagan choosing to campaign the day after a terrorist attack on an embassy:
“OK, a little perspective: On September 20, 1984, there was a truck-bomb explosion at the U.S. embassy annex in Aukar, Lebanon, just outside Beirut. Twenty-four people were killed. It was third terrorist bombing aimed at U.S. interests in Lebanon in a year and a half.
What did Ronald Reagan do on September 21, 1984? He made three campaign appearances in Iowa — at an airport rally, a farm, and a church picnic — despite the fact that a Des Moines Register poll showed him leading Walter Mondale in the state by 23 points.”
http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2012/10/dear-newt-shut-hell-up-newsbusters.html
“If the President “didn’t know” it’s because he wasn’t engaged enough to get reports from all sources, including his commanders and generals, the leader of Libya, and Department of State (Hillary). If he didn’t know he wasn’t paying close enough attention to the briefings even before the attack! If he didn’t know its because the election took priority to the safety of one of his ambassadors and those who served under him!”
Can you please explain why you think the CIA “didn’t know” right away that this was an act of terror? Their presence in the area was larger and more significant than the State Department’s.
“It is unreasonable to conclude that he would have chosen to sign off on the Susan Rice Sunday talk show talking points if it didn’t include the probability that it was a terror attack perpetrated by al Qaeda because by then he would have had all of this information…had he given a $&*#!”
You can’t think of a single reason why Obama wouldn’t have wanted to mention al Qaeda right from the beginning other than politics? Really?
The full e-mails released showed that there was a lot of debate over including references to al Qaeda and that there were many reasons for deleting these references other than politics. It’s also important to note that the CIA mentioned the *possibility* of al Qaeda involvement from the very beginning, but could not confirm that involvement with any certainty. It’s also important to note that the White House never dismissed the possibility of al Qaeda involvement, and stated several times that they were still investigating. Conservative critics are acting as if al Qaeda involvement was flatly denied from the beginning. But that’s not what happened.
“Is he incompetent to serve or was he thinking he could pull off a lie to help Hillary in her bid for President?”
Wait, wait, wait. I thought your theory was that the point was to save his own ass in the November election? Now it’s to save the ass of someone who may or may not run for president in a few years? And you still can’t even imagine that this was a run-of-the-mill intelligence failure, even after seeing the CIA talking pointa?
That’s ridiculous.
“I don’t see how it could be anything else but both of these.”
Of course you don’t.
“This isn’t theatrics. It is very serious”
If you were serious-minded in your quest for truth you would change your views based on new evidence. But you never do that. You were baselessly accusing Obama of a cover-up from the beginning, and no evidence to the contrary you’ve seen in the last year and change has made you reconsider those allegations in the slightest.
“Several committee Republicans pressed Panetta and Dempsey about their discussions with President Barack Obama on that fateful day and his level of involvement, suggesting that after the initial conversation the commander in chief was disengaged as Americans died.
Panetta said he and Dempsey were meeting with Obama when they first learned of the Libya assault. He said the president told them to deploy forces as quickly as possible.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., questioned whether Panetta spoke again to Obama after that first meeting. The Pentagon chief said no but that the White House was in touch with military officials and aware of what was happening.
“During the eight-hour period, did he show any curiosity?” Graham asked.
Panetta said there was no question the president was concerned about American lives. Exasperated with Graham’s interruptions, Panetta said forcefully, “The president is well-informed about what is going on; make no mistake about it.”
At one point in the hearing, Graham asked Panetta if he knew what time Obama went to sleep that night. The Pentagon chief said he did not.
Panetta also pushed back against Republican criticism that the Obama administration ignored warning signs about the attack. The Pentagon chief insisted there were no signs of or specific intelligence about an imminent attack. In the six months prior to the assault, the government was apprised of 281 threats to diplomatic missions, consulates and other facilities worldwide, he said.”
Link for the above: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/07/leon-panetta-benghazi_n_2638283.html
“If the president of Libya, Greg Hicks, General Hamm and possibly Panetta all knew it was an al Qaida linked terrorist attack just minutes before a meeting with Obama is it not logical they would have told him the attack was NOT the result of a video?”
Peggy,
The problem with this line of logic that you and other conservatives keep exhibiting, is that it treats “protests over a video” and “al Qaeda linked terrorist attack” as if those are somehow mutually exclusive things. As if the video COULDN’T have had anything to do with the attack if al Qaeda was involved.
Not only does this not stand up to simple logic–it’s fairly possible that the attack could have involved both of these–it is contradicted by the very first draft of the CIA talking points, which cites BOTH a spontaneous protest AND al Qaeda-linked extremists:
* We believe based on currently available information that the attacks in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US Consulate and subsequently its annex.
* The crowd almost certainly was a mix of individuals from across many sectors of Libyan society. That being said, we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.
–p. 46 of the Senate Report
http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/benghazi2014/benghazi.pdf
The talking points then go on to report possible involvement by Ansar al-Sharia (a group whose al-Qeada ties are somewhat contested, as I understand it), but seems unsure of their involvement.
Do you see, Peggy, why your question above is somewhat misleading?
It defies logic to say that the president, or anyone else, could have or should have known with 100% certainty that a spontaneous protest did not happen when the CIA, who was more in the thick of it than anyone, did not know. It also defies logic to say that the White House should have immediately announced al Qaeda’s involvement when the extent of that involvement is still a subject of dispute. (Note that the CIA talking points say “ties to al Qa’ida,” not al Qa’ida itself.)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-new-definition-for-al-qaeda/2014/01/31/31283002-83a7-11e3-9dd4-e7278db80d86_story.html
Correction to my above comment.
General Hamm met with Panetta and told Panetta it was a terrorist attack by an al Quida group. Panetta met with Obama, Hamm did not.
Panetta needs to be subpoenaed to disclose what he told Obama.
Peggy: “General Hamm met with Panetta and told Panetta it was a terrorist attack by an al Quida group. Panetta met with Obama, Hamm did not.
Panetta needs to be subpoenaed to disclose what he told Obama.”
This doesn’t make any sense. Obama said it was a terrorist attack *the day after it happened.* (There is no difference in meaning between “act of terror” and “terrorist attack.) Why do conservatives keep pretending he didn’t say this? Why do you keep pretending that “terrorist attack” and “spontaneous protest” are two completely separate things, when the CIA clearly reported that they thought it was BOTH of these things at first?
Conservatives are saying that sending Rice out to spin the terror attack as a “protest gone wild” and blaming the video (Chritian/America) for the protest puts the motivations, competency, and honesty of the administration in severe question.
susan Rice’s comments could easily have contained talking points that acknowledged the terror/al Qaeda aspect of the attack. Instead they attempted to perpetrate the fraud that it was not by mentioning only the video, as if it were the motivation rather than the serious intent to destroy the west, which is the motivation of Al Qaeda.
That you cannot see the seriousness of this puts you in the low information segment of society that they hoped to influence with the “video fairytale”.
I have read that the man who did the video is a Coptic Christian. Hillary made the following statements about the video:
Obama also referred to the video as “that crude disgusting video.
If these two important American leaders were going to be specific about violence having no place in religion wouldn’t this have a been a good time to say SOMETHING about the death and violence being perpetrated on Coptic Christians in Egypt that might have inspired the video!
It is a sad time in America when our leaders have chosen to align with the enemies of the West, our ally Israel, and the Christian religion rather than standing against violence as a solution or means to dominance and tyranny in the world.
Chris, you’re wasting you time. The Blazers, Foxers and Breitbarters will clasp this fiction to their bosoms until their dying day.
From Blaze, Fox and Breitbart, I expect no better. They have money to make. But I was disgusted with the House GOP website. That body makes no attempt at all to cultivate what used to be called statemanship.
Chris, if you said was true my statement would not make sense, but it’s not.
Obama for at least two weeks blamed the video for all of the attacks on 9/11. He even said so at the UN. While he didn’t say specifically “Benghazi” it was the only place four Americans died. If he believed terrorist killed them he should have said so.
If you missed it here’s one of the moms saying Obama, Clinton and Rice told her at the casket ceremony they blamed the video producer and made no mention of her son being killed by terrorist.
Slain Benghazi Officer’s Mom: Obama, Clinton, Rice All Blamed the Video As ‘They Were Hugging Me’:
Part of the exchange between host Bill O’Reilly and Pat Smith about events at the memorial service is presented below:
Bill O’Reilly: “Did Hillary Clinton say anything to you? Did President Obama, did they say anything to you on that day?”
Pat Smith: “Oh yes, they all told me about the reason that this happened was the video. Every one of them told me that.”
O’Reilly: “They actually told you it was the video? Both Secretary of State Clinton and the president told you it was the videotape?”
Pat Smith: “Yes, they actually did, and Susan Rice also.”
O’Reilly: “Face to face?”
Pat Smith: “Nose to nose. I was with – they were hugging me.”
O’Reilly: “And that was 3 days after the attack, correct? The 14th?”
Pat Smith: “Well, whenever it was – it was at the ceremony [at Andrews Air Force base].”
O’Reilly: “September 14, three days after the attack.”
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/slain-benghazi-officers-mom-obama-clinton-rice-all-blamed-video-they-were-hugging-me#sthash.0WhmXvPh.dpuf
Here is the father of Tyron Woods telling what Obama, Clinton and Biden said at the casket ceremony.
Joe Biden to Father of Former Navy SEAL Killed in Benghazi: ‘Did Your Son Always Have Balls the Size of Cue Balls?’
“Hillary Clinton’s comments to Woods raise even more questions about the White House’s official story on the Benghazi attack, which has already been extremely inconsistent.
After apologizing for his loss, Woods said Clinton told him that the U.S. would “make sure that the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted.”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/10/25/joe-biden-to-father-of-former-navy-seal-killed-in-benghazi-did-your-son-always-have-balls-the-size-of-cue-balls/
Chris: “Why do you keep pretending that “terrorist attack” and “spontaneous protest” are two completely separate things, when the CIA clearly reported that they thought it was BOTH of these things at first?”
My god Chris, because they didn’t report there were protest in Libya!! Greg Hick’s testified the video was a, “none event.” Would you PLEASE watch his testimony in this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18gu8uCD1Z8
The resent article from the Weekly Standard also clearly states based on the just released documents that is was an attack by, “Islamic militants.” If that doesn’t indicate it was a terrorist attack and not a violent protest I don’t know what does.
“The fighting in Benghazi continued for another several hours, so top Obama administration officials were told even as the fighting was taking place that U.S. diplomats and intelligence operatives were likely being attacked by al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists. A cable sent the following day, September 12, by the CIA station chief in Libya, reported that eyewitnesses confirmed the participation of Islamic militants and made clear that U.S. facilities in Benghazi had come under terrorist attack. It was this fact, along with several others, that top Obama officials would work so hard to obscure.
Chris, I don’t know how to make it any clearer to you that what really happened in Benghazi before, during and after has NOT been told. When parents are told their sons died because of a video, which we all know was a lie now, are owed the truth. When our leaders lie to the nation, we too are owed the truth.
Tina: “Conservatives are saying that sending Rice out to spin the terror attack as a “protest gone wild” and blaming the video (Chritian/America) for the protest puts the motivations, competency, and honesty of the administration in severe question.”
But she did not “spin,” and she did not “blame the video.” She said it was the motivation for the attack, but the blame was put squarely on the attackers. Obama made it very clear many times that a video was no excuse for such an attack.
“susan Rice’s comments could easily have contained talking points that acknowledged the terror/al Qaeda aspect of the attack.”
I’ll ask again: Can you really not imagine a single reason why the government might not want to mention al Qaeda right away, other than politics? Because I can think of several.
“Instead they attempted to perpetrate the fraud that it was not by mentioning only the video, as if it were the motivation rather than the serious intent to destroy the west, which is the motivation of Al Qaeda.”
Please stop. You are talking to me as if you haven’t seen the CIA talking points which show uncertainty over al Qaeda’s role, and seem to show a greater confidence in the idea that there was a protest before the attack. But you HAVE seen these. I’ve shown you over, and over, and over, and it’s like talking to a wall.
You have got to remove the psychological block you’ve installed that lets you ignore crucial information whenever it contradicts your prejudices.
“That you cannot see the seriousness of this puts you in the low information segment of society”
You’ve got a lot of nerve, lady. I’ll remind you that a few weeks ago you brought up the Senate Report, only to completely misinterpret it. You used the report as evidence that the administration lied about the video, even though that is the exact OPPOSITE of what the report said. So don’t lecture me about “low information.” I’ve fact-checked and corrected enough of your lies to prove that I’m generally a much better informed person than you are.
“If these two important American leaders were going to be specific about violence having no place in religion wouldn’t this have a been a good time to say SOMETHING about the death and violence being perpetrated on Coptic Christians in Egypt that might have inspired the video!”
Obama has spoken out against violence against Coptic Christians. If you weren’t content being a low information voter, you could have Googled that and found this statement from the president within 30 seconds:
“Michelle and I wish Coptic Orthodox Christians in the United States and around the world a joyous Christmas. On this special day, we celebrate the messages of peace and hope that continue to inspire congregations more than 2,000 years after Jesus’ birth. During this season, we reaffirm the commitment of the United States to work for the protection of Christians and other people of faith in Egypt and around the world. The freedom to practice our faiths is critical to stable, pluralistic, and thriving societies, and the United States will continue to be vigilant in its work to protect that freedom. We wish Coptic Christians the blessings of this season and join them in offering prayers for peace in the year ahead.”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/01/06/statement-president-celebration-coptic-christmas
“It is a sad time in America when our leaders have chosen to align with the enemies of the West, our ally Israel, and the Christian religion rather than standing against violence as a solution or means to dominance and tyranny in the world.”
So you’re saying that Obama has “chosen to align with enemies of the West, our ally Israel, and the Christian religion?”
Garbage. Absolute garbage.
“We now know that the CIA’s September 15, 2012, talking points were
inaccurate in that they wrongly attributed the genesis of the Benghazi attacks to
protests that became violent. However, as stated in the report, this characterization reflected the assessment by the IC of the information available at that time, which lacked sufficient intelligence and eyewitness statements to conclude that there were no protests. Further, it is important to remember that this early assessment was made in the context of approximately 40 protests around the globe against U.S. embassies and consulates in response to an inflammatory film. There were also other violent attacks against U.S. embassies and consulates in Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen and other cities around the world on or after September 11. According to CIA emails dated September 16, 2012, the then-Deputy Director of the CIA requested further information from CIA staff at Embassy Tripoli about whether there was countervailing evidence of protests that occurred prior to the attacks in Benghazi. It was not until September 24, 20 12-eight days later-that the IC revised its assessment that there were no protests leading up to the attacks (see discussion in the main report under Finding #9 for bipartisan Committee views on the development of the intelligence picture after the attacks).
5. The Talking Points Went Through the_Normal Interagency Coordination
Process
The Majority concludes that the interagency coordination process on the
talking points followed normal, but rushed coordination procedures and that there were no efforts by the White House or any other Executive Branch entities to
“cover-up” facts or make alterations for political purposes. Indeed, former CIA
Director David Petraeus testified to the Committee on November 16, 2012, “They
went through the normal process that talking points-unclassified public talking
points-go through.”146 In fact, the purpose of the National Security Council
(NSC) is to coordinate the many national security agencies of the government,
especially when information about a terrorist attack is flowing in and being
analyzed quickly-and the NSC used this role appropriately in the case of the
talking points coordination.”
http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/benghazi2014/benghazi.pdf
Clasp this fiction? HA!
No wonder you elect such incompetent boobs!
Statesmanship?
HA!
Did you hear what the “statesman” John Kerry told the Israeli’s?
He puffed up his little chest and said he had been fired at with real bullets as if that made him somehow more capable or something.
BOOBS, I tell ya!
Peggy:
“Chris, if you said was true my statement would not make sense, but it’s not.”
Tell me, which part of what I said do you wrongly believe is not true?
“Obama for at least two weeks blamed the video for all of the attacks on 9/11. He even said so at the UN.”
No. He did not “blame” the video. He blamed “extremists” who used the video as an “excuse” for the attacks. Those are his own words. You can easily find them for yourself.
“If he believed terrorist killed them he should have said so.”
He did! How many times do I have to explain that to you? Who else do you think an “act of terror” would be committed by? By calling Benghazi an “act of terror,” he was of course calling the perpetrators terrorists by extension. There is no other reasonable interpretation of his words. None!
“My god Chris, because they didn’t report there were protest in Libya!!”
OK, the only possible explanation at this point is that you haven’t read the CIA talking points, even though I’ve shared them with you a half dozen times over the past month.
Before you reply again, I am going to have to ask that you read the first draft of the CIA talking points. I provided them for you in comment #11 in this.very.thread. They are found in the Senate Report which is linked to by the House GOP website that this article is about.
The CIA DID report a spontaneous protest. That is a fact.
“Greg Hick’s testified the video was a, “none event.” Would you PLEASE watch his testimony in this video.”
Greg Hicks is not a part of the CIA.
“The resent article from the Weekly Standard also clearly states based on the just released documents that is was an attack by, “Islamic militants.” If that doesn’t indicate it was a terrorist attack and not a violent protest I don’t know what does.”
Peggy, no one is still questioning whether it was a terrorist attack. The only relevant issue is whether the White House–
–You know what, f*ck this. I’ve explained all of this already and it just won’t get through to you. You can’t keep up with even the basics of this conversation, you repeat things that have already been proven to be completely untrue, and you won’t engage seriously with a single point I’ve raised. I’m done.
Libby’s right; this is a waste of time. When you can sit there and actually type out that the CIA didn’t report a protest, after seeing verifiable proof that they did, then there’s simply no point in conversing with you any longer.
And I heard he gets into screaming matches with Lavrov. This ain’t “tea and crumpets” diplomacy Kerry’s doing.
There’s an outfit calling itself the National Journal, and it’s Kerry article was real good.
But what this has to do with the fictionality of your
Benghazi conspiracy, I cannot fathom.
Libby there is a lot more that you can’t fathom. Probably never will.
Chris did you see any of the appearances by Susan Rice?
I recommend the following to anyone who wants a sense of what happened in Benghazi before, during, and after the incident. The article includes information regarding the nature of Stevens work and his mission, a summary and timeline that covers testimony and news stories of events beginning March 2011 and ending January 13, 2014 (Perhaps more will be added as any new information unfolds?). I have excerpted the portion that is relevant to the video farce.
Timeline provided by Discover the Networks:
I continue to stand by my assessment.
Thank you Tina, I stand with you.
Greg Hicks may not have been CIA, but he was the last person to talk to Chris Steven’s who said, “Greg we’re under attack!”
George Stephanopoulos from ABC interviews Greg Hicks.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/09/gregory-hicks-hearing-of-death-of-christopher-stevens-saddest-moment-in-my-career/
Ok Chris I’ve read both links you provided in #11. Now, please explain to me how the he77 the YouTube video became the talking points for Susan Rice and all of the others came out of this information? There is NO mention anywhere of a “demonstration” or “protest” for that video.
The title page of your link even calls it, “TERRORIST ATTACKS.”
REVIEW
of the
TERRORIST ATTACKS ON U.S. FACILITIES
IN BENGHAZI, LIBYA, SEPTEMBER 11-12,201
“1. Attack on the U.S. Temporary Mission Facility at Approximately 9:40p.m.
At approximately 9:40p.m. Benghazi time, on September 11, 2012, dozens of attackers easily gained access to the U.S. Temporary Mission Facility (hereinafter “the TMF,” “the Mission facility,” or “the Mission compound”) by scaling and then opening the front vehicle gate.4 Over the course ofthe entire attack on the TMF, at least 60 different attackers entered the U.S. compound and can be seen on the surveillance video recovered from the Mission facility. 5 The attackers moved unimpeded throughout the compound, entering and exiting buildings at wiJl.
The IC produced hundreds of analytic reports in the months preceding the September 11-12, 2012, attacks, providing strategic warning that militias and terrorist and affiliated groups had the capability and intent to strike U.S. and Western facilities and personnel in Libya. For example:
• On June 12, 2012, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) produced a report entitled, “Libya: Terrorists Now Targeting U.S. and Western Interests.” The report noted recent attacks against the U.S. Mission compound in Benghazi,the growing ties between al-Qa’ida (AQ) regional nodes and Libya-based ,.~ …. ·nr,· expect more anti-U.S. terrorist attacks in eastern due to the terrorists’ greater presence terrorists conducting more ambush and lED attacks as well as more threats against ,4)
• On June 18, 2012, the Pentagon’s Joint Staff produced a slide in its daily intelligence report entitled, “(U) Terrorism: Conditions Ripe for More Attacks, Terrorist Safe Haven in Libya.” In the slide, the Joint Staff assessed: support will increase Libyan terrorist capability in the permissive post-revolution security environment. Attacks will also increase in nt~mber and lethality as terrorists connect with AQ associates in Libya.
(examples continue)
Chris: “The CIA DID report a spontaneous protest. That is a fact.”
Fact?! It must have been written in invisible ink or your “fact” doesn’t exist.
My issue has been about this administration blaming the producer of a stupid video and a protest which caused the death of four Americans instead of on terrorist whether they were linked to al Queda or not. Every piece of evidence presented including yours makes no mention of a protest or demonstration.
From ABC’s talk show article of Susan Rice appearance.
“Rice’s account directly contradicts that of Libyan President Mohamed Yousef El-Magariaf, who said this weekend that he had “no doubt” the attack was pre-planned by individuals from outside Libya.
“It was planned, definitely, it was planned by foreigners, by people who entered the country a few months ago, and they were planning this criminal act since their arrival,” Magariaf told CBS News.”
Chris: “Greg Hicks is not a part of the CIA.”
No he’s not, but he is one of the persons in Libya during the attack the CIA got their information from.
Also from the Washington Post link in your #11.
“Here’s the problem: According to recently declassified testimony of Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, before the House Armed Services Committee in October, the U.S. military regards itself as legally barred from going after the perpetrators of the Benghazi attacks (and, presumably, others who attack Americans) unless they are affiliated with al-Qaeda. The Obama administration’s parsing of words to deny al-Qaeda’s direct involvement effectively precludes a military response in these situations.”
But the United States can neither disrupt nor defend itself from an enemy it cannot define. Nor are we safer because of arbitrary definitions. The question demands an answer: What is al-Qaeda?”
BINGO!!
“U.S. military regards itself as legally barred from going after the perpetrators of the Benghazi attacks (and, presumably, others who attack Americans) unless they are affiliated with al-Qaeda.”
In other words unless we could prove 100% that it was core al Qaeda that attacked Benghazi our military COULDN’T respond. That’s why no rescue mission was sent. Pathetic! Everyone should know this before letting their sons and daughters enlist. They’ll have their hands tied by the very government they’re protecting.
Chris: “–You know what, f*ck this.”
You’re right. Until you will admit this administration tried to blame a producer of a YouTube video for the death of four Americans instead of admitting their own accountabilities there is no reason to continue this discussion with you.
Benghazi scapegoat remains in prison for film:
“The man who made the anti-Islam film that Obama administration officials erroneously blamed for the Benghazi, Libya, terror attacks remains in federal prison eight months later, serving a yearlong sentence for probation violations committed as a result of his involvement with the video.”
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/13/benghazi-scapegoat-filmmaker-remains-prison/#ixzz2sklZlIfZ
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
Peggy: “Ok Chris I’ve read both links you provided in #11…Fact?! It must have been written in invisible ink or your “fact” doesn’t exist…Every piece of evidence presented including yours makes no mention of a protest or demonstration.”
Peggy, you need to check your eyesight, or perhaps your mental health. Right there in comment #11 is a direct quote from the CIA talking points, which you can see for yourself by clicking the link to the Senate Report. It says this:
“* We believe based on currently available information that the attacks in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US Consulate and subsequently its annex.
* The crowd almost certainly was a mix of individuals from across many sectors of Libyan society. That being said, we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.
–p. 46 of the Senate Report
It is ABSURD for you to claim that the evidence “makes no mention of a protest or demonstration.” It says, right there in the first draft of the CIA talking points, that the attack was inspired by the protests in Cairo, which everyone knew at the time was motivated by the video.
Again, we know now that the CIA’s assessment was incorrect. But it was the CIA’s assessment. It was not invented or fabricated by the White House.
That is my last word on the matter.
Peggy, the last gasp is: “The CIA said so!”
Geez is that the full extent of our friend Chris’s ability to assess this incident?
Nothing else we have learned is significant?
Nothing else the President had to have been told in briefings prior to the incident matters?
Nothing that others reported during the incident and just after matters?
This one lame-a$$ed, cover Hillery’s a$$ point is supposed to be believed as the most compelling of all he knew…or should have known?
If what Chris avers is so, then President Obama has to be the most ignorant man on the planet and certainly incapable of holding his office!
It is inconceivable that anyone would acccept that explanation over the scenario that suggests the the entire administration orchestrated game to protect and exonerate the President: the Susan Rice appearance, welcoming home the bodies complete with the astounding story laid on the parents of the dead, and the concerted effort in the media to LIE about the incident being protest inspired and the fault of a crude video made by an American (The pig!).
Pathetic.
As I said before we are talking about the president of the United States, the Commander-in-Chief deciding to go with one small element in a sea of information that would color this as a protest instead of a terrorist attack.
But there was no effort to fool the American people before the election…nope…not at all.
BAH! The preachy man with his last word is daft!
“Peggy: “Ok Chris I’ve read both links you provided in #11…”
It’s amazing to me that Chris would post them…both make the President and Hillary look terrible!
RE: this link. It does nothing to back up Chris’s position, in fact what it basically says is that Obama has changed definitions for “al Qaeda” and “terrorist” such that he can easily make any claim necessary to cover his butt and contend he’s not lying or covering the truth.
It’s the reason he could claim his reference in the Rose Garden speech when he spoke of terrorsm generally was specific about Benghazi!
Re: this link to Huffington Post in which Penetta is quoted as saying:
Were any of the people in the Obama administration engaged?
Do they send the military and state department people out into the world with a wave and a smile and then forget all about them?
Of course there were warnings…all kinds of warnings! AND it was the anniversary of 911, a date that has been a favored date for terrorist attacks and attempts on America since 911.
But the signs and warnings were ignored. The security was ridiculous and the later excuse that the State Department “didn’t have the money” is total garbage.
Failures occurred before, during, and after the attack.
Its a very big deal because Americans died for no reason whatsoever due to those failings. These are immediate and front page. How many others have suffered the same fate that won’t ever be the subject of discussion or debate?
The three am call came and there was nobody home at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Tina: “AND it was the anniversary of 911, a date that has been a favored date for terrorist attacks and attempts on America since 911.”
Name one.
Tina: “It’s amazing to me that Chris would post them…both make the President and Hillary look terrible!”
I guess I can see how this would be puzzling to someone more concerned with partisan (talk) than any genuine interest in the truth. I don’t care if Obama or Clinton look terrible. I care about facts. The facts show that these two made significant mistakes. Those mistakes are well documented in the Senate Report. But the facts do NOT show that they orchestrated a cover-up. There is no evidence for that, and there never has been any evidence of that. Your accusations are baseless. Period.
Dewey is still a dork and Chris is still trying to be a loyal water boy.
With a president who has only a 42% approval and 37% trust ratings along with a lying administration and a polarized Congress it is not surprising to hear the Democrats have a strong chance of losing the Senate.
With Greg Hicks’ statement, the president of Libya saying it was an attack by a terrorist group that had moved into Benghazi and the 30 survivors that have been kept from testifying I find it too hard to believe the video wasn’t a trumpeted up story used for political cover just weeks away from the election.
Just count me among the 37% who believe if Obama and his administration’s lips are moving they’re lying.
Side note:
Tina, did you catch any of the IRS hearing the other day? The two witnesses who testified were awesome. Hopefully, this issue/scandal will be resolved soon and they will see justice served.
Witness at IRS Hearing: ‘I Will Not Retreat; I Will Not Surrender’:
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/melanie-hunter/witness-irs-hearing-i-will-not-retreat-i-will-not-surrender
Cleta Mitchell Rattles Off A Litany Of IRS Criminal Offenses:(Video)
http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2014/02/06/Not-a-Smidgen-of-Corruption-in-IRS-Scandal-Cleta-Mitchell-Rattles-Off-A-Litany-Of-Criminal-Offenses
IRS email reveals Lerner’s role in tax rule to restrain nonprofits:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/5/irs-email-reveals-lerners-role-in-tax-rule-to-rest/?page=2
Sorry, I should have put my IRS remarks in the IRS article. My mistake.
While all of the nasty little details are still being revealed the basic facts are known.
1) The Obama Administration (OA) was warned of the dangers the consulate faced in Benghazi on multiple occasions and did nothing.
2) The OA continued to do nothing while the attack commenced and actively restricted any response.
3) The OA used the video in a desperate attempt to cover up their incompetence and stuck with that story long after it was revealed to be complete and utter bullshit.
4) The OA has obstructed the Benghazi investigation multiple time on multiple fronts instead of following the empty pledge to understand what went wrong and correct it.
5) Dewey is still a dork and Chris is still trying to prove he is a good little water boy.
6) There is nothing new under the sun.
Oh and …
7) The more the left, Democrats, and assorted morons insist Benghazi is a dead issue, the more thoughtful people know that it is not.
Pie: “2) The OA continued to do nothing while the attack commenced and actively restricted any response.”
This is a lie, but you already know that.
“Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Congress on Thursday that they moved quickly to deploy commando teams from Spain and Central Europe last Sept. 11, the chaotic day of the assault on the U.S. installation in Benghazi, but the first military unit didn’t arrive until 15 hours after the first of two attacks.
“Time, distance, the lack of an adequate warning, events that moved very quickly on the ground prevented a more immediate response,” Panetta said in likely his last Capitol Hill appearance before stepping down as Pentagon chief.
Republicans have accused the Obama administration of an election-year cover-up of a terrorist attack in the nearly five months since the assault, and they kept up the politically charged onslaught on Thursday. The military also found itself under attack, with at least one senator accusing the Joint Chiefs chairman of peddling falsehoods.
Faced with repeated questions about where units were during the attack and what they were doing, Dempsey said the military is taking steps to deal with the next crisis.
“We’ve asked each of the services to examine their capability to build additional reaction-like forces, small, rapidly deployable forces,” Dempsey said. “A small MAGTF for the Marine Corps, for example, a Marine air-ground task force. And the Army is looking at some options as well to increase the number of these resources across the globe, where the limiting factor, though will always be basing.”
Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, put it in layman’s terms: “So you are moving the fire stations nearer the …?”
“We’re trying to build more firemen. The question is whether I can build the stations to house them,” Dempsey answered.
In more than four hours of testimony, Panetta and Dempsey described a military faced with not a single attack over several hours, but two separate assaults six hours apart; little real-time intelligence data and units too far away to mobilize quickly. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the attacks.
Between midnight and 2 a.m. on the night of the attack, Panetta issued orders, telling two Marine anti-terrorism teams based in Rota, Spain, to prepare to deploy to Libya, and he ordered a team of special operations forces in Central Europe and another team of special operations forces in the U.S. to prepare to deploy to a staging base in Europe.
The first of those U.S. military units did not actually arrive in the region until well after the attack was over and Americans had been flown out of the country. Just before 8 p.m., the special operations team landed at Sigonella Naval Air Station in Sicily. An hour later, the Marine team landed in Tripoli.
Defense officials have repeatedly said that even if the military had been able to get units there a bit faster, there was no way they could have gotten there in time to make any difference in the deaths of the four Americans.
“The United States military is not and should not be a global 911 service capable of arriving on the scene within minutes to every possible contingency around the world,” Panetta told the Senate Armed Services Committee…
…The general said the military was concerned with multiple threats worldwide and, based on time and positioning of forces, “we wouldn’t have gotten there in time…”
…Panetta said he and Dempsey were meeting with Obama when they first learned of the Libya assault. He said the president told them to deploy forces as quickly as possible.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., questioned whether Panetta spoke again to Obama after that first meeting. The Pentagon chief said no but that the White House was in touch with military officials and aware of what was happening.
“During the eight-hour period, did he show any curiosity?” Graham asked.
Panetta said there was no question the president was concerned about American lives. Exasperated with Graham’s interruptions, Panetta said forcefully, “The president is well-informed about what is going on; make no mistake about it.”
At one point in the hearing, Graham asked Panetta if he knew what time Obama went to sleep that night. The Pentagon chief said he did not.
Panetta also pushed back against Republican criticism that the Obama administration ignored warning signs about the attack. The Pentagon chief insisted there were no signs of or specific intelligence about an imminent attack. In the six months prior to the assault, the government was apprised of 281 threats to diplomatic missions, consulates and other facilities worldwide, he said.
Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., pressed Dempsey on why F-16 jets in Aviano, Italy, weren’t sent to Libya. Dempsey said it would have taken up to 20 hours to get the planes ready and on their way, and he added that they would have been the “wrong tool for the job.”
Panetta later explained to the committee, “You can’t willy-nilly send F-16s there and blow the hell out of place. … You have to have good intelligence.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/07/leon-panetta-benghazi_n_2638283.html
I’ve been very busy of late with other things so I missed a few things.
Chris: “Please prove your assertion that Obama “disappeared” the night of the attack before making it again.”
It was in Leon Panetta’s testimony. Watch the video Chris, he left and didn’t bother to check in all night!
“Funny, you never complained about Reagan choosing to campaign the day after a terrorist attack on an embassy”
First of all you wouldn’t know since this happened thirty years ago…before the 911 attack on America when the towers came down, the pentagon was attacked and a third plane was crashed by brave Americans in a field instead of the White House…also before the
terror attacks under Clinton whose administration failed to connect the dots:
Ronald Reagan was engaged and responsible. The event was a bomb not an attack lasting for hours through the night. This is the transcript from his statement to the people:
This statement reflect a man who is fully engaged and not afraid or unwilling to say: “….target this morning of a vicious, terrorist bombing.
Both Clinton and Obama were/are more involved in a personal quest for power and their political reputations and agenda.
“Can you please explain why you think the CIA ‘didn’t know’”
My statement was “If the President ,didn’t know’”, However if you are asking me why I left the CIA out of the mix I can only say it was an oversight. The point, which you seem to want to avoid, is that the president should have had a lot of information had he been engaged. The point is he may have had a lot more information and chose instead to lie to the parents of the dead and the people of the United states hoping to get away with it.
“You can’t think of a single reason why Obama wouldn’t have wanted to mention al Qaeda…”
I can’t think of a single reason to limit explanations to the video, which the administration did do for a couple of weeks during the run-up to the election, other than trying to minimize damage to his election bid and cover Hillery’s butt for hers. In fact there is NO JUSTIFICATION WHATSOEVER to float that phony video story…NONE!
” It’s also important to note that the White House never dismissed the possibility of al Qaeda involvement…”
Bull$h*t Chris! Sending Susan Rice out to perform on three separate political talk shows was exactly FOR that purpose! They knew the shows would generate headlines the following week…they knew the official story would be cemented by Rice’s remarks…they hoped they would be.
This is exactly how a con artist (the Chicago way) works.
“Wait, wait, wait. I thought your theory was that the point was to save his own ass in the November election?”
It is. It is also convenient and necessary to save Hillery’s reputation for two reasons, she is part of his administration and she does have ambitions to be president.
“If you were serious-minded in your quest for truth you would change your views based on new evidence.
If you were interested in the truth you wouldn’t dismiss and ignore the mountain of evidence that makes the president and his administration look just terrible.
to Peggy: The problem with this line of logic that you and other conservatives keep exhibiting, is that it treats “protests over a video” and “al Qaeda linked terrorist attack” as if those are somehow mutually exclusive things.”
The problem with you lame defense is that it makes a video the central theme and much bigger than the probability of a terror attack in an era when attacks by al Qaeda and al Qaeda related organizations are well documented across the globe! You latch on to video protest during a time frame when black flags of al Qaeda are flying in Benghazi, the Red Cross has been attacked by terror groups in Benghazi, the English have closed their embassy and removed their people from Benghazi due to the extreme danger and threat and Chris Stevens has repeatedly asked for (and been denied) additional security because of the danger!
Your focus on the video, Chris, like theirs, is preposterous!
“Obama said it was a terrorist attack *the day after it happened.* (There is no difference in meaning between “act of terror” and “terrorist attack.”
Ah but there is a difference between speaking of a specific attack and terrorism generally:
Read the WSJ article for full transcript. the excerpts below highlight any reference to the nature of the attack (emphasis mine):
I count eight opportunities to say directly that Benghazi was an act of terrorism. I see that each time the President avoided those words preferring to play diplomat when he should have been wearing the shoes of the President.
After the debates when XXX Candy Crowley helped the President put forth the notion that he called Benghazi a “terrorist act” Timothy Kelly of ForexTV.com (New York) made the following observation:
Like I said your position that the video was a viable explanation, particularly standing alone….or that there is no evidence of cover-up or political posturing prior to an election and in mind of Hillary’s culpability in case of a future run for president is preposterous.
Tina: “It was in Leon Panetta’s testimony.”
Holy s**t, that’s not even close to what Panetta said. He says he never spoke to him again that night personally, but also repeatedly defends President Obama by saying that he was engaged and informed the entire evening:
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., questioned whether Panetta spoke again to Obama after that first meeting. The Pentagon chief said no but that the White House was in touch with military officials and aware of what was happening.
“During the eight-hour period, did he show any curiosity?” Graham asked.
Panetta said there was no question the president was concerned about American lives. Exasperated with Graham’s interruptions, Panetta said forcefully, “The president is well-informed about what is going on; make no mistake about it.”
“First of all you wouldn’t know since this happened thirty years ago…before the 911 attack on America when the towers came down, the pentagon was attacked and a third plane was crashed by brave Americans in a field instead of the White House”
I see. So campaigning the day after a terrorist attack that killed hundreds of people is fine, while campaigning the day after a terrorist attack that killed four people is not fine, because the former happened before 9/11 and the latter didn’t.
Bulls**t, bulls**t, bulls**t.
“…also before the
terror attacks under Clinton whose administration failed to connect the dots:”
No, we are not talking about Bill Clinton. That has NOTHING to do with this.
“This statement reflect a man who is fully engaged and not afraid or unwilling to say: “….target this morning of a vicious, terrorist bombing.”
What the ever-living f**k is the difference between those words and the words Obama used to describe Benghazi? You quote him yourself calling the attack “brutal,” “senseless,” and an “act of terror!” Your double standards are amazing. You are trying to draw distinctions that simply do not exist just because you like one man and hate the other.
“My statement was “If the President ,didn’t know’”, However if you are asking me why I left the CIA out of the mix I can only say it was an oversight.”
It wasn’t an “oversight;” you are deliberately ignoring the most compelling evidence against your conspiracy theory, because you know you have no way to explain it. Again: The CIA was THE most engaged branch of government in Benghazi. If they reported that the attack started as a spontaneous protest, which they did, you can be damned sure they had a reason to say that. They took the lead in the talking points; not the White House.
If you believe there’s some kind of conspiracy here, the most logical explanation would be that it was the CIA who were trying to cover something up, not the White House. But that theory doesn’t help you in your desperate quest to find Obama’s Watergate, so I can see why it would be useless to you.
“The point, which you seem to want to avoid, is that the president should have had a lot of information had he been engaged. The point is he may have had a lot more information and chose instead to lie to the parents of the dead and the people of the United states hoping to get away with it.”
Was the CIA lying when they reported a spontaneous protest, Tina?
It’s a yes or no question.
“I can’t think of a single reason to limit explanations to the video, which the administration did do for a couple of weeks during the run-up to the election, other than trying to minimize damage to his election bid and cover Hillery’s butt for hers. In fact there is NO JUSTIFICATION WHATSOEVER to float that phony video story…NONE!”
Not even that the CIA said that’s what the attack was motivated by? Really?
“It is. It is also convenient and necessary to save Hillery’s reputation for two reasons, she is part of his administration and she does have ambitions to be president.”
Except that THERE WAS NO REASON FOR ANYONE IN THE WHITE HOUSE TO LIE. You have yet to explain how the “video story” even helps Obama! You have yet to explain why he called the attack an “act of terror” if he was trying to downplay a terrorist attack. You have yet to explain why the CIA reported that it started as a protest, or why they would do this to help the president’s campaign. You have yet to explain why Obama would concoct the video story as a way to lie to the American people knowing full well that there were contradictory reports, and that a scandal would hurt him more than just telling the truth in the first place.
The theory that Obama risked all this to win an election, when said issue wouldn’t have even had an affect on the election, doesn’t make any sense.
“The problem with you lame defense is that it makes a video the central theme and much bigger than the probability of a terror attack in an era when attacks by al Qaeda and al Qaeda related organizations are well documented across the globe!”
Right, because the video wasn’t a big deal across the globe. There certainly weren’t mass protests across the Muslim world over the video that very same day.
Oh wait: It was, and there were.
“You latch on to video protest during a time frame when black flags of al Qaeda are flying in Benghazi,”
Please show evidence for this claim. As far as I can tell, it originated from “Morgan Jones” in his fraudulent 60 Minutes interview. Do you have a source for this claim which has not already been debunked?
“the Red Cross has been attacked by terror groups in Benghazi, the English have closed their embassy and removed their people from Benghazi due to the extreme danger and threat and Chris Stevens has repeatedly asked for (and been denied) additional security because of the danger!”
Again, I acknowledge that this was a security failure, and Obama and Hilary Clinton are both responsible. They fucked up, big time, in providing adequate security. The Senate Report makes that clear.
However, as I have shown you, this is not the first time in U.S. history that there has been such a massive security failure. Your beloved Reagan had a few of his own. He ignored warnings from his people in order to pursue his favored strategy, and people died because of it. That’s part of being president, Tina. They are not gods. They sometimes make the wrong calls. Being willing to acknowledge that, even when it’s a president you support, is important to making sure the same mistakes aren’t made again. But there will ALWAYS be mistakes.
“Your focus on the video, Chris,”
What? I’m not focused on the video. You’re obsessed with it.
“Ah but there is a difference between speaking of a specific attack and terrorism generally:”
This is f-ing ridiculous. He was not speaking of “terrorism generally.” He was clearly referring to Benghazi as an act of terror. Anyone who refuses to acknowledge that is choosing to throw common sense out the window in favor of playing a semantic game. I’ll pass.
“or that there is no evidence of cover-up or political posturing prior to an election and in mind of Hillary’s culpability in case of a future run for president is preposterous.”
I’ll just leave this here again…
“The Majority concludes that the interagency coordination process on the talking points followed normal, but rushed coordination procedures and that there were no efforts by the White House or any other Executive Branch entities to “cover-up” facts or make alterations for political purposes.”
Re #37 Chris :
“This is a lie, but you already know that. ”
The only liars here are you and the Obama administration. Drop dead.
If Bill Clinton has NOTHING to do with this then Reagan has NOTHING to do with this.
Chris you’ve now gotten quite shrill and I’ve had to edit your work.
The evidence is there for all to see.
The narcissists in your party are there for all to see.
Your perspective is what it is.
Perhaps I used the wrong word above. It might have better read —
2) The OA continued to do nothing while the attack commenced and passively restricted any response.
I see a little old lady being being beaten to a pulp and robbed in a filthy alley. I do nothing to help, do not report it to agencies that can respond, and go to home to a nice warm bed so I am fresh in the morning to fly to a fund raiser that benefits myself.
Question: Is that active or passive restriction of any response?
The more shrill Chris is the more I like it. The more Chris twists and spins, the more I like it. The more of a blowhard Chris is, the funnier he is.
Am I the only one who appreciates Chris?
Pie, we all appreciate Chris, but I don’t think he appreciates us cuz we won’t do what he wants and believe what he says is the gospel truth.
Pie Guevara: “The only liars here are you and the Obama administration. Drop dead.”
So you’re just going to ignore Panetta and Dempsey’s testimonies that prove your claim that the Obama administration “restricted any response” is a lie?
Of course you are.
Tina: “If Bill Clinton has NOTHING to do with this then Reagan has NOTHING to do with this.”
You are so epically bad at this. I brought up Reagan because you were complaining that Obama went to a campaign event the day after a terrorist attack on an embassy. Reagan was relevant because he also went to a campaign event the day after an even worse terrorist attack on an embassy. You then responded with a nonsensical defense, essentially saying it was OK for Reagan to do that since this happened before 9/11. Then you brought up Clinton doing similar things, which does nothing to prove your point.
You seem to be have mistaken my comments for wanting to turn this into a game of “who sucks more, Democrats or Republicans?” That was clearly not my point. My point is that you are criticizing Obama for something that Reagan also did. You need to acknowledge this.
“Chris you’ve now gotten quite shrill and I’ve had to edit your work.”
Yet Pie Guevara telling me to “drop dead” is just fine with you. Of course.
“Pie, we all appreciate Chris, but I don’t think he appreciates us cuz we won’t do what he wants and believe what he says is the gospel truth.”
Ridiculous. What I don’t appreciate is people refusing to accept hard proof that’s right in front of their eyes. I don’t appreciate you, Peggy, telling me that the CIA never reported a protest when I’d already shown you them saying exactly that multiple times. I don’t appreciate liars.
Here’s a handy timeline of administration statements provided by Politifact:
Sept. 11 – A mix of a mob and armed attackers launch grenades and set fire to the American compound.
Sept. 12 — Obama said “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation.” He repeats those words on Sept. 13 and 14.
Sept. 13 — White House spokesman Jay Carney referred to an inflammatory video and said, “The protests we’re seeing around the region are in reaction to this movie. They are not directly in reaction to any policy of the United States or the government of the United States or the people of the United States.”
Sept. 14 — A State Department spokeswoman said, “We are very cautious about drawing any conclusions with regard to who the perpetrators were, what their motivations were, whether it was premeditated.” But she ended with this: “Obviously, there are plenty of people around the region citing this disgusting video as something that has been motivating.”
Sept. 16 — Rice said, “We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.”
Sept. 20 — Carney told reporters, “It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Our embassy was attacked violently, and the result was four deaths of American officials.”
Sept. 20 — Obama told an audience at a town hall meeting, “What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.”
Sept. 21 — The administration as a whole stated publicly that the attack was planned and executed by a terrorist group.
*************************************************
Now let’s think about this for a second. If the Obama administration was determined to cover up the fact that this was a terrorist attack in order to help Obama’s election prospects, WHY IN THE WORLD would several people in the administration characterize the event as a “terrorist attack,” and an “act of terror” carried out by “extremists?” And WHY IN THE WORLD would they admit TEN DAYS LATER that the attack was pre-planned by a terrorist group if they were so concerned with hiding this truth from the public?
Conservative critics have claimed that Obama hid the truth that it was a pre-planned terrorist attack because if America knew the truth, it would hurt Obama’s election chances. But the Obama administration revealed that this was a pre-planned terrorist attack on September 21. So why did this not hurt Obama in the election?
These are not rhetorical questions. If you cannot answer them, then you need to acknowledge that the conspiracy theory narrative simply doesn’t make any sense. There was no motive for it. There is no evidence for it. There is plenty of countervailing evidence showing that the talking points were crafted by the CIA, not the White House.
Just give it up already.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/feb/04/bill-oreilly/oreilly-denies-accusing-wh-political-motives-early/
Secret email reveals top official told Libya’s U.S. Ambassador that terrorists were behind Benghazi attack – four days BEFORE U.S. Ambassador to UN said it was a spontaneous attack:
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=trey+gowdy+benghazi+hicks&FORM=VIRE3#view=detail&mid=226FE4FB702E7D17C089226FE4FB702E7D17C089
Would love to see Rep. Gowdy as Speaker of the House someday.
Peggy, that is not new information and it does not prove what you think it does. Again, you are pretending that “terrorist attack” and “spontaneous attack” are fundamental opposites. They are not. Even the recently released Senate Report concluded that we STILL do not know how much planning went into the attack, and it may not have been planned until THAT VERY DAY.
Again, Obama said it was an “act of terror” the day after. Jay Carney also said it was a terrorist attack within the first week. Susan Rice did downplay the terror aspect, but she also said that they were looking into the possibility of Al Qaeda involvement and said they needed to investigate more (at this point the CIA suspected Al Qaeda involvement but did not want to reveal that right away. It was the CIA, not the White House, who edited references to Al Qaeda out according to the Senate Report).
There is simply nothing to your objections.
Chris’ theme song —
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djuu9uvyBNs
“While it has since proven true that there was not a protest outside the facility precipitating the attack, the notion that the attack had absolutely nothing to do with the YouTube video (a clip showing an excerpt from the anti-Islam film “The Innocence of Muslims” that sparked protests and riots in dozens of countries, many of which outside U.S. diplomatic missions) is simply not supported by the facts. In reality, many witnesses who were interviewed shortly after the attack said that the militants from the Ansar al-Sharia brigade were chanting about the video during the assault on the facility.
As reported in the L.A. Times, “Witnesses said members of the group that raided the U.S. mission specifically mentioned the video, which denigrated the prophet Muhammad.”
The Associated Press reported, “There was no sign of a spontaneous protest against an American-made movie denigrating Islam’s Prophet Muhammad. But a lawyer passing by the scene said he saw the militants gathering around 20 youths from nearby to chant against the film. Within an hour or so, the assault began, guns blazing as the militants blasted into the compound.”
The New York Times reported the month after the attack: “To Libyans who witnessed the assault and know the attackers, there is little doubt what occurred: a well-known group of local Islamist militants struck the United States Mission without any warning or protest, and they did it in retaliation for the video. That is what the fighters said at the time, speaking emotionally of their anger at the video without mentioning Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or the terrorist strikes of 11 years earlier.”
This doesn’t mean that the video served as the only reason for the attack. There is some evidence to suggest that perhaps the attack also served as retaliation for the death of Libyan militant and al-Qaeda associate Abu Yahya al-Libi who was killed in a U.S. drone strike three month earlier. But the claims that the attack had nothing whatsoever to do with the video do not comport with the evidence.”
http://www.heavy.com/news/2013/05/myths-benghazi-attack-coverup-factcheck/
“Myth No. 4: Changing the Talking Points Amounts to a ‘Coverup’ The administration recently released a trove of more than 100 pages of emails showing internal discussion of the talking points concerning the attack going through a dozen different revisions by the State Department and CIA. These are not the emails that weredoctored by Republicans and leaked to ABC News, but the actual emails.
In the emails it is clear that the CIA insisted the attack be referred to as spontaneously inspired by the protests in Cairo and following a protest outside the facility. The State Department wanted references to “Al Qaeda” and “Ansar al Sharia” removed. However, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland explained the reason for this in the emails, stating, “Why do we want [Congress] to be fingering Ansar al-Sharia, when we aren’t doing that ourselves until we have investigation results?” Ben Rhodes, who was then-Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications, also stated in the emails, “We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation.” While there certainly may have been some politics at play here, all of the evidence in the emails suggest that this was the best assessment of the intelligence available at the time and that the State Department and White House were concerned about saying too much before the facts of the investigation were available, while also expressing some concern over Republicans in Congress making political hay out of the attack. All of this is totally not indicative of a cover-up, but simply politics as usual.
In fact, when Rice spoke on the Sunday shows, she prefaced her comments with the statement, “First of all, it’s important to know that there’s an FBI investigation that has begun and will take some time to be completed. That will tell us with certainty what transpired.” And, “So we’ll want to see the results of that investigation to draw any definitive conclusions.” So, in hindsight, perhaps it would have been prudent had Rice not said anything at all, but her comments are not indicative of a cover-up. And it now seems the only thing Rice stated that was incorrect concerned the notion that a protest precipitated the attack. Everything else she said, from the attack being inspired by the video to the attack being spontaneous and not pre-planned, is still supported by the evidence. Also, it was the administration itself that called for the FBI investigation into the attack and released the complete unclassified findings of the Accountability Review Board’s critical report — not exactly the actions of people wanting to engage in a coverup.
Read more at: http://www.heavy.com/news/2013/05/myths-benghazi-attack-coverup-factcheck/
Chris, if you were the president, would you have gone with the mob/video story knowing what you do now? Or would you have said, we have an open investigation and we’re not going to assign this any one or any group until we sufficient evidence and then gather that evidence and tell it like it is? You know as well as I, you would have gone with the latter and because it’s clearly the most honest and responsible of the two choices. We’re mad because Obama would rather risk assigning blame on a mob and a video because it favored him than to be candid with the American public.
Jack, I probably would have gone with the second option. I think the administration shouldn’t have said anything until they knew for sure what was up. But I think Obama would have been hammered even if he had done that; Republicans still would have accused him of hiding info from the public.
“We’re mad because Obama would rather risk assigning blame on a mob and a video because it favored him than to be candid with the American public.”
But what no one’s explained is exactly how this “favored him.” How exactly was lying in the president’s interest in this case? How did it affect the election outcome one way or another? Republicans tried desperately to make Benghazi an election issue; it didn’t work. Obama may have many faults but he is a shrewd politician. Why would he think that lying about Benghazi would help him in the election? It simply doesn’t make any sense.
It’s fine to disagree with the administration’s decisions leading up to and after the attack in Benghazi. But there is no factual basis to allege a cover-up.
Chris: ” But I think Obama would have been hammered even if he had done that>
As we have noted, there is a lot to criticize.
The administration, Hillary being the most prominent, had not properly secured the facility and was not prepared to defend it even though it was well known that conditions were very dangerous. The President’s seemed unengaged and cavalier on the night of the attack. His and Hillary’s words to the families were disgraceful given what they knew at that point. Susan Rice’s arranged appearances on the Sunday talk shows to push the video as the main/only reason for the attack and the attempt to avoid the use of terrorism accept in very general terms was disingenuous if not an outright lie. Watching Candy Crowley insert herself into the debate to “help” the President was telling…they were concerned about the video story being seen as the excuse it was intended to be.
The basis for the attempt at cover-up was re-election…OBVIOUSLY!
Chris: “Why would he think that lying about Benghazi would help him in the election? It simply doesn’t make any sense.”
Oh but Chris it does make sense as you even pointed out with the election results. It worked. With Biden and Obama chanting, “Osama bin Laden is dead and al Qaida is on the run” during their whole re-election campaign they couldn’t be hit with the fact/possibility that it was al Qaida linked terrorists that attacked and killed four Americans in Benghazi just weeks before the election.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to make that connection and it’s why after 17 months today people are still upset about it. They want the truth and hiding witnesses, redacting documents to total black out, assigning investigators who don’t even interview the people in charge will not satisfy people who can add 2 plus 2 and connect the dots.
This won’t go away until questions are answered to their satisfaction and it will be a major issue for Clinton, if she decides to run, in 2016.
Biden and Obama couldn’t come out after the attack and say, “Oops, we made a mistake. Al Qaida is not on the run. In fact we just learned they were involved in the terrorist attack on Benghazi.” Now could they?
From the Congressional hearing today:
Intelligence Leaders: Al-Qaida Is Not on Path to Defeat:
“It is morphing and franchising itself, not only here but in other areas of the world,” James Clapper said.
Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., hearkened back to past comments from the Obama administration about the impending defeat, or at least decline, of the terrorist network. “People keep talking about [how] al-Qaida is on the run, on the path to defeat…. To me it’s just the opposite of that,” the committee’s ranking member said. “Is al-Qaida on the run, and on the path to defeat?”
“No,” Clapper replied.” It is morphing and franchising itself, not only here but in other areas of the world.”
“They are not,” Flynn confirmed.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/defense/intelligence-leaders-al-qaida-is-not-on-path-to-defeat-20140211
Tina: “The basis for the attempt at cover-up was re-election…OBVIOUSLY!”
So obvious that you don’t even need evidence! So obvious that you don’t even need to explain how this could have helped Obama’s re-election chances! Or why Obama called the event an act of terror the day after it happened! Or why Obama still won even after he publicly stated that the attack wasn’t in response to the video! Or why he still won even after Republicans spent two months publicly alleging a cover-up! Or why the CIA helped Obama in his “cover-up” for a week before deciding not to anymore!
But yeah, you’ve OBVIOUSLY won this debate, and you’re OBVIOUSLY right…evidence? Who needs it?
FOX’s Megan Kelly finally admits that Susan Rice was operating off of CIA talking points:
“Let me ask you about DOD [Department of Defense]. Because I know your report concludes that DOD officials believed nearly from the onset that this was a terrorist attack and not some sort of a protest gone awry. Now, I want to get specific, because so many people have said, ‘So then why did Susan Rice go out and talk about protests? Why did she mention a video?’ But the CIA talking points, the very first draft that went out and was circulated, that Susan Rice ultimately was provided, that top officials ultimately saw, talked about a protest. They did. The CIA actually came out, I want to look at it here, and said this is a draft from September 14th, 11:15 am, ‘We believe based on currently available information that the attacks in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault.’ So, tell me, does that — does it or does it not answer the question about how our officials started to come out and talk about protests and the video?”
Linking to Media Matters due to lack of a better source for the video.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/02/12/fox-host-finally-accepts-the-truth-about-bengha/198030
Damn, I didn’t even watch the whole video before posting. Kelly actually acts like a real journalist here, refusing to let her Republican guest get away with dodging the real question. Roby just keeps saying “terrorist attack” as if that somehow contradicts the president, who called it an “act of terror” the day after.
Kelly definitely has her good days and bad days.