Posted by Tina
Reporting for CNN, Jake Tapper gives a preview of testimony that will be given this week on the terrorist attack in Benghazi. Greg Hicks indicates he was surprised when Susan Rice claimed on the Sunday talk shows that Benghazi was the result of a “spontaneous demonstration” and indicates some higher-ups are being shielded:
Rep. Darrell Issa, the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said Sunday on CBS that Hicks will testify Wednesday in a congressional hearing on the deadly attack in Benghazi.
“In our system, people who make decisions have been confirmed by the Senate to make decisions,” Hicks told investigators.”The three people in the State Department who are on administrative leave pending disciplinary action are below Senate confirmation level. Now, the DS (Diplomatic Security) assistant secretary resigned, and he is at Senate confirmation level. Yet the paper trail is pretty clear that decisions were being made above his level.
Whom might Hicks be referring to? He specifically mentions Under Secretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy.
“Certainly the fact that Under Secretary Kennedy required a daily report of the personnel in country and who personally approved every official American who went to Tripoli or Benghazi, either on assignment or TDY (temporary duty), would suggest some responsibility about security levels within the country lies on his desk,” Hicks said.
Darrell Issa is to be commended for pressing forward in pursuit of the truth about this colossal security failure.
Benghazigate is falling apart. Smells a lot like Watergate, except that nobody died with Watergate. And the stench is coming directly from the White House.
And if the Loonie Leftie media continue to cover up for Obumble, they should be classified as Unindicted Co-conspirators.
Stay tuned, folks . . . . .This week’s hearings should be really interesting.
http://vaca.bayradio.com/ksfo_archives/ksfo_player.php?day=5&hour=09
If the link works, it should bring up KSFO talk radio from Friday 5/3, 8 to 9:00 a.m. An interview starts at about the 19:00 minute mark.
Interesting theory on Benghazi put forward. White House and State Dept. had cut a deal with Egyptian president Morrissey. U.S. Ambassador Stevens would be captured. Then Morrissey could step in as the hero and broker an exchange deal—Stephens for the “blind sheikh” Omar Abdel-Rahman.
Some more detail on the above link…
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/adm-james-lyons-ret-on-growing-benghazi-scandal/
It’s impossible to think this administration and Democrats generally aren’t protected by the antique media. Not only should the accomplices in the press be held accountable but those citizens who blindly follow and approve of the cover up reporting should too.
This entire affair, from the attacks themselves to the crass dismissal by Hillary Clinton, from the absence of the President during the hours of the attack to the trumped up video, this scandal go well beyond the political shenanigans of Watergate; this is willful lying, severe negligence, and dereliction of duty.
Hicks was “on the ground” in Libya, Fox News reports, but this statement is misleading; he was 500 miles away, in Tripoli, when the attack occurred. He talked to Stevens briefly but otherwise had no more information on the attack than did the States department officials and military personnel who were determining how to respond. The initial attack was a flare up of violence that lasted less than an hour, after which it appeared as if the incident was over. This was a day when spontaneous demonstrations and flare ups of violence erupted at U.S. embassies all across the Muslim world in response to the anti-Muslim video that was being circulated on YouTube. It was reasonable to assume that the Libyan incident was similar in nature. Hicks has a weak case for his complaints.
Thanks for sharing your opinion with us Roland. We appreciate hearing from people with varying points of view.
That Muslim video that nobody had ever heard of before this administration called attention to it is a shallow and dubious excuse for a failure to protect the ambassador and others in Benghazi. Our embassies in cities with a low terror threat are better protected. Why? Requests for better security went unanswered for months. Why? Allies in the area were getting their people completely out. Why were ours left in place, abandoned and helpless? Why, at the very, were fighter jets not sent to fly low and put some fear into these terrorists? Why did the Libyan President say immediately that it was a “preplanned” terrorist attack? Where was the President while all of this murder and mayhem was going on at our consulate? Why wasn’t he more engaged? (And don’t give me that busy man answer…he hit the campaign trail the next day!)
If you ask me you, Hillary, Rice, Obama and anyone else involved in the cover-up have the weaker case.
Sorry but there are just to
I think at the very least we have a case bordering on criminal negligence and a cover up involving threatening of witnesses and contempt of Congress, perhaps more, but we’ll see.
It’s quite obvious to an impartial juror that Hillary Clinton was poorly prepared to be our Secretary of State. She had no sense of the job. No appreciation for how necessary it might be to understand logistics and security despite 9-11 and a dozen more serious terrorist events on US soil.
What was her background? Being the wife of the President? A law school grad 40 years ago? If she was going thru a civil service exam for GS 10 she would not qualify, yet her she is appointed to Secretary of State. What she knows about her job could be put on a postage stamp. But, I won’t cut her any slack. She took the job and that makes her 100% accountable for all blunders under her command.
Hillary does have here skills and an ego to match. That made her dangerous and it was only a matter of time that she would do an act that would land her and the Obama Administration in a crisis and it arrived in the form of Benghazi. She made some very bad calls and then lied, that much is evident based her signature asppearing on Benghazi documents, that said she did refuse the request for more security and she was aware of the situation.
Hillary was just another political hack, faking her way through a job she was unfit to hold. The first crisis that came up and she blew it.
But, she had the Clinton luck. The ongoinog friction with the Muslim world and the YouTube Video defaming Mohamed was just the sort of thing needed to salvage her reputation and get Obama off the hook too! It just took a little spin, a little creative thinking and the White House was already predisposed to this sort of thing. But, the best part was nobody outside top secret intel people knew the truth. Damage control should have been easy, afterall American’s are basically stupid and guillable, right? Similar things have worked well in the past and it should have worked this time, if it were not for some annoying voices in Congress. They were demanding answers and then there was this bulldog Darrell Issa! That screwed up what otherwise should have been a slam dunk spin job. Now their demands are gaining traction and voters are demanding more. It may not be possible to contain this come Wed. We shall see.
I guess it’s no mystery that a person unprepared to lead the nation should choose as his Secretary of State a woman with similar experience and ability, Jack. The fallout and wreckage from this duo could continue to be felt for decades (Think Carter and Iran).
Feel good leadership…electing a fifteen year old when what is really needed is a grandfather.
Tina,
The anti-Muslim video I referred to was big news that day all across the world because of the tremendous spontaneous reaction it evoked in Muslim countries. I’m not an official person of any kind, just an average consumer of the news, but I recall that on this day, before the Benghazi incident, I was aware that the demonstrations were occurring and aware of how the Administration was responding by defending free speech while condemning religious bigotry. As for the “pre-planned” issue, even today, after months of news about this, it is not really firmly established that the incident was pre-planned. We do know the action was carried out by an extremist group (Anshar al Sharia, I think it is called), but this is a group that is active in the Benghazi area, with many members that, in wake of the revolution, have military grade weapons. Did they really plan this, or did a group of them, in response to the video, stage a spontaneous attack? Who knows? Certainly at the time Susan Rice made her statements, no one knew for sure.
Roland I appreciate your open mind but at the same time I think it is important to resolve this no matter what the result turns out to be. We have testimony from officials that seem t contradict what the “official” story was…somebody is not being truthful!
One of the reasons I’m very suspicious is that the United States doesn’t, or shouldn’t, refuse and ignore pleas for help and urgent requests for more security…and we don’t leave people hanging out there on their own without attempting to help. We have people telling us jets could have flown low over the compound as a show of force and we have another Marine group that was ready to go in and told to stand down. We have assertions that whistleblower’s have been intimidated to stay silent about what they knew. The Libyan President said it was a terror attack. The President said it was a terror attack. Then suddenly they sent Susan Rice out with that spontaneous video story…and there is testimony that the talking points were changed.
And I’m sorry but you (anyone) can never convince me that if this was George Bush the Democrats wouldn’t be holding months long hearings, harassing and browbeating witnesses, and with full media 24/7 assistance. That this is NOT happening is because it’s a Democrat and that is disgusting and bad for our country.
Another good article on Benghazi from The PJ Tatler
And another must read from Big West at The Corner – National Review which begins:
I keep hearing help wasn’t sent to save those men because it couldn’t have gotten there in time. For the life of me I can’t figure out how the he** they knew how long the attack would last. Did some bird of wisdom whisper in all of their ears and tell them when the attack would be over? Or did they not send in the troops on purpose giving the attackers time to kill them all leaving no witnesses to what was going on there? So, now instead the survivors have been hidden away and threatened to keep them silent.
Roland, I hope you’ve had the time to read up on the latest information that has come out. More specifically the emails that were written on Friday before Susan Rice went out on all of the Sunday talk shows. There are three revisions. The first clearly states it was an attack, the second redacts a lot of the original information and the third, done during a WH meeting, is where the video you referred to appears for the first time.
Here is a good article all about it. It’s three pages long and copies of the emails appear on page 2.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/benghazi-talking-points_720543.html?page=1
I think the reason the American public is not taking the hook on this is because this whole Benghazi incident has been pumped and repackaged so many times in an apparent effort to present it as failed leadership on some level.
Then, all these re-packaged facts are so iffy as to significance. For example:
Four members of the U.S. Special Forces could have been sent from Tripoli… While the attack was underway? No, the attack was over at this time. To defend the embassy? No, the embassy had been vacated by this time. On an American plane? No, on a military plance of a non-allied, Muslim nation. So what if this plane had been shot down? We can just imagine how Sen. Graham would have pitched that.
American jets could have been sent… Sent against whom? The mob had dissipated by this time. Such an act would have seemed questionable, wouldn’t it, when you have a Muslim populace already angry over the anti-Muslim video? You are just throwing gas on the fire.
Ansar al Shariff pre-planned this attack? According to Wikipedia, this organization first claimed full responsibility for the attack and then later backed off, saying some of its members had joined a spontaneous demonstration.
In any case, this organization is not allied with Al Quaeda, and, according to various reports, has no global strategic, anti-American goals. This is a local group intent on setting up a fundamentalist Muslim state and involved in social programs as well as police type activities. These are zealots more likely to have attacked out of rage at the insult to the Prophet than out of a simmering resentment against the U.S.
These are the same people, by the way, who had just been rescued and assisted in their revolution by a NATO no-fly zone enabled with American AWACs, the same people who were shown celebrating with their AK-47s around Quadaffi’s charred tanks. It doesn’t make sense that they would hate the U.S. but it does make sense that they would be offended by the video. In the Muslim world, an insult to the Prophet is punishable by death.
Iffy, re-packaged facts.
In any case why should some diplomat 600 miles away be calling the shots on what should have occurred when we have military units responsible for that area, and a general deciding based on his own knowledge and expertise on how to respond militarily to a volatile situation?
Peggy: “I keep hearing help wasn’t sent to save those men because it couldn’t have gotten there in time.”
The attack lasted eleven hours. the jets could have gotten there in two.
Two Marines disobeyed orders to stand down. I don’t get they were two lone Marines hanging out in a local cafe…how many in their unit might have presented a much greater defense in the situation.
How often do people who protest, particularly in a “spontaneous protest” (read unplanned) have rocket launchers in their back pockets and a plan to kidnap an ambassador? Sponateous my Aunt Fannie!
This entire affair stinks to high heaven, including leaving our ambassador and staff unprotected in an area that other nations are evacuating because of the danger.
I saw the three “talking point memo versions. They sure look like CYA to me.
Washington Post
Roland you think this guy shouldn’t call the shots and you are right. But the guy who does call the shots failed to respond adequately or competently to an American’s cries for help over several long hours. I’m sorry, your excuses just don’t hold up. There is no way that people in positions to make decisions should have left this embassy so poorly guarded in the first place and then when it was under attack to do nothing is just totally unacceptable!
Obviously, the people in a position to do something think differently than you do Roland. And I have to say your casual approach to this echoes that of the administration, one of whom has said “what possible difference does it now make” and now another has said, “death is part of life”…in other words get over it, we are the elite and we are exempt from being held accountable.
Roland you ask: “In any case why should some diplomat 600 miles away be calling the shots on what should have occurred when we have military units responsible for that area, and a general deciding based on his own knowledge and expertise on how to respond militarily to a volatile situation?”
Why indeed. What the hell was the general doing? Since when does America do nothing? Since when do we leave an Ambassador so poorly guarded in a dangerous area? What the hell was the President doing when his diplomat was under siege? Maybe you think this is just business as usual for our military and our President but I don’t. This incident doesn’t have anything about it that is the normal or proper way that America and her military operate.
Tina: “That Muslim video that nobody had ever heard of before this administration called attention to it”
Please do not lie. There were demonstrations in several Muslim countries over the video the day of the attack. You know this already, because several people have told you and provided documentation for you proving this.
“And I’m sorry but you (anyone) can never convince me that if this was George Bush the Democrats wouldn’t be holding months long hearings, harassing and browbeating witnesses, and with full media 24/7 assistance.”
Your memory of the Bush years is foggy at best. There were no “months long hearings” about Bush’s failure to respond to the memo about the danger posed by Osama bin Laden in August of 2001. Need I remind you that that failure led to the deaths of 3000 people, not four. There was no significant media criticism of Bush in the aftermath. Nor did the media do its job of being critical in the lead-up to the Iraq War; even the New York Times has admitted that it fell for the lies and obviously bad information that we were fed in order to get us into that clusterf*ck. Those who did question the official narratives were labeled anti-Americans, traitors, terrorists, who hated our troops–even when those people *were* troops, or parents of troops.
No one has been prosecuted for acts of torture perpetrated by the Bush administration, except for the guy who blew the whistle on these acts of torture. For everyone else, there haven’t even been hearings. The media hasn’t cared.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/25/cia-whistleblower-john-kiriakou-prison
No one except Scooter Libby was held accountable for the Valeri Plame affair.
But go ahead, tell me more about how mean the Democrats and the media are to the Republicans who we let get away with massive security failures, intentional security leaks, pointless wars based on clearly terrible information, and torture.
Chris: “Please do not lie. There were demonstrations in several Muslim countries over the video the day of the attack.”
Don’t preach to me Chris. The video is being used as an excuse….period! The video doesn’t cover for the lack of adequate security or a failure to get our people out. The danger was well known. Other embassies had closed by 9/11 and their people taken to safety.
CBS news:
“There were no “months long hearings” about Bush’s failure to respond to the memo about the danger posed by Osama bin Laden in August of 2001.”
Oh brother you really are reaching. Bin Laden might strike is the crux of that memo. When? Where? How?
While we are reminding may I remind you of the delays in seating President Bush due to the shenanigans in the Democrat Party over hanging chads! It was the most ridiculous and ungracious passing of power from one President to the next in our countries history…and so typical of the juveniles in the Clinton administration.
NOBODY could have advised President Bush of an attack that involved planes flying into buildings because it had never been done. This attack was a complete surprise. Even if the words “hijacking planes” were used in memo to the President everyone’s understanding of that tactic involved the taking of planes in a hostage situation. Nice try Chris but no banana.
“Need I remind you that that failure led to the deaths of 3000 people…”
You are a depraved individual…this conversation is over.
Here’s an example of the petulant leftist media pouting over the final decision, made by the Obama administration, on Bush’s so-called crimes:
Guardian UK
Obama as candidate was a know nothing. Once he took on the mantle of the presidency and was briefed his attitude suddenly changed.
Chris: “Please do not lie.” This should be right up your alley.
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/c/clinton-watergate.htm
Peggy The American Spectator has a great piece, “From Bimbo’s to Benghazi” showing the methodology Hillary uses to perpetrate lies and coverup. Quite illuminating.
“Don’t preach to me Chris.”
Then don’t lie. You said that no one had heard of the video before the administration began talking about it. That wasn’t true, and you knew it wasn’t true when you said it. The honest thing to do now would be to admit that, and apologize.
“The video is being used as an excuse….period!”
You are still lying. The administration admitted long ago that they were wrong about the video being responsible for the attack. You know this, because you’re reported that here, on your blog. And yet you’re still saying that the video “is” being used as an excuse, even though no one in the administration is doing this. Why do you do this? Why do you tell such obvious lies, and then get mad at me when I call you out for it? The only solution is to be more honest.
Tina: “Here’s an example of the petulant leftist media pouting over the final decision, made by the Obama administration, on Bush’s so-called crimes:”
Yes, expecting torturers to face time for their crimes is “petulant.” Talk about depraved.
Yes Chris it is a petulant response. The leftist media began its personal smear attack on Bush during the original primary. 911 happened and they stopped for a couple of heart beats but they were bound to continue as soon as they thought they could get away with it. The charge of torture is BS…pure and simple. Military personnel that go through this exercise as part of their training have said it is BS.
Leftist political players have no sense of morality. They make the rules up as they go along. They had more contempt for GWB legally and carefully administering this technique to get information to protect the American people than they had for the terrorists that cut Daniel Pearls head off, video taped it, and put it out on the internet.
The problem with leftists is they have no grounding to distinguish between right and wrong and therefore can call black white and white black to suit their political goals.
As for thew video I did not report it prior to the incident. I had no knowledge of it prior to the incident. Evidence points to this video being used as an excuse to cover for the poor decision making of Hillary Clinton and the utter callousness of a President missing in action during the incident.
The administration needed cover…you want to call someone out for lying, Chris, you can begin with the administration.
The truth does matter at least to some of us. We know this administration lied about the video, now we’re going to find out if Obama did give the “stand down” order.
Jay Carney said, “This happened a long time ago.” I thought there was no statute of limitations for murder and would be an open case until solved.
From Fox News:
Father of Slain Benghazi Victim: ‘What Difference Does It Make? Credibility’:
HANNITY: Does it make a difference to know the truth?
WOODS: Sean, Hillary, she asked a question. If she asked that question of me, you know for six years, I was an administrative law judge, and credibility is the issue. I would say what difference does it make? Credibility because in a courtroom situation. We have a rule that says if a person’s testimony is proven to be false in any part, the rest of their testimony is to be disregarded on that subject, and that’s basically what we have here. The difference is credibility.
HANNITY: They screwed up. They denied the request, the multiple requests for help before this attack. Apparently help was denied during the attack.
WOODS: That’s correct.
HANNITY: And people like your son were told to stand down, but even outside help, they had a C-130 waiting in Tripoli. We now learned.
WOODS: That could have saved his life and prevented injury to the 30 other people there at the consulate, Americans on American soil.
http://nation.foxnews.com/benghazi/2013/05/08/father-slain-benghazi-victim-what-difference-does-it-make-credibility
Also, learned the producer of that bogus video is still in prison on a parole violation for his visa. Which is a whole other discussion of why known Russian terrorist bombers with expired visas were still free, but this guy is in jail still after eight months.
A lie by omission is still a lie.
“Shocking” article on media Benghazi bias and cover-up.
Liberal media spin Benghazi scandal to protect Team Obama:
“In the real world, when you cover up four murders after the fact, you likely go to jail. In government, you retire with dignity and run for president with full media support.
Up until yesterday, that was the Benghazi scenario following the death of four Americans including our ambassador to Libya.
The Obama administration has lied, stonewalled, bullied, and intimidated – the true marks of an open and transparent administration. And, with a few notable exceptions, the American media haven’t just let them get away it. Heck, they’ve helped.”
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/05/09/liberal-media-spin-benghazi-scandal-to-protect-team-obama/#ixzz2SpZ5e0iP
Bias Bash: Difference in Benghazi media coverage:
http://video.foxnews.com/v/2363252001001/bias-bash-difference-in-benghazi-media-coverage-/?playlist_id=931078453001
MSNBC’s Hayes Gloats Over Kidnapping and Murder Stories Preempting Benghazi Media Coverage:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2013/05/09/msnbcs-hayes-gloats-over-kidnapping-and-murder-stories-preempting-ben#ixzz2SpW9Bvgd
How Did Rest of the Media Cover Important Benghazi Hearings? Take a Look:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/08/how-did-the-media-cover-important-benghazi-hearings-take-a-look/
Despite all the hoopla about the Benghazi hearings, there was not much of news in it. Even Fox News put it third, behind Jodi Arias and the freed kidnap victims.
The day was full of inconsistencies and strained attempts at finding a scandal or coverup somewhere. Instead the testimony just underscored the extent to which all of the principals in the unfolding event were struggling to react with half bits of information.
When asked to give a narrative of the events, for example, Hicks began by saying he had spoken to Ambassador Stevens on the afternoon of the attack to ask Stevens if he had been informed of the attack on the embassy in Cairo that was occurring there in response to the video on YouTube. Apparently, based on that, Hicks thought a similar event might unfold in Benghazi. He was warning Stevens to be on guard. Yet, when the attack did occur, Hicks, from 600 miles away, with no further information except a brief call of distress from Stevens, knew “right away” that it was a terrorist attack.
Then, presumably, a “terrorist attack” could not also be a “spontaneous demonstration.” But when you have a city full of men in jeans and T-shirts and waving AK-47s, as the various news outlets showed many clips of in the prior weeks, and these men have just spent several months running around and shooting people, during the revolution, couldn’t there be an event that was a spontaneous and violent at the same time? That is pretty much what happened in some of the other of the 20 embassies in Muslim countries that were attacked on this same day.
Hicks also said that Hillary Clinton called him personally after the attack to express concern, to ask what further could be done, and to encourage him to take care for his own safety. Remember by this time the initial mob had dissipated and there was no way to know whether the next incident would occur in Benghazi or in Tripoli where Hicks was stationed.
The whole situation was fluid and confused and the general picture is of many people trying to do the right thing. There is not really any scandal or coverup in this story.
Roland, with all due respect, I think you are being a bit naive or you’re just another blind partisan. I think you missed the part where the terrorists took credit for the attack, right afterwards. “Greg Hicks is the first person who was in Libya at the time of the Benghazi attack to give public testimony. He testified that he had reported to the State Department Operations Center immediately that there was an attack, but no demonstration. He reported that he spoke to Ambassador Stevens during the attack. Stevens said, “Greg, we are under attack,” and then the phone went dead. Hicks reported that there is a protocol for how to handle a demonstration, and that protocol was not invoked, because there was no demonstration. He further stated that the alleged YouTube video cited by Rice on behalf of the Obama administration was a non-event in Libya.
He testified that Ansar al-Sharia claimed credit for the attack. He also reported that the hospital to which Chris Stevens was taken was a hospital known to be guarded and controlled by Ansar al-Sharia.” How do you explain this away? Roland do you need a ton of bricks to fall on your head before you get it?
We all know that at the time of Benghazi Obama was in a heated election and he (Obama) would look more favorable if the attack was the result of a video defaming Muhamed as opposed to a deliberate, pre-planned terrorist attack. It was a spin attempt, they had to connect dots not there! Geez Roland…this is so obvious, I can’t believe you don’t get it?
Obama choose to run with the video story and to make sure, he put Susan Rice out there on a speaking tour so everyone would heard it.
The plethora of evidence to date makes it quite clear the White House had the truth early on and stedfastly stuck to the video story, even when the Libyan President called it a terrorist attack. And why? Because it played into their advantage! C’mon Roland, if you don’t see this then you don’t want to see it and I wonder why? Surely you don’t like Obama treating you like a mushroom do you? -Jack
Report early on the morning of Sept 12th
NBC News
Then the administration trotted out Susan Rice to weave the cover story on three major network Sunday shows. The administration’s “video story” is too pat. It likely harmed the FBI’s investigation, after all, the video story was an big insult to the acting president of Libya who had made a public statement saying it was a planned terror attack. When a US news outfit manages to walk through the attack scene only a weeks later and
finds pertinent documents lying around, you know there has not been a proper investigation:
There are too many unanswered questions and there was no real effort to investigate.
The cover up is bad but the lack of support for the ambassador and his team prior to the incident is unforgivable in my mind. This isn’t how our country treats it’s representatives around the world or its military.
“As for thew video I did not report it prior to the incident. I had no knowledge of it prior to the incident.”
You misunderstood my comment. You have reported in the past that the administration has admitted that the video was not the motivation for the attacks. Then, you wrote here that the video “is” being used as an excuse by the administration, even though you have previously reported that they no longer attribute the attacks to the video. Either you meant to write “was,” or you were intentionally saying something you knew wasn’t true, and have in fact directly contradicted in the past.
As for how Bush was treated, there were 13 embassy attacks during Bush’s time in office, and many of them led to fatalities. There was not a single hearing in which any of this was blamed on Bush. But now, when it happens under Obama, we’re told that it must be the fault of his terror policies. That makes no sense and shows that it is you who is holding a double standard.
“Evidence points to this video being used as an excuse to cover for the poor decision making of Hillary Clinton and the utter callousness of a President missing in action during the incident.”
No. Evidence points to confusion over reports from people on the ground that the video was responsible. I have shown you news accounts in which people involved in the attack claimed to be motivated by the video. I have also shown that the video was a motivating factor in violent protests in many Muslim cities that same week. You’ve ignored all of this because it doesn’t fit your accusatory narrative.
Peggy: “The truth does matter at least to some of us. We know this administration lied about the video…”
No, you do not “know” that. You believe that, because your far right sources have lied to you, as they always do.
Again: Many news reports backed up the initial belief that the attackers were motivated by the video. It was rational to believe this was the motivation given other protests in Muslim cities at the same time. You know this already. Stop ignoring this; it makes you look like you’re not interested in the truth, but in attacking the administration by any means necessary.
This was never about uncovering the truth. This was about destroying Obama. The ring-leaders behind the Benghazi administration have discredited themselves so many times in the past with lies and conspiracy theories, and continued to do so as soon as the Benghazi story first broke. So much of what the right-wing media reported turned out to be wrong; how do expect us to believe you now?
If there is any kind of actual “cover-up” here, have you considered that the reason the media isn’t looking into it may be because you’ve burned them too many times before? Remember “birther-gate?” Why should they listen to the boys who cried wolf?
Chris: “You know this already. Stop ignoring this; it makes you look like you’re not interested in the truth, but in attacking the administration by any means necessary.”
Hey Chris, it’s not me who is ignoring this just like it’s not me who is ignoring the almost 30 Seals Team 6 members who were sent on a “suicide mission” in 2011 after Biden disclosed the confidential information about who took out Bin Ladin. I watched hours of the press conference held by some of the parents and military personnel who have been trying to find out the truth on why that team was sent into a hot zone that had been under attack for over three hours, at 3am, alone and without cover like a lone duck flying into a field of hunters. Every military person that spoke said what took place was a violation of procedures and an investigation was needed.
Not one person at that press conference said if they were a Republican or a Democrats. It’s NOT a party issue. It is an issue of why all of those Seals Team six and others, and the four in Benghazi died. It IS about the truth. I’m sorry you can’t see or refuse to see that.
Forget the partisan politics Chris and just do the right thing. Those parents are owed that at least. As a parent I’d want to know too and so would you.
Oh and Chris, I guess you haven’t seen the news today. Jay Carney just had his worst day ever. The msm is finally beginning to cover the story. They’ll have a lot of catching up to do.
“Either you meant to write “was,” or you were intentionally saying something you knew wasn’t true, and have in fact directly contradicted in the past.
Oh go ahead and think my intention was and is to deliberately deceive people. I report and comment on what is in the news. Sometimes we are discussing what was happening and sometimes what is happening. Does it not occur to you that it is the administration that is doing the shape change routine?
“There was not a single hearing in which any of this was blamed on Bush.”
You find me an embassy incident when the President was not fully engaged during an attack on our embassies, didn’t even bother to make a phone call before going to bed to see how things were going, and I will gladly join you in protesting.
“But now, when it happens under Obama, we’re told that it must be the fault of his terror policies.”
Really? That’s what you think you’re being told?
“You’ve ignored all of this because it doesn’t fit your accusatory narrative.”
Obviously you choose to ignore or dismiss all of the evidence that suggests the video, if it played any part at all, was a minor motivation and it was a planned terrorist attack that played out over the course of eleven hours. I think the public deserves to know why the administration kept hocking the video story.
The Daily Mail reports at 3:00 am Saturday London time:
Magarief told the President immediately following the attacks. He was deeply insulted by the video story because it made him look like a liar in front of the world. I’m sorry Chris but it looks an awful lot like this administration put politics ahead of being straight with the American people.
“You believe that, because your far right sources have lied to you, as they always do.”
You are addressing Peggy now but as far as I’m concerned you have just lost your credibility. One of the excerpts I used above is from NBC.
And apparently today a few MSM journalists are reporting about this.
PJ Media’s Ron Radosh writes today giving Kudos to main stream journalists:
I’m replying to #28 Postscripts which was a reply to my earlier comment.
The point I was trying to make about whether this was a “terroristic attack” or a “spontaneous demonstration” was that the first attack in Benghazi could have well been both.
Remember, the revolution in Libya, like the revolutions in Algeria and Egypt, were all part of the “Arab Spring;” and that has been referred to, at various times, as the “Facebook revolution” because it has involved people staging “flash events” organized within hours, or minutes even, by broadcasting messages on Facebook (or similar mediums). Given that you have many people with guns, and that these are people who have been staging such flash events, given that spontaneous demonstrations were occuring in response to the Youtube video all around the Muslim world (e.g., hundreds of thousands marching in Pakistan), why is it such a reach to speculate that the military style attack in Benghazi was not really “pre-planned” but quickly organized in response to the Youtube video? Even now, that seems possible; it has not been disproved by anything yet known. Surely when Susan Rice made her comments, no one really knew for sure what had happened.
Yes, Hicks did say he was certain about what had happened. But Hicks was 600 miles away, he had no communications with the people in Benghazi on the night of the initial attack other than a brief distress call from Stevens.
As for Ansar al Sharia: their involvement in the attack, acknowledged now by just about everyone, does not really bolster the case of the “pre-planned attack.” This is a local group intent on setting up a religious society based on Sharia law, a group with, according to their own statements, no global, anti-American goals. This is not Al Quaeda. This is a group of zealots who would be expected to become so incensed at an insult to the Prophet that they would reply by staging a spontaneous military attack using the many weapons still in their possession from their involvement in the just concluded revolution.
Several points to remember:
1. 9:00 PM – it was reported that there was “nothing unusual outside of the gates.”
2. 9:40 PM – “Gunfire and an explosion are heard. A TOC agent sees dozens of armed people over security camera flowing through a pedestrian gate at the compound’s main entrance. It is not clear how the gate was opened.”
3. 12:07 AM – “An alert from the State Dept. Operations Center states that the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli reports the Islamic military group “Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibilty for Benghazi Attack”… “on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli.”
Read the entire timeline of events at CBS News: “Benghazi Timeline: How the attack unfolded”
This was not “spontaneous” and there was no one around at nine to develop into a spontaneous protest” as described in Cairo: “Later that afternoon, protesters who had gathered outside the embassy compound stormed the gates and tore the American flag down, replacing it with a black Salafist flag.”
They tore down a flag. That, to me, describes a “spontaneous protest”.
Events in Benghazi were much different with armed men storming the compound and gunfire and an explosion are heard. It happened late in the evening and lasted through the night.
Clearly a planned attack with an element of surprise on a poorly secured target.
Long war Journal:
The Daily Beast:
As the emails released today show, the CIA in its first evaluation of the Benghazi attack, and for several days later, continued to believe that the attack was a spontaneous event related to the Youtube video and the demonstrations in Cairo. All of those involved in vetting the talking points clearly believed the same thing (up until and after Susan Rice’s TV remarks). The dispute between the parties was whether to include a reference to something they were not sure about, which was the extent and nature of the involvement of extremist groups. Ansar al Sharia was mentioned as a likely participant group in the attack, but it was considered to be unwise to reveal that an investigation into their activities was in process. These emails just indicate a take-and-give discussion such as would be expected among national security officials contemplating how to forego any possible future violence and identify the perpetrators of the attack.
There is no conspiracy. There is no lie. There are no bad actors. The White House and Clinton are not involved. There is no there there, as the president said.
If you’re looking for a lie, though, about the lie about WMDs in Iraq that cost the lifes of more than 4000 Americans and ten of thousands of Iraqi people? That would be an inquiry worth our effort.