Posted by Tina
We aren’t living in the era of Watergate, and a Republican doesn’t reside in the big white house at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, so this story hasn’t gotten wall to wall coverage. The scandal, however, is much greater and deserves much more scrutiny than it is getting. There are those who work diligently on our behalf. There are a few news outlets that occasionally report. Surprisingly one such source is the Washington Post!
Can you believe it? Yes! Today the Post reported about newly released emails from the White House that show the “top priority” for administration officials in creating talking points for Susan Rice’s appearance on the Sunday talk shows was, “to shield Obama from criticism less than two months before voters decided whether to give him a second term”:
In an e-mail with the subject line: “PREP CALL with Susan,” deputy national security adviser for strategic communications Ben Rhodes wrote that one of the goals before Rice went on the Sunday news shows after the killing of four Americans was to “underscore these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.”
As the article points out, previously released emails also show State Department concern that the Hillary run State Department would “be taking the blame for failing to heed general CIA warnings of a possible attack on the anniversary of Sept. 11, 2001.”
America had just been attacked and our ambassador and others murdered. It was absolutely irresponsible to send a person with zero first hand knowledge out to “inform” the public with questionable and incomplete information. They sent Susan Rice because she had no accountability other than the fact that she was chosen by the President. The President himself should have been answering the questions she took. The President should have been publicly demanding answers…should have been a leader! Instead he, Hillary and their cadre of co-conspirators concocted a story that was only slightly plausible to cover their incompetent butts.
Even CNN’s Jake Tapper finally covered the story fairly accurately. Hopefully, more will join him to get the truth out finally instead of this drip drip drip of information in an attempt to cover up the lies.
http://www.wptz.com/politics/Documents-reinforce-push-film-behind-Benghazi/25720340
I posted a video of Louie Gohmert on another article that’s worth watching. He talks about the survivor who was on the roof of the annex and lost most of his leg. He tells about the final attack that killed the two SEALS and injured the survivor.
Roger Simon at PJ Media has more.
(Got the email Peggy it was priceless…thanks!)
Confirming what many of us suspected that this white house will stop at nothing to get what they want.
And Shrillary’s gonna have a real hard time with her complicity in the “blame the video” cover-up with any election above dogcatcher.
Again, this is nothing. Rhodes said the same thing the CIA said.
On another thread, Tina quoted the Washington Times as saying this:
“But by Sept. 15, the CIA station chief in Tripoli had talked directly to his team in Benghazi, which had come to the defense of the compound during the attack, according to sources who spoke only on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the news media.
The sources said that the station chief relayed to his superiors in Washington in an email that the CIA personnel on the ground found no evidence that the attack had been an escalation of any protest. (emphasis mine)”
But this point has already been addressed by the Senate Report, which I have begged you to read, to no avail.
From the report:
“The IC also had information that there were no protests outside the Temporary Mission Facility prior to the attacks, but did not incorporate that information into its widely circulated assessments in a timely manner. Contrary to many press reports at the time, eyewitness statements by U.S. personnel indicate that there were no protests at the start of the attacks. For example, on September 15, 2012,. the CIA’s Chief of Station in Tripoli sent to the then-Deputy Director of the ClA and others at the CIA an email that reported the attacks were “not/not an escalation of protests.” Yet, the CIA’s January 4, 2013, Analytic Line Review downplays the importance of this email, noting, “… as a standard practice, we do not base analysis on e-mails and other informal communications from the field because such accounts often change when formalized as disseminated intelligence reports.”
Mr. K is right again.
Charles Krauthammer Says Americans Now Have the ‘Smoking Document’ in Benghazi Scandal:
Syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer on Tuesday said the American people have the “smoking document” that proves the Obama administration took part in a cover up in the aftermath of the deadly Benghazi terrorist attacks.
Judicial Watch has released newly declassified emails that suggest top-ranking Obama administration officials coordinated in 2012 to make it appear that the deadly attacks on the U.S. facilities in Libya were sparked by an “Internet video” and not “a broader failure or policy.”
“It is in conflict with what we’ve been told, with what Jay Carney has been saying,” Krauthammer said of the revelations. “And that is, their story has always been this stuff call came from the CIA, from intelligence so it was completely clean.”
Krauthammer noted that former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell testified that he had never brought up the video as a possible motivator for the Benghazi attacks.
“We now have the smoking document, which is the White House saying: ‘We’re pushing the video because we don’t want to blame it on the failure of our policies,’” he added. “This undermines the whole narrative, therefore they have to invent the video. So I think this is extremely important.”
Krauthammer predicted the mainstream media will once again fail to properly look into the latest developments in the Benghazi saga, which will make things very difficult to progress.”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/04/29/charles-krauthammer-says-americans-now-have-the-smoking-document-in-benghazi-scandal/
Chris doesn’t get it…inexperience? Blind trust? Who knows.
Nixon stepped down to save the country from a long impeachment process because of his cover up of a third rate campaign shenanigans break-in. Nobody died. The Republican Party was disgraced; the people were not.
My guess is this administration would spin, spin, spin all through a tedious protracted process if the Congress had the fortitude to impeach, which I doubt.
Either way the country is screwed until this guy and his minions are removed from power…thank the Lord he can only have two terms.
Anyone notice the report on growth for the first quarter (up .1%)…or the export report (-) out today? SAD!!! But never fear the Obama team is on it. They claim this shows Obamacare has helped the economy. 60 million families …nobody working.
Clowns to the left…lots of them!
Tina: “Chris doesn’t get it…inexperience? Blind trust? Who knows.”
It’s called evidence. You should try it some time.
Evidence, Chris, you should learn to recognize it!
The emails show direct involvement by the White House to direct a false narrative about what happened in Benghazi.
Both Clinton and Obama needed a cover story before the election. The video was a convenient excuse and nothing more. the Benghazi raid was planned and executed with strong force…and no protest was anywhere in sight…they lied to the American people and to the families of then victims…period.
Tina: “The emails show direct involvement by the White House to direct a false narrative about what happened in Benghazi.”
No, it shows direct involvement by the White House to direct Rice to tell the public exactly what the CIA had officially told the White House at that point. Again, as the Senate Report clearly says, Morrell’s e-mail was not considered an official part of the correspondence by the CIA and thus was not included in the talking points.
The amount of evidence you have to completely ignore to spin your “Obama’s Watergate” fantasy is much larger than the amount of evidence you have actually provided for said fantasy. You have to ignore the Senate Report’s conclusions. You have to ignore the official CIA talking points. You have to ignore the fact that Obama admitted the administration was wrong about the video weeks before the election. You have to ignore that Rice and others repeatedly said the situation was evolving at the time and any information could be revised. You have to ignore that literally dozens of other Muslim countries were rioting over the video at the same time. You have to ignore the press reports that cite eyewitnesses saying they were motivated by the video. You have to ignore the social media chatter posted by extremists that also say they were motivated by the video. You have to ignore that there was no motive for a”cover-up” that was just going to be abandoned two weeks later. You have to ignore that even now, the IC and the press aren’t completely sure what role the video played because of all the contradicting info. And you have to ignore that there remains zero evidence of an intentional White House “cover-up” of information relating to Benghazi.
The fact that you are taking this e-mail, which reveals no new information whatsoever, as some kind of smoking gun just shows how desperate you are to implicate Obama in some kind of scandal. If you took this case to court, you’d be laughed out on your ass. Sad and pathetic.
Actually Chris I am reporting what a lot of respected people in the media, even an historically LEFT media, even a media that has been sycophantically supportive of Obama, are reporting. And I am commenting on it.
I’m not sure what you are doing as I indicated.
FactCheck.org, Benghazi Timeline through May 15, 2013.
There’s damning information, including the unfolding of events, that you choose to ignore.
One thing to consider about the timeline. Chris and other apologists for the administration claim that the CIA report was wrong and that’s why the talking points were altered and Susan Rice blamed it all on the video. If that’s the truth then why did the administration and its spokespeople continue to tell the people that investigations were ongoing and they preferred to wait till an investigation was completed:
That interview was after Susan Rice’s repeated emphatic story on the Sunday talk shows. If the administration would rather “wait” for an investigation, why didn’t they?
Why tell the people anything other than we are investigating.
Why not tell people that it could have been both…why insist it was the video?
The fact that protests were happening in other areas is irrelevant if NONE were happening in Benghazi!
While some will defend this administration to their dying breath others are finally waking up to the lies told to cover up who was responsible for Benghazi and why the cover up was so important.
White House Briefing Turns Contentious Over Benghazi Lies:
ABC News reporter Jonathan Karl got in to a heated debate Wednesday with White House spokesman Jay Carney over the talking points issued to Susan Rice after the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi.
http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/30/white-house-briefing-turns-contentious-over-benghazi-lies-video/
Sharyl Attkisson on the One Thing People Should Be ‘Standing Up on Buildings and Screaming’ About:
Speaking about Benghazi, the former CBS reporter said she was stunned by “the stonewalling of basic information that should be publicly available, such as the commander in chief’s actions on a night when, basically, people were at war with Americans.”
“We don’t even know what the commander chief did that night,” she remarked. “We’re not allowed to know, and I think that’s pretty shocking.”
Attkisson said one tactic that has been successfully used by Republican and Democrat administrations is to release information slowly, sometimes over the course of several years, so people either become “numb” or disinterested in what would have been an enormous scandal.
“If all that we know today had come out the week after Benghazi,” she said, “it would have really been disastrous.”
Attkisson said she believes these years will be remembered as a “historic time of restrictions, and a time in which we not just lost, but voluntarily relinquished, a lot of our and authority as watchdogs of the government.”
Video:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/04/30/sharyl-attkisson-on-the-one-thing-people-should-be-standing-up-on-buildings-and-screaming-about/
Tina, that Fact Check timeline is over a year old and is missing the CIA talking points. Those talking points are the “smoking gun” that there was no intentional cover-up.
All of your concerns can be more easily explained by simple bureaucratic slowness, confusion and ineptitude. There remains zero direct evidence of an intentional cover-up. And the claims of a cover-up still do not stand up to basic common sense. Why lie about something that was clearly going to come to light within less than a month? Certainly that would jeopardize Obama’s chances more than just saying it was a planned terrorist attack to begin with? Conservatives were accusing Obama of a cover-up within days of the attack…Obama still won. The election wasn’t about foreign policy. Obama is a savvy politician; he knew this. There was simply no reason to lie. There’s no sensible motive here.
Let me know if you find anything real. If you can show me actual evidence of a cover-up, I’ll be the first to hold Obama’s feet to the fire.
Sure Chris, sure. I wrote the date of the timeline. The timeline went past the moments when Susan Rice officially floated the big lie. The rewrite happened before that but we didn’t find out till much later. Connect the dots.
Never mind the mindless tripe Chris posts. He fancies himself a progressive propagandist magician. What he is is little more than an insignificant wannabe Joseph Goebbels clown. Of course this pissant is desperate to make this issue seem to mean nothing. Good for a laugh, I guess.
Tina: “Sure Chris, sure. I wrote the date of the timeline. The timeline went past the moments when Susan Rice officially floated the big lie. The rewrite happened before that but we didn’t find out till much later. Connect the dots.”
I don’t know what any of this is supposed to mean. Again, the Fact Check timeline does NOT include the CIA talking points, which as I understand it were not released until after the date this timeline was published. The CIA talking points prove that Rice’s comments were not a “big lie,” but that they were based on the best information at the time. The CIA did not officially revise their own talking points until AFTER Rice went forward and said the video was a motivating factor. (And remember, there is still plenty of evidence that the video *was* a motivating factor in the attack; it’s really not the video explanation, but the reports that there was a protest before the attack, that was proven false. How spontaneous the attack was and how much planning went into it is still hotly debated.) Yes, Michael Morell disagreed, but as the Senate Report explains, his e-mail was not considered an official document.
There’s definitely room to fault the White House for speaking before all the info was in and the CIA for moving too slowly with their information or not relying on the best sources. But there remains no evidence of a politically orchestrated cover-up. No amount of ad hominem attacks is going to change that.
Why are you still ignoring the findings of the Senate Report, which you initially touted (without reading) here on Post Scripts when you erroneously believed it supported your narrative? Do you think the people behind the report are stupid? What exactly did they miss or fail to address?
One has to wonder (in amazement) what part of the goals for Susan Rice as dictated by the White House in an email it where it specifically states “to underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy” that Chris does not understand.
And frankly, I find Chris’ ugly, vile, racist imagery of burning a black man’s feet disgusting. Not unexpected but nevertheless disgusting and disturbing.
Benghazi is Fast and Furious on steroids with gun running to terrorist and this administration slow walking the documents requested by Congress. It worked for them before and figured they could get away with another cover up that ended in the deaths of even more Americans.
CIA Denies Blaze Benghazi Report: ‘So Many Problems’:
The CIA denied having any role in arming Libyan rebels before the deadly 2012 Benghazi attacks, despite reporting by TheBlaze that the U.S. was covertly involved in providing rebels with weapons during Libya’s civil war that ultimately ended up in the hands of Al Qaeda militants.
An unclassified talking points document is shown as former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morrell testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, April 2, 2014, before the House Intelligence Committee.
Morrell, who edited the widely debunked talking points on the 2012 Benghazi attack, answered questions from the House intelligence committee in a rare open session. The hearing provides Morrell with a chance to explain why he deleted references to al-Qaida. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)
An unclassified talking points document about the 2012 Benghazi attacks is shown as former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morrell testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington, April 2, 2014, before the House Intelligence Committee. (AP/Manuel Balce Ceneta)
Multiple sources, including a former paid informant for the CIA and FBI, told TheBlaze TV’s For the Record that Al Qaeda militants benefited from the massive amount of weapons that were being delivered by the United Arab Emirates and Qatar with at least tacit approval of the Obama administration.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/04/30/cia-denies-blaze-benghazi-report-so-many-problems/
Let us hope and pray that Chris NEVER acknowledges the evidence of the blatantly naked White House diversions in Benghazi debacle. We do not need to EVER go back to the sort of horrid evil, and racist brutality that Chris espouses.
On February 1, 1893 Henry Smith was burned alive in Paris, Texas by a large crowd of southern whites. (Update that to progressive whites in California.)
It was horrible — the man dying by slow torture in the midst of smoke from his own burning flesh. Every groan, every contortion of his body, was cheered by the thickly packed crowd of 10,000 persons, the mass of beings 600 yards in diameter, the scaffold being the center. After burning the feet and legs, the hot irons — plenty of fresh ones being at hand — were rolled up and down Smith’s stomach, back, and arms. Then the eyes were burned out and irons were thrust down his throat.
Read more here — http://www.americanlynching.com/infamous-old.html
Not good for a laugh. Does Post Scripts intend to continue to give this horrid and vile racist Chris a voice and a platform to spew his malicious and vicious hate speech?
Pie, get a f***ing life.
Edited for language. Chris you know better.
So, Peggy, let me get this straight. Morrell’s assertions that there was no spontaneous protest prior to the attack in Benghazi should have been taken as absolute truth by the White House immediately, even though the CIA at large was still reporting that there was indeed a protest. The fact that the White House didn’t immediately change their talking points based on Morrell’s e-mail proves that the White House covered up the real nature of the attack on Benghazi.
But Michael Morrell’s denial that the CIA was arming terrorists proves can’t be believed because the Blaze so.
Can you explain to me how these two positions are in any way reconcilable?
Second paragraph should say “But Michael Morrell’s denial that the CIA was arming terrorists proves he can’t be believed because the Blaze says so.”
I have often expressed my displeasure with Obama in these pages but I have NEVER suggested that he be torture-executed as Chris has stated he would be first in line to commit. Nor would I EVER! Such outrageous and vile conduct is simply not acceptable in civil society. No wonder Chris admires Robert Byrd, who was a leader in the Ku Klux Klan!
Chris’ statements are revealing but not unexpected. Frankly, I am thoroughly disgusted with this vile, knuckle dragging progressive racist creep. His racist attitudes and those of his ilk demean us all. I am ashamed for him since he is obviously not ashamed of himself.
Re #19 Chris :
Pie, get a f***ing life.
Edited for language. Chris you know better.
Sorry to see that censored by Post Scripts. Chris should be allowed to reveal his true nature no matter how disgusting and evil he is.
Earth to Chris, there was NO protest at Benghazi that night.
The survivor who lost his leg said it was a planned attack. The first RPG fell short. The second killed the two on the roof and the third hit him. Unplanned fire would have taken three RPGs to triangulate the target. Greg Hick’s in Tripoli testified, “There was NO protest.” Even Petraeus wouldn’t sign off on the talking points emails about the protest. It was Morrell who defied his supervisor Petraeus and ok’d it.
Chris, if you read and watch other sources for information you’d have a better understanding of what took place than what you’re getting from the biased left-wing media.
The Blaze TV tonight had a special on Benghazi and interviewed individuals involved in the whole mess. It’s not the Blaze that put the words in their mouths. They just offered a platform for them to present their experiences. Since it was THEIR (not the Blaze’s)experiences, which they supported with documents and memos they themselves wrote and delivered to the CIA and the White House their credibility is a whole lot higher than the spin coming from Carney.
I really don’t care what you think Chris. You choose to believe Obama and Clinton are innocent no matter what facts are presented. You don’t want to know the truth, because you’d have to admit this administration told ANOTHER lie and covered it up just to get Obama reelected and are continuing the lies to get Clinton elected.
If they weren’t running guns and there was a protest, why haven’t the 30 plus survivors been allowed to testify? Why have their identities been kept secret? And why did they have to sign papers preventing them from telling what they know the same day they landed in the US? If this administration has nothing to hide let them talk and release ALL of the Congress requested documents and stop dragging it out with FOIA compliances.
Since you have a problem with The Blaze, here’s an article from Yahoo News. Just maybe you’ll believe them.
Petraeus email objected to Benghazi talking points:
WASHINGTON (AP) — Then CIA-Director David Petraeus objected to the final talking points the Obama administration used after the deadly assault on a U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, because he wanted to see more details revealed to the public, according to emails released Wednesday by the White House.
Under pressure in the investigation that continues eight months after the attacks, the White House on Wednesday released 99 pages of emails and a single page of hand-written notes made by Petraeus’ deputy, Mike Morell, after a meeting at the White House on Saturday, Sept. 15. On that page, Morell scratched out from the CIA’s early drafts of talking points mentions of al-Qaida, the experience of fighters in Libya, Islamic extremists and a warning to the Cairo embassy on the eve of the attacks of calls for a demonstration and break-in by jihadists.
Petraeus apparently was displeased by the removal of so much of the material his analysts initially had proposed for release. The talking points were sent to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice to prepare her for an appearance on news shows on Sunday, Sept. 16, and also to members of the House Intelligence Committee.
“No mention of the cable to Cairo, either?” Petraeus wrote after receiving Morell’s edited version, developed after an intense back-and-forth among Obama administration officials. “Frankly, I’d just as soon not use this, then.”
Petreaus’ email comes at the end of extensive back-and-forth between officials at the CIA, White House, State Department and other agencies weighing in on a public explanation for the Sept. 11, 2012, attack that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans
The emails were partially blacked out, including removal of names of senders and recipients who are career employees at the CIA and elsewhere.
The emails show only minor edits were requested by the White House, and most of the objections came from the State Department. “The White House cleared quickly, but State has major concerns,” read an email that a CIA official sent to Petraeus on Friday, Sept. 14.
Continued with copies of emails.
http://news.yahoo.com/petraeus-email-objected-benghazi-talking-points-220924269.html
Oh yeah, one more thing Chris. Why do you think Petraeus’s affair came out just after Benghazi? Do you honestly believe they didn’t know about it before he refused to sign off on the talking points?
Benghazi hearing on CSPAN 3.
Chris: “I don’t know what any of this is supposed to mean.”
That is exactly right…you don’t.
The timeline shows a pattern of ridiculous cover your butt and absolutely zero leadership or telling of truth to the American public. The dance of public statements by Obama, Hillary, and their spokespeople is hillarrious.
First it was a terror attack (Hillary’s office) by a named group.
Then it was the video
Then it was just an “act of terror (Obama)
And the dance goes on for days (see below). The point is they had all kinds of information but chose to ignore only that it was an al Qaeda associated group and a planned attack…they had that information. It was just as valid as the silly video excuse that places blame on America! The President eventually says it’s too early to comment even though all of them have and will continue to do so and then they sent Susan rice out to hammer home the video story on three Sunday talk shows.
It makes no sense unless you tie in the coming election and Hillary’s designs on the presidency. Of course the talking points were altered! But not because they knew it was the video.
Here’s how the ridiculous dance was performed with the extraneous information edited out for simplicity:
Sept 11th 6:07 p.m.: The State Department’s Operations Center sends an email to the White House, Pentagon, FBI and other government agencies that said Ansar al-Sharia has claimed credit for the attack on its Facebook and Twitter accounts.
About 10:00 p.m.: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issues a statement confirming that one State official was killed in an attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. Her statement, which MSNBC posted at 10:32 p.m., made reference to the anti-Muslim video.
Sept.12: Obama Labels Attack ‘Act of Terror,’ Not ‘Terrorism’
Sept. 12: Clinton issues a statement confirming that four U.S. officials, not one, had been killed. She called it a “violent attack.”
Sept. 12: Clinton delivers a speech at the State Department to condemn the attack in Benghazi and to praise the victims as “heroes.” She again makes reference to the anti-Muslim video
Sept. 12: Obama delivers a morning speech in the Rose Garden…mentions video and deplores all acts denigrating religions, yah dah yah dah yah dah…But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None.
Sept. 12: After his Rose Garden speech, Obama tapes an interview for “60 Minutes.” Obama says he didn’t use the word “terrorism” in his Rose Garden speech because “it’s too early to know exactly how this came about.” (Says he doesn’t want to “jump the gun”)
Later that night at the campaign event he references “acts of terror”.
NBC’s Andrea Mitchell asks officials to address news reports that the attack has been “linked to a terror attack, an organized terror attack,” possibly al Qaeda. The official refers to it as a “complex attack,” but says it is “too early to say who they were” and their affiliation.
Sept. 12: Libya’s deputy ambassador to London, Ahmad Jibril, tells the BBC that Ansar al-Sharia was behind the attack. The little-known militant group issues a statement that says it “didn’t participate as a sole entity,”
Sept. 12, 6:06 p.m.: Beth Jones, the acting assistant secretary of state for the Near East, sends an email to top State Department officials that reads in part: “[T]he group that conducted the attacks, Ansar al-Sharia, is affiliated with Islamic extremists.”
Sept. 12: Citing unnamed “U.S. government officials,” Reuters reports that “the Benghazi attack may have been planned in advance” and that members of Ansar al-Sharia “may have been involved.” Reuters quotes one of the U.S. officials as saying: “It bears the hallmarks of an organized attack.”
Sept. 13: Clinton meets with Ali Suleiman Aujali — the Libyan ambassador to the U.S. — at a State Department event to mark the end of Ramadan. Ambassador Aujali apologizes to Clinton for what he called “this terrorist attack which took place against the American consulate in Libya.” Clinton, in her remarks, does not refer to it as a terrorist attack. She condemns the anti-Muslim video, but adds that there is “never any justification for violent acts of this kind.”
Sept. 13: At a daily press briefing, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland was asked if the Benghazi attack was “purely spontaneous or was premeditated by militants.” She declined to say, reiterating that the administration did not want to “jump to conclusions.”
Sept. 13: Clinton met with Moroccan Foreign Minister Saad-Eddine Al-Othmani. She condemned what she called the “disgusting and reprehensible” anti-Muslim video and the violence that it triggered
Sept. 13: At a campaign event in Colorado, Obama again uses the phrase “act of terror.” He says: “I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished.”
Sept. 13: CNN reports that unnamed “State Department officials” say the incident in Benghazi was a “clearly planned military-type attack” unrelated to the anti-Muslim movie.
Sept. 14: Clinton spoke at Andrews Air Force Base at a ceremony to receive the remains of those killed in Benghazi. She remarked that she received a letter from the president of the Palestinian Authority praising Stevens and “deploring — and I quote — ‘an act of ugly terror.’ ” She, however, did not call it an act of terror or a terrorist attack and neither did the president.
Sept. 14: At a State Department press briefing, spokeswoman Nuland says the department will no longer answer any questions about the Benghazi attack. “It is now something that you need to talk to the FBI about, not to us about, because it’s their investigation.”
Sept. 14: At a White House press briefing, Press Secretary Carney denies reports that it was a preplanned attack. “I have seen that report, and the story is absolutely wrong. We were not aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent. That report is false.” Later in that same briefing, Carney is told that Pentagon officials informed members of Congress at a closed-door meeting that the Benghazi attack was a planned terrorist attack. Carney said the matter is being investigated but White House officials “don’t have and did not have concrete evidence to suggest that this was not in reaction to the film.”
Sept. 14: Defense Secretary Leon Panetta meets with the Senate Armed Services Committee. Roll Call, a Capitol Hill newspaper, reports that Republicans and Democrats came away with the conclusion that the Benghazi attack was a planned terrorist attack.
Sept. 15: Obama discusses the Benghazi attack in his weekly address. He makes no mention of terror, terrorists or extremists. He does talk about the anti-Muslim film and “every angry mob” that it inspired in pockets of the Middle East.
Sept. 16: Libya President Mohamed Magariaf says on CBS News’ “Face the Nation” that the attack on the U.S. consulate was planned months in advance. But Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, tells CBS News’ Bob Schieffer: “We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.” She says it began “spontaneously … as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo,” and “extremist elements” joined in the protest. (It was later learned that Rice received her information from the CIA.)
Sorry we know they had information…yet they pushed this story…they tried to set the video story in stone while downplaying a terrorist attack. At the same time they were saying they didn’t want to “jump the gun” and it was “too early” to know what happened.
Chris you cannot be that gullible! Or you just can’t bring yourself to admit it is all very stinky and fishy!
And where was the President that night? I think we have a right to know where he was as this long, bloody night played out. Where was Hillary?
I watched the whole Benghazi hearing today on CSPAN. Anyone, after watching it, who believes this wasn’t a terrorist attack has their head stuck in the sand or believes everything this administration says.
Ret. General Lovell made it very clear NO help was ever sent to Benghazi. A small plane was sent to pick up the survivors.
Military help was sent to Tripoli, but the soldiers were told to first remove their uniforms creating an additional hour delay in leaving. Reason given was they didn’t want the US flag showing on their uniforms. (Sounds like what Putin did/is doing with his troops in Ukraine.)
Tina, the allegations that this was a “cover-up” still make no sense. There was nothing to cover up. There was no motive. Foreign policy was NOT the focus of the election. Calling the attack a pre-planned terror attack right from the beginning (and remember, we still don’t know if there was much advance planning) would NOT have hurt Obama’s election chances. Getting caught lying about it would have.
And if they were lying, they HAD to know they would get caught. You can’t think Obama is that stupid, that he would send Rice out with talking points he KNEW would be completely contradicted within a couple of days.
The simplest and most logical explanation is that there was confusion in the intelligence community.
It also remains extremely hypocritical that you act as if this is the worst, most misleading thing a president has ever done, when the last guy you voted into office brought us the Iraq War as a result of highly suspect intel that turned out to be wrong. How many people have died since that war started, Tina? Are you really going to argue that Benghazi was worse than all the casualties of the Iraq War?
There are pictures of Obama in the White House on the night of Benghazi. If you had actually researched this story the way you say you had, you’d know this and you wouldn’t keep asking questions that have already been answered a million times. I’ve been accused here of not researching this issue and only relying on mainstream sources, but I am here nearly every day engaging with the false information from right-wing sources and debunking them with facts. You and Peggy continue to reveal that you don’t know (or won’t accept) basic facts about this attack.
Also, to act as if there is a meaningful difference between the phrase “act of terror” and “terrorist attack” is so semantically nitpicky as to be utterly without merit. I’m disappointed to see Fact Check and Politifact give into the pressure to portray false balance by acting as if this is anything but a distinction without a difference.
GREAT NEWS!!
A Select Committee will be set up by next week and Trey Gowdy will chair it.
We’ll finally get to the truth and the poor parents will learn why their sons died.
http://conservativetribune.com/select-committee-announced/
“GREAT NEWS!!
A Select Committee will be set up by next week and Trey Gowdy will chair it.
We’ll finally get to the truth and the poor parents will learn why their sons died.”
…I’m sorry, don’t they already know this? They died because a bunch of Islamic extremists attacked and killed them out of anti-American hysteria. And also because security was pretty crap, as nearly everyone has acknowledged. Surely whatever “cover-up” you think Trey Gowdy is about to bring to light (despite the abject failure of everyone else to do so) won’t change that, will it?
Peggy: “Anyone, after watching it, who believes this wasn’t a terrorist attack has their head stuck in the sand or believes everything this administration says.”
No one believes this wasn’t a terrorist attack. No one is still arguing it wasn’t a terrorist attack. Obama called it an “act of terror” two days after it happened, and less than a month later made it even clearer for the semantically nitpicky that his administration believed it was a terrorist attack.
I don’t think you even know whom you’re arguing with at this point.
https://twitter.com/atomiktiger/status/372812118006837248/photo/1/large
Chris, if he believed it was an “act of terror” two day after then why did he go before the UN on Sept. 29th and blame it on the video.
Video of Obama at UN.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfiUQASpVdc
Oh, and don’t forget the “Apology” video we paid $70,000 for assuring the Muslim world the US had nothing to do with that disgusting video that caused all of those riots including Benghazi.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/09/20/Obama-admin-releases-apology-video-Pakistan
AND then there was Hillary’s own assistant.
Per Sharyl Attkisson dot com, the “email is titled “Libya update from Beth Jones.” Beth Jones served as Assistant Secretary of State to Hillary Clinton at the time. The email documents a conversation between Jones and Libya’s Ambassador at 9:45am on Sept. 12, 2012 not long after the attacks.
This below contradicts the White House and State Department’s story that they believed a video led to what was thought to be a spontaneous attack.
“When [the Libyan Ambassador] said his government suspected that former Qaddafi regime elements carried out the attacks, I told him the group that conducted the attacks—Ansar Al Sharia—is affiliated with Islamic extremists,” Jones reports in the email.
There is no uncertainty assigned to the assessment, which does not mention a video or a protest. The State Department provided the email to Congress in Aug. of 2013 under special conditions that it not be publicly released at that time. Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) sought and received permission to release it Thursday.
Computer went crazy and posted the above before I could add the link.
http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2014/05/01/Benghazi-Email-Hillary-Clinton-Deputy-Names-Islamic-Extremists-Not-YouTube
Hey, if no one did any thing wrong then they have nothing to hide. Just let the truth come out and see where it goes. Like I’ve said before the families and loved ones of those men who died deserve an honest answer.
Reagan told Oliver North to testify. Nixon got caught and resigned. And everyone knows what happened to Clinton. Obama should be held to the same standards and rules as the others before him.
Chris #32
Hey, as everyone’s saying people went to jail for Nixon’s third-rate break in cover up attempt and no one died back then.
If Obama and Hillary tried to cover up four men dying during a gun running operation to terrorist in Libya you should want to know the truth as much as the rest of us.
If not, why not?
Do you honestly believe this president wouldn’t do what Nixon and Clinton did? Lie for the political careers and their legacy’s?
Chris your perspective is naive and your attitude flippant. It matches the attitudes of those in this administration…for now.
You of course never witnessed the weeks and months of 24/7 coverage of Democrat led hearings (show trials designed to convict by orchestrated public opinion) about a campaign prank! It was covered on all channels….all of them spouting the same “gotcha” talking points.
Karma may have just caught up to Hillary who helped write the impeachment articles brought against a hounded and labeled Richard Nixon who after becoming paranoid from the fishing expedition and public flogging attempted to cover for the pranksters.
You think this bunch of liars and self-interested narcissists are being treated unfairly because you have a naive and partisan perspective. In fact it’s been a cake walk for this administration so far and this incident is no prank! People were treated like expendables…people died and it didn’t have to happen. There are people responsible for that. It also looks like they tried to change or manage the narrative for advantage before the election…and to cover for Hillary so she could run in 16.
This is very serious stuff…not at all partisan and not a mere prank like the one used hound a president from office and ruin the Republican brand for decades.
You are partisan…can’t help yourself. Imagine how these people operate:
NewsBusters:
Security was not up to par. Leadership failed to respond or even be significantly involved. A story was pushed prior to the election that masked the truth. The Big Three helped the administration float it. The timeline shows that simply saying an investigation was ongoing would have been more truthful…except there really wasn’t much of an attempt in the beginning to investigate which is also suspect. CNN found Chris Stevens diary at the site for heavens sake…that area should have been secured and all evidence collected!
There is nothing usual about this event starting from before it happened (What were they doing in Libya?) to the present…and The Big Three are just beginning to take notice…and they deign to think of themselves as news people and journalists.
Tina, I bet CBS is wishing they had Sheryl Attiksson back with all of her reports and contact interviews. Serves them right. She can pretty much go where she wants. At least she didn’t sell her soul and honored her profession.
Sharyl Attkisson: Journalists Ignoring Benghazi ‘Won’t Be Viewed Kindly In A Neutral View Of History’:
Former CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson claimed that journalists now ignoring Benghazi “won’t be viewed kindly in a neutral view of history down the road.”
Attkisson spoke on Friday with Fox News’ Greta van Susteren about the story, which exploded this week after new documents revealed White House involvement in politicizing talking points after the attack — actions the Obama administration had always denied.
Attkisson claimed that in the wake of this disclosure, military officials with insider knowledge of the attack and its aftermath are considering coming forward with new information.
But, she noted, “there’s just a lot of pressure not to come forward, a lot of fear about doing so. Fear of careers, fear of a lot of things.”
http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/02/sharyl-attkisson-journalists-ignoring-benghazi-wont-be-viewed-kindly-in-a-neutral-view-of-history/
Ms. Attiksson has gone on her own and is reporting from her own website.
http://www.sharylattkisson.com/
I’ve read Chris’ comments regarding the Benghazi matter. He and his one sided opinionated remarks…this reminds me of him watching a victim trapped in a burning building and the victim is crying out “help me the building is on fire”. And Chris yells back to her “It’s all in your imagination…there’s no fire”..and the victim dies.
Chris I have no idea how old you are but I clearly see you rely on the belief of someone else’s politically clever creative talking points…and it seems, that’s all your conscience requires to help you feel healthy and righteous… even if those nasty truthful proven facts or documents are presented and verified as factual proven evidence that oppose your senses…they are nothing more then an obstacle and/or hinderance to your having to protect your intellectual superiority when it comes to a political debate. Someday Chris, you’ll learn that old adage that ” an open mind speaks louder than an open mouth”. But until that day happens, let me suggest that you try figuring out how come there are millions of people smarter than both you and I. Then if you have the time, measure and compare your worth to the universe by sticking your finger in a cup of coffee. When you pull your finger out, measure the size of your worth by the size of the hole your finger leaves behind in the liquid. The lesson- if you don’t challenge everything you learn… you’ll never be smarter than you think. Never let anyone lead you and never tell others to follow you. It’s called “the Balance”. If it doesn’t exist…we don’t exist. To a liar…there’s no such thing!
Peggy: “Chris, if he believed it was an “act of terror” two day after then why did he go before the UN on Sept. 29th and blame it on the video.”
This is a false dichotomy that you have been trying to draw for the past year and a half. Sorry, but “act of terror” and “video-inspired protest” are not opposites, and they are not mutually exclusive. The attack was viewed as an act of terror that was inspired by the video. I really don’t understand why anyone would have trouble understanding that.
Also, the speech you linked to literally shows the opposite of “blaming” the video. Obama clearly explains that while he understands the video caused offense, it is protected speech and it is no excuse for violence or extremism. It’s a point he made again and again in the weeks after Benghazi. So it is dishonest of you to say he “blamed” the video, when he clearly laid the blame at the feet of those who used it as an excuse for terror.
The Breitbart piece you link to shows Obama expressing the same sentiment again:
“Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification for this type of senseless violence. None.”
Breitbart, in typical ridiculous fashion, accuses Obama of “appeasement” and “denigrating American values” with these words, but doesn’t make any effort to justify how that is so. It is an American value that we allow freedom of speech even when it is speech we don’t like, and we respond to bad speech with more speech, not with violence. Those were the values expressed at the UN speech and the ad shown in Pakistan. I really could care less if Breitbart has a problem with that; they have a problem with everything Obama does, and they will always apply the least charitable interpretation to his every word and action, no matter how irrational they have to be to do so.
“Hey, as everyone’s saying people went to jail for Nixon’s third-rate break in cover up attempt and no one died back then.”
Yes, but there was actual evidence of a cover-up in that case, and there is no actual evidence of a cover-up in Benghazi. Congress has investigated thoroughly over the past year and a half and found nothing. How do you explain that? Are they just stupid?
There is no question in my mind that Chris will never beat Tommy Vietor for Dork Of The Year Award. No way.
Yet for his stalwart, vehement, and ceaseless efforts to blow smoke up everyone’s @$$ over Obama’s despicable Benghazi debacle and his many other tireless suck-ups to the Obama administration on all issues he at least deserves an honorable mention as a Brown-noser Of The Century.
Thank you Mr. Clements for your well said and wise words to Chris.
We all hope that some day he’ll put down this administration’s progressive-leaning buckets he enjoys carrying and learn from those with differing points of views.
Lies are very hard to maintain. Eventually the truth will come out because there are more people with honor than those without. Some have already come forward and there are more to come.
The truth has no agenda. It is what it is.
On this (like on so many issues) I depart with the entrenched elitist beltway liberal Republicans.
“House Republicans accused the Obama administration Thursday of “perhaps criminal” behavior for having withheld for months key email that sheds light on how the administration framed its post-Benghazi talking points, potentially violating a congressional subpoena.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/1/house-gop-obama-withholding-benghazi-email-crimina/
The Obama administration’s actions surround the Benghazi debacle are criminal and did violate congressional subpoena, no “perhaps” about it.
Add this to the administration’s other “perhaps” criminal behavior and a distinct and obvious pattern of criminality emerges.
I agree Pie. His actions are criminal.
Judge Jeanine nails Benghazi and Obama.
http://www.ijreview.com/2014/05/135266-judge-jeanine-pirro-wants-impeach-obama/