New Disclosures on Benghazi

Status
Not open for further replies.
A'isha said:
Mike Morell confirms the talking points were "exactly what the intelligence community analysts believed". Not the State Department, not the White House, not the President of Libya, the intelligence community analysts.

The talking points read "The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations at Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo".

The protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo happened in response to the video.

Susan Rice, when discussing the talking points in the press later, mentioned this role of the video via the protests in Cairo on what happened at Benghazi.

QED.
Click to expand...

There were no demonstrations in benghazi. The chief of station told Morell that the attacks were "not/NOT an escalation of protests."

Susan rice used Rhodes talking points. We finally found that out this week.
 
A'isha said:
Mike Morell confirms the talking points were "exactly what the intelligence community analysts believed". Not the State Department, not the White House, not the President of Libya, the intelligence community analysts.

The talking points read "The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations at Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo".

The protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo happened in response to the video.

Susan Rice, when discussing the talking points in the press later, mentioned this role of the video via the protests in Cairo on what happened at Benghazi.

QED.
Click to expand...
Not exactly, but close enough for the usual Obama lies.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/benghazi-lies_788985.html#
 
16.5 said:
He also said that the Military could have done more, but did not because the military was waiting for clearance from the State Department to intervene in Benghazi!

ANOTHER BOMBSHELL!
Click to expand...

Except that's not what he said at all, and he wanted to make it quite clear that to distort his testimony to imply...well, the exact same thing you're implying, is utterly incorrect.

CONNELLY: I want to read to you the conclusion of the chairman of the [Armed Services] Committee, the Republican chairman Buck McKeon, who conducted formal briefings and oversaw that report he said quote "I'm pretty well satisfied that given where the troops were, how quickly the thing all happened, and how quickly it dissipated we probably couldn't have done much more than we did." Do you take issue with the chairman of the Armed Services Committee? In that conclusion?

LOVELL: His conclusion that he couldn't have done much more than they did with the capability and the way they executed it?

CONNELLY: Given the timeframe.

LOVELL: That's a fact.

CONNELLY: Okay.

LOVELL: The way it is right now. The way he stated it.

CONNELLY: Alright, because I'm sure you can appreciate, general, there might be some who, for various and sundry reasons would like to distort your testimony and suggest that you're testifying that we could have, should have done a lot more than we did because we had capabilities we simply didn't utilize. That is not your testimony?

LOVELL: That is not my testimony.

CONNELLY: I thank you very much, general.
Click to expand...
 
Great news! I have been for this for a long time.

The straw that broke the camels back was, of course, the Rhodes e-mail that the Administration has been sitting on for months. Then Jay Carney made the preposterous claim that the email did not concern Benghazi.

The fact of the matter is that rice's claim that she was using the CIA talking points, while she was really using the Ben Rhodes political talking points.

And if that was not enough, “Dude, this was like two years ago,” Tommy Vietor said about Benghzi yesterday.

Great news! Thanks for sharing!
 
16.5 said:
The fact of the matter is that rice's claim that she was using the CIA talking points
Click to expand...

Which said that what happened in Benghazi was inspired by what happened in Cairo. And since what happened in Cairo was the result of the video...
 
One would think that they would actually put out money for diplomatic security if they actually cared. One partisan guy on their side saying that money wasn't a problem hardly constitutes evidence, especially when the budgets have been reduced again and again, AFTER (gasp!) BUT BENGHAZI!!!!

This nonsense is close to sedition at this point.
 
jj said:
One would think that they would actually put out money for diplomatic security if they actually cared. One partisan guy on their side saying that money wasn't a problem hardly constitutes evidence, especially when the budgets have been reduced again and again, AFTER (gasp!) BUT BENGHAZI!!!!

This nonsense is close to sedition at this point.
Click to expand...

One would think they would investigate Beirut, or any of the other far worse incidents that have happened over the last 30 years.

Daredelvis
 
A'isha said:
Which said that what happened in Benghazi was inspired by what happened in Cairo. And since what happened in Cairo was the result of the video...
Click to expand...

I have explained repeatedly that the claim that the terrorist attack was inspired by what happened in Cairo is and was false. Morrell intentionally ignored DoD State Department and his own Chief on the ground in Libya to support Rhodes political talking points.
 
16.5 said:
I have explained repeatedly that the claim that the terrorist attack was inspired by what happened in Cairo is and was false. Morrell intentionally ignored DoD State Department and his own Chief on the ground in Libya to support Rhodes political talking points.
Click to expand...

According to Morell, what happened in Benghazi being inspired by what happened in Cairo was the assessment of the intelligence analyst community, and that link in the talking points came straight from the CIA, not Rhodes. The video's involvement in that inspiration was also verified by people who spoke with participants in and witnesses to the attack, who all mentioned that at least some of the attackers spoke about the video.
 
jj said:
One would think that they would actually put out money for diplomatic security if they actually cared. One partisan guy on their side saying that money wasn't a problem hardly constitutes evidence, especially when the budgets have been reduced again and again, AFTER (gasp!) BUT BENGHAZI!!!!

This nonsense is close to sedition at this point.
Click to expand...

Their side meaning Hillary's aide CHARLENE LAMB?

I do not think anyone is accusing Hillary of sedition.
 
A'isha said:
According to Morell, what happened in Benghazi being inspired by what happened in Cairo was the assessment of the intelligence analyst community, and that link in the talking points came straight from the CIA, not Rhodes. The video's involvement in that inspiration was also verified by people who spoke with participants in and witnesses to the attack, who all mentioned that at least some of the attackers spoke about the video.
Click to expand...

Morell is lying to you. He rejected the station chief's comments for political reasons, and ignored the intelligence of the DoD and State Department. and even he said that Rice's comments regarding the video were baseless.

No one verified anything. The claim was made in the now completely discredited New York Times report. It is false.
 
16.5 said:
Morell is lying to you. He rejected the station chief's comments for political reasons, and ignored the intelligence of the DoD and State Department. and even he said that Rice's comments regarding the video were baseless.
Click to expand...

So he's a total lying liar, except when you think he says something that fits your narrative?

No one verified anything. The claim was made in the now completely discredited New York Times report. It is false.
Click to expand...

No, the witness statements about the video were reported as soon as the day after the attack happened, and a month later Abu Khattala himself told Reuters that anger over the video was behind the attacks, long before the New York Times report.
 
Last edited:
A'isha said:
So he's a total lying liar, except when you think he says something that fits your narrative?



No, the witness statements about the video were reported as soon as the day after the attack happened, and a month later Abu Khattala himself told Reuters that anger over the video was behind the attacks, long before the New York Times report.
Click to expand...

Yep. admissions against interest are like that.

ZOMG! the looters that were hanging around after the attack said they were inspired by a video? Compelling. Well compelling evidence that they were not part of the attack!
 
16.5 said:
Yep. admissions against interest are like that.

ZOMG! the looters that were hanging around after the attack said they were inspired by a video? Compelling. Well compelling evidence that they were not part of the attack!
Click to expand...

In other words, you were wrong that this claim came out of the recent New York Times report.

Your personal incredulity is irrelevant.
 
A'isha said:
In other words, you were wrong that this claim came out of the recent New York Times report.

Your personal incredulity is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

are you denying that they were made in the New York Times report?

Yes or No.
 
16.5 said:
are you denying that they were made in the New York Times report?

Yes or No.
Click to expand...

Were the witnesses to the Benghazi attack talking about the role of the video in that attack starting the day after the attacks happened?

Yes or No.
 
A'isha said:
Were the witnesses to the Benghazi attack talking about the role of the video in that attack starting the day after the attacks happened?

Yes or No.
Click to expand...

You did not answer my question. I'll answer yours though:

No. Looters were.

I trust that you understand the difference?

Cool.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom