New Disclosures on Benghazi

[The Big Dog]

I already answered that, it was changed in response to comments of Nuland.

But we are just one quarter of the way through the story!

What happened after Nuland said State Department were going to the council and the White House told the CIA to take the State Departments comments into account?

What happened next is that Ben Rhodes top adviser to President Obama on national security and foreign policy—further advised the group that the issues would be resolved in a meeting of top administration officials the following morning at the White House.

Where were we? Oh right, the references to Al Quaeda were deleted by the CIA, the references were deleted following Nuland's comments, and Rhodes told the Intelligence Agency that the Administration was going to work it out.

What happened at the meeting? WE DON"T KNOW. Maybe Congress should look into it! Anyway, Al Quadea was gone, Ansar al Sharia was gone, and after the Deputies meeting??

“Islamic extremists,” GONE! the reminders of agency warnings about al Qaeda in Libya, GONE! the reference to “jihadists” in Cairo, GONE! the mention of possible surveillance of the facility in Benghazi, GONE! and the report of five previous attacks on foreign interests. GONE!

What was left? the false comment about it spontaneously arising out of an anti-video protest and some pablum about "working with the Libyan Government."

 

[RandFan]

I already answered that, it was changed in response to comments of Nuland.

But we are just one quarter of the way through the story!

What happened after Nuland said State Department were going to the council and the White House told the CIA to take the State Departments comments into account?

What happened next is that Ben Rhodes top adviser to President Obama on national security and foreign policy—further advised the group that the issues would be resolved in a meeting of top administration officials the following morning at the White House.

So make your case? What here is actionable?

 

[RandFan]

Where were we? Oh right, the references to Al Quaeda were deleted by the CIA, the references were deleted following Nuland's comments, and Rhodes told the Intelligence Agency that the Administration was going to work it out.

What happened at the meeting? WE DON"T KNOW. Maybe Congress should look into it! Anyway, Al Quadea was gone, Ansar al Sharia was gone, and after the Deputies meeting??

“Islamic extremists,” GONE! the reminders of agency warnings about al Qaeda in Libya, GONE! the reference to “jihadists” in Cairo, GONE! the mention of possible surveillance of the facility in Benghazi, GONE! and the report of five previous attacks on foreign interests. GONE!

What was left? the false comment about it spontaneously arising out of an anti-video protest and some pablum about "working with the Libyan Government."

Again, make your case. What here is actionable?

 

[RandFan]

WE DON"T KNOW.

Sounds about right. Lots of "ifs".

Maybe Congress should look into it!

Issa has nothing else to do I assure you. He'll keep this going for as long as he can. It's terrific political theater. Everything else can wait. Jobs bills. Infrastructure problems. Etc.

Gotta get Obama.

 

[Cleon]

The difference being is that Congress is still holding new hearing and questioning new people.

Amazing! New information may even come out!

So we just keep holding hearing after hearing until the Right "hears" what it wants to.

 

[The Big Dog]

What was left? the false comment about it spontaneously arising out of an anti-video protest and some pablum about "working with the Libyan Government."

Now we come to the bit about "working with the Libyan Government." We'll see that was ******** too.

We all well know the Ambassador Rice was assigned the unenviable task of going on the dog and pony shows on Sunday Morning. The big problem, as we will see is that she was booked on Face the Nation with the President of LIBYA. Same show.

What did he say ON THAT SHOW?

On September 16, Libyan President Mohamed Magariaf said that the attack on the U.S. consulate was planned months in advance, and further stated that “[t]he idea that this criminal and cowardly act was a spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous. We firmly believe that this was a precalculated, preplanned attack that was carried out specifically to attack the U.S. consulate.

Greg Hicks was absolutely delighted by these comments, but that would be short lived.

 

[A'isha]

I already answered that, it was changed in response to comments of Nuland.

No, it wasn't.

What, specifically, did the initial CIA draft say about the origins of the attacks, 16.5, and what, specifically was changed, when was it changed, and by who was it changed?

Where were we? Oh right, the references to Al Quaeda were deleted by the CIA,

Yes.

the references were deleted following Nuland's comments,

No, they weren't.

“Islamic extremists,” GONE!

What, specifically did it say before about extremists before the meeting, and what did it say after, and who edited the memo to make those changes, 16.5?

What was left? the false comment about it spontaneously arising out of an anti-video protest and some pablum about "working with the Libyan Government."

Why were those things in the memo to begin with, 16.5, and who put them in the memo?

 

[The Big Dog]

So make your case? What here is actionable?

Again, make your case. What here is actionable?

Sounds about right. Lots of "ifs".

Issa has nothing else to do I assure you. He'll keep this going for as long as he can. It's terrific political theater. Everything else can wait. Jobs bills. Infrastructure problems. Etc.

Gotta get Obama.

Rand Fan, I do declare, you are working hard! Thank you for your concern

 

[The Big Dog]

Now we come to the bit about "working with the Libyan Government." We'll see that was ******** too.

We all well know the Ambassador Rice was assigned the unenviable task of going on the dog and pony shows on Sunday Morning. The big problem, as we will see is that she was booked on Face the Nation with the President of LIBYA. Same show.

What did he say ON THAT SHOW?

On September 16, Libyan President Mohamed Magariaf said that the attack on the U.S. consulate was planned months in advance, and further stated that “[t]he idea that this criminal and cowardly act was a spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous. We firmly believe that this was a precalculated, preplanned attack that was carried out specifically to attack the U.S. consulate.

Greg Hicks was absolutely delighted by these comments, but that would be short lived.

OK, Magariaf had just finished speaking, Hicks was happy. And then Susan Rice came on. We know what Susan Rice said. Long story short, she basically contradicted everything the President of Libya JUST SAID! Can you imagine that? Based on those same talking points that had been revised by the Administration Deputies!

Lets let Greg Hicks pick up the story about his reaction:

"I was stunned," said Gregory Hicks, former deputy chief of mission in Libya. "My jaw dropped and I was embarrassed."

“His credibility was reduced,” Mr. Hicks said. “And I definitely believe that it negatively affected our ability to get the FBI team quickly to Benghazi” to investigate the attacks.

 

[A'isha]

So, the "scandal" here is that the US ambassador to the UN trusted what the CIA told her instead of what a foreign head of state said?

 

[The Big Dog]

So now, "Magariaf has just lost face in front of not only his own people, but the world." This is the NEW leader of the Country in which the attacks took place, the same people that we are allegedly supposed to work with to find the terrorists. And Susan Rice just blew him sky high with her officially vetted TALKING POINTS.

So now we are dealing not only with a full blown terrorism crisis in Libya, Rice et al just created a full blow Diplomatic Crisis!

What do we do then (other than demote Greg Hicks, but that is a whole another story). Do we immediately take Magariaf's comments into account, change the talking points, acknowledge what that the Talking Points were wrong?

Hell, no, they stick to their story and blame the CIA!

The next day, just as pieces of the President of Libya were reentering the atmosphere:

Nuland defended Rice’s performance during the daily briefing at the State Department. “What I will say, though, is that Ambassador Rice, in her comments on every network over the weekend, was very clear, very precise, about what our initial assessment of what happened is. And this was not just her assessment, it was also an assessment you’ve heard in comments coming from the intelligence community, in comments coming from the White House.”

 

[A'isha]

So now, "Magariaf has just lost face in front of not only his own people, but the world." This is the NEW leader of the Country in which the attacks took place, the same people that we are allegedly supposed to work with to find the terrorists. And Susan Rice just blew him sky high with her officially vetted TALKING POINTS.

So now we are dealing not only with a full blown terrorism crisis in Libya, Rice et al just created a full blow Diplomatic Crisis!

What do we do then (other than demote Greg Hicks, but that is a whole another story). Do we immediately take Magariaf's comments into account, change the talking points, acknowledge what that the Talking Points were wrong?

How do you reconcile what Magariaf said with the fact that there was, in fact, no evidence that the attacks were planned in advance, and that local witnesses to the attack did indeed describe the attackers as talking about the video as the reason for the attack?

 

[The Big Dog]

Remember, folks, at this point the clock is ticking. The FBI, the lead agency in charge of the investigation still has not been to Benghazi. A news crew visited the smoking remains of the consulate and found Diplomatic papers, and concluded that the facilities had not been secured... and the FBI was still days away.

When did the FBI finally get to Benghazi? OCTOBER 5, 2012!

"I have heard from a friend who had dinner with President Magariaf in New York City that he was still angry at Amb. Rice well after the incident."

Maybe he was angry not just because he lost face, but because the US Government told the Government of Libya that it was Ansar al Sharia??

The hearings also revealed an e-mail written by Elizabeth Jones, the acting assistant secretary for Near Eastern Affairs, in which she recounted a conversation with the Libyan ambassador on Sept. 12: “When he said his government suspected that former Gadhafi regime elements carried out the attacks, I told him that the group that conducted the attacks Ansar Al Sharia is affiliated with Islamic terrorists.”

And Rice went on the same show and contradicted not only his statement, but also the previous statements made to his Government!

 

[A'isha]

Are you going to answer my questions, or just keep preaching your nonsense?

And is there any reason you were incapable of putting all that in a single post instead of spamming the thread with the exact same stuff you posted before in a bunch of mini-posts?

 

[Newtons Bit]

So we just keep holding hearing after hearing until the Right "hears" what it wants to.

Yes. In this case: the truth.

 

[A'isha]

Yes. In this case: the truth.

If 16.5 is any indication, I highly doubt that.

 

[marplots]

Yes. In this case: the truth.

Is there a particular burning question you would ask that might untangle things for you? What would that question be and who would you ask it of? (Assuming you are going to get a full and honest answer, of course.)

I ask because I don't really see what the conspiracy is even supposed to be about.

 

[Tony]

ANT, you've done an admirable job.

Edited by Gaspode: 

Removed breach of rule 12.

 

[The Big Dog]

A month later, the State Department concedes that "the talking points were in correct" there was no demonstration outside the consulate. November 2012. Maybe they should have asked Greg Hicks? Elizabeth Jones? President Magariaf?

"What difference does it make anyway"?

As of May 9, 2013, not a single terrorist is in custody.

 

[Tony]

Yes. In this case: the truth.

The 9/11 Conspiracy people say the same thing.