New Disclosures on Benghazi

[citizenzen]

It may be very usefuil at this point to point out several important facts.

Let's say that Rice knowingly lied ... let's say the administration knew that it was a terrorist attack all along.

Sooo ... is that the scandal?

Perhaps you could bottom line it for me.

 

[The Big Dog]

But I thought he decisively had Stevens killed, and then decisively covered it up (not sure how). I wish the "theorists" could get their story straight.

Daredelvis

Even as straw man arguments go, that was an extremely weak argument.

If you have any questions regarding the cover story, read the Morrell links I have posted.

 

[The Big Dog]

Let's say that Rice knowingly lied ... let's say the administration knew that it was a terrorist attack all along.

Sooo ... is that the scandal?

Perhaps you could bottom line it for me.

Sooo ... What do you think?

 

[The Big Dog]

Much has been made recently about Senator Lindsey Graham's recent tweet tying the Ukraine situation to the attack on Benghazi. Here is the "tweet":

"It started with Benghazi. When you kill Americans and nobody pays a price, you invite this type of aggression. #Ukraine" A few thoughts:

1. Twitter is an exceptionally stupid way to communicate in my humble opinion.

2. Here in this CNN piece, Graham offers a more nuanced view, although one that is not particularly impressive to this reader. As usual, a link:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/03/05/sen-lindsey-graham-defends-blaming-russias-invasion-of-ukraine-on-benghazi/

3. And with specific relevance to this thread, you will note the concluding paragraph:

"The U.S. consulate in Libya was attacked on September 11, 2012, and was initially thought to be perpetrated by an angry mob responding to a video made in the United States that mocked Islam and the Prophet Mohammed. It was later determined to be a terrorist attack. A Senate report released last month determined the attack was "likely preventable" based on known security shortfalls and warnings that the security situation there was deteriorating."

I highlighted the phrase that caught in my craw as an example of very poor journalism. WHO thought that? Certainly not Greg Hicks.

Not General Ham:

"When we saw a rocket-propelled grenade attack, what appeared to be pretty well aimed small arms fire — again, this is all coming second and third hand through unclassified, you know, commercial cellphones for the most part initially. To me, it started to become clear pretty quickly that this was certainly a terrorist attack and not just not something sporadic," he stated.

Not Defense Secretary Leon Panetta who with Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff met with Obama shortly after the attack began

"There was no question in my mind that this was a terrorist attack," Panetta said of his early assessment of the situation on the ground in Benghazi.

Very sloppy journalism in my view.

 

[plague311]

<snip>

3. And with specific relevance to this thread, you will note the concluding paragraph:

"The U.S. consulate in Libya was attacked on September 11, 2012, and was initially thought to be perpetrated by an angry mob responding to a video made in the United States that mocked Islam and the Prophet Mohammed. It was later determined to be a terrorist attack. A Senate report released last month determined the attack was "likely preventable" based on known security shortfalls and warnings that the security situation there was deteriorating."

Point being here it still confirmed that they thought it was due to the video.

I highlighted the phrase that caught in my craw as an example of very poor journalism. WHO thought that? Certainly not Greg Hicks.

So there's 1 person, Greg Hicks. Isn't his role in this, according to information other than your particular sources, kind of sketchy? Didn't he miss some calls? Wasn't on his game? Took awhile to get involved?

Not General Ham:

"When we saw a rocket-propelled grenade attack, what appeared to be pretty well aimed small arms fire — again, this is all coming second and third hand through unclassified, you know, commercial cellphones for the most part initially. To me, it started to become clear pretty quickly that this was certainly a terrorist attack and not just not something sporadic," he stated.

I do not think this means what you think it means. He openly says that there was no authentication of the information he was getting. It was second or third hand information, which means it can't be counted on until it's confirmed. There's no evidence here to show anything different than what was initially theorized. This is also stated with the luxury of hind sight. What was he saying in the heat of the moment? When was this quote taken/

Not Defense Secretary Leon Panetta who with Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff met with Obama shortly after the attack began

"There was no question in my mind that this was a terrorist attack," Panetta said of his early assessment of the situation on the ground in Benghazi.

Very sloppy journalism in my view.

There was no doubt in anyones mind that it was a terrorist attack and to my memory the President even stated as such after it happened. The conspiracy theory is what caused the terrorist attack to happen and if it could have been prevented, correct? So stating that he knew it was a terrorist attack is completely pointless and irrelevant.

 

[citizenzen]

Sooo ... What do you think?

I think it's a desperate attempt by the right to drum up anything they can.

I think the world is a dangerous place.

I think occasionally Americans die.

I think that these four deaths are being exploited by conservatives for political purposes.

 

[The Big Dog]

There was no doubt in anyones mind that it was a terrorist attack and to my memory the President even stated as such after it happened. The conspiracy theory is what caused the terrorist attack to happen and if it could have been prevented, correct? So stating that he knew it was a terrorist attack is completely pointless and irrelevant.

It appears we agree that the above quote from CNN was inaccurate. Thanks.

I have debunked the vicious attacks on Greg Hicks repeatedly in this thread. Suffice it to say, the attack began at 940 and he was on the phone to Benghazi within ten minutes. If that is a basis to reject everything he says, I will simply say that I am very unimpressed with the lack of critical thinking evidenced by that criticism.

 

[Unabogie]

The #1 Benghazi cheerleader has left CBC because she says it's too "liberal".

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/sharyl-attkisson-cbs-resigns

Attkisson told Politico that her decision to leave CBS was due in part to her belief that the network holds a liberal bias. She also lamented that the network did not spend enough time and resources on investigative reporting and catered too much to its corporate sponsors.

Sources at CBS told Politico that Attkisson's pursuit of investigations into the Obama administration, namely Fast and Furious and Benghazi, had led to some tension at the network.

So this explains why she sounded so much like a wingnut all this time. She is, in fact, a wingnut.

 

[The Big Dog]

The #1 Benghazi cheerleader has left CBC because she says it's too "liberal".

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/sharyl-attkisson-cbs-resigns

So this explains why she sounded so much like a wingnut all this time. She is, in fact, a wingnut.

While you might characterize her as a wingnut, I note that the alleged quote that CBS suffers from liberal bias is, of course, not attributed to her, but rather to "sources."

Here is an additional source from the Washington Post that might shed more light on the reasons for her leaving the network:

"In a quick chat with the Erik Wemple Blog, Tyndall said that Attkisson tallied a mere 54 minutes on “The CBS Evening News” in 2013, a third of her previous totals. That was good for a ranking of 78th among network news reporters. “She was obviously being sidelined,” says Tyndall."

She won an Emmy for her investigative reporter on the gun walker scandal, as well as a an Edward R. Murrow Award in 2012 for her investigative reporting.

She reported on the fact that Secretary of State John Kerry had refused to allow the survivors of the Benghazi scandal to testify before Congress. CBS did not air that revelation.

 

[The Big Dog]

Perhaps many of you have heard Mike Morrel's name recently, as he seemingly has become the go to guy for pithy quotes on the Ukraine. As such, I thought avid readers would be interested in briefly revisiting this important issue.

Recall, Mike Morell was the guy who revised the talking points that were given to Rice and others as part of the Administrations cover story. This is so despite the fact that he had been advised that:

"The recently released bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report on Benghazi, which called the attack "preventable," notes that four days after the attack and one day before Rice filled in for an ailing Clinton, Morell and others received an email from the CIA station chief who was on the ground in Libya. He reported the attacks were "not an escalation of protests."

Not an escalation of protests.

Certain members of Congress are obvious furious at being misled, and one would expect that if Morell can break away from his duties at a Hillary Clinton think tank, that he will be recalled to testify.

here is an Op Ed that contains facts and I look forward to your comments.

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/022814-691717-cia-director-mike-morell-altered-talking-points.htm

Mr. Morell is testifying right now, and is claiming that he did not water down the talking points for political reasons.

He said:

“This allegation flows from an email sent by our Chief of Station (COS) in Tripoli to my staff — and to a number of other officials at CIA — on the morning of 15 September,” he wrote in the prepared statements. “Near the end of the email was a reference to the COS’s assessment that the Benghazi attack was ‘not/not an escalation of protests.’”

In addition to stripping out reference to islamic extremist affiliated Ansar Al Sharia, he rejected the Chief of Station's assessment that it was "not/NOT an escalation of protests" because local press reports contradicted it.

This is so despite that fact that there was no protest ever.

I hope someone asks him what the hell he did after his assessment was ridiculed the next day by the president of Libya.

 

[The Big Dog]

Blaming the attack on a video came straight from the White House

Although Susan Rice claimed that her appearances on the Sunday Morning Talk shows were based on the "best intelligence" possible, her claims were contradicted by Mike Morrel. In particular, the claim that it arose out of an anti-video protest, Morrell said "When she talked about the video, my reaction was, that's not something that the analysts have attributed this attack to."

Where then did she get that idea? Newly released e-mails show that it was from the White House, and that she was prepped and armed with pro-Obama propaganda by Ben Rhodes and others the afternoon before the appearances.

A summary of the e-mails, as well as numerous links to them are included in this breaking news alert, below:

Emails show White House involved in prepping Rice

But at least Rice had the chance to makes sure that everyone knew about Candidate Obama's "strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges."

 

[applecorped]

What difference at this point does it make?- H.C.

 

[NoahFence]

Yawn.

 

[A'isha]

Where then did she get that idea?

Where did she get the idea that a video was involved? Really?

"My reaction was two-fold," Morell told members of the House Intelligence Committee, regarding her appearances. "One was that what she said about the attacks evolving spontaneously from a protest was exactly what the talking points said, and it was exactly what the intelligence community analysts believed. When she talked about the video, my reaction was, that's not something that the analysts have attributed this attack to."

What do you (and, oddly, Morell) think those protesters were...well, protesting?

Wait, no need to guess...the article tells us:

National Security Council spokesperson Bernadette Meehan played down the Rhodes email, telling Fox News in a statement: "There were protests taking place across the region in reaction to an offensive internet video, so that’s what these points addressed. There were known protests in Cairo, Sanaa, Khartoum, and Tunis as well as early reports of similar protests in Benghazi, which contributed to questions of how the attack began…. These documents only serve to reinforce what we have long been saying: that in the days after September 11, 2012, we were concerned by unrest occurring across the region and that we provided our best assessment of what was happening at the time.”

Particularly since the talking points memo, that Morell above confirms were " exactly what the intelligence community analysts believed" despite all your attempts to pretend otherwise, read "The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations at Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo". If the protests in Benghazi were inspired by the protests in Cairo, and the protests in Cairo were inspired by the video, what kind of hyperpartisan dumbassery does it take to then demand to know how Susan Rice could have possibly drawn a connection between the video and what happened in Benghazi?

Have Republicans finally stopped pretending and just gone ahead and rejected logic entirely? Or has Benghazi Trutherism gotten to the point that the role of the video in the protests at Cairo (and Sanaa, and Khartoum, and Tunis) is now being denied?

Because this is seriously the dumbest faux "newsflash" yet in this entire non-scandal.

 

[applecorped]

Because this is seriously the dumbest faux "newsflash" yet in this entire non-scandal.

No scandal, just death and politics.

 

[The Big Dog]

Where did she get the idea that a video was involved? Really?



What do you (and, oddly, Morell) think those protesters were...well, protesting?

Wait, no need to guess...the article tells us:



Particularly since the talking points memo, that Morell above confirms were " exactly what the intelligence community analysts believed" despite all your attempts to pretend otherwise, read "The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations at Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo". If the protests in Benghazi were inspired by the protests in Cairo, and the protests in Cairo were inspired by the video, what kind of hyperpartisan dumbassery does it take to then demand to know how Susan Rice could have possibly drawn a connection between the video and what happened in Benghazi?

Have Republicans finally stopped pretending and just gone ahead and rejected logic entirely? Or has Benghazi Trutherism gotten to the point that the role of the video in the protests at Cairo (and Sanaa, and Khartoum, and Tunis) is now being denied?

Because this is seriously the dumbest faux "newsflash" yet in this entire non-scandal.

There were no protests in Benghazi. None at all. Rice's State Department confirmed that the street outside he consulate was quiet all day. There were no demonstrations, protests, protesters or anyone else outside the consulate.

Therefore, every single thing you said in your post was wrong.

We have covered this at length in the thread.

 

[The Big Dog]

Mr. Morell is testifying right now, and is claiming that he did not water down the talking points for political reasons.

He said:

“This allegation flows from an email sent by our Chief of Station (COS) in Tripoli to my staff — and to a number of other officials at CIA — on the morning of 15 September,” he wrote in the prepared statements. “Near the end of the email was a reference to the COS’s assessment that the Benghazi attack was ‘not/not an escalation of protests.’”

In addition to stripping out reference to islamic extremist affiliated Ansar Al Sharia, he rejected the Chief of Station's assessment that it was "not/NOT an escalation of protests" because local press reports contradicted it.

This is so despite that fact that there was no protest ever.

I hope someone asks him what the hell he did after his assessment was ridiculed the next day by the president of Libya.

What do you (and, oddly, Morell) think those protesters were...well, protesting?

To further follow up, as previously noted there were no demonstrations in Benghazi. Further, Morrell knew there were no protests because the CIA chief on the ground TOLD him that there were no protests and that the attack was "not/NOT an escalation of protests." This happened before Morrel finished the talking points and long before the White House had its prep meeting with "Susan" at 4:00 and long before Ben Rhodes issued the real talking points at 8:00 that night after talking to "Susan."

The State Department has clearly and unambiguously rejected the assertion that the protest evolved out of a demonstration:

Question: What in all of these events that you’ve described led officials to believe for the first several days that this was prompted by protests against the video?

Senior state department official two: That is a question that you would have to ask others. That was not our conclusion. I’m not saying that we had a conclusion, but we outlined what happened. The Ambassador walked guests out around 8:30 or so, there was no one on the street at approximately 9:40, then there was the noise and then we saw on the cameras the – a large number of armed men assaulting the compound.

A senior department official says “everything is calm at 8:30 p.m.” (Libya time) when Stevens was outside the building to bid a visitor goodbye. The ambassador retired to his bedroom for the evening at 9 p.m. The calm was shattered by 9:40 p.m. when “loud noises” and “gunfire and an explosion” are heard.

There is no doubt that the real talking points were delivered by the White House.

 

[The Big Dog]

The ramifications of the belated disclosure of the Rhodes talking points email and the White House meeting to prepare Susan Rice to tell tall tales on the Sunday morning new programs are not being lost on the media.

Yesterday the President's spokesman, and multiple Pinocchio award winner, Jay Carney under rigorous questioning from ABC News told the preposterous story that the reason that Rhodes emails and the White House role were not previously disclosed to the American people was because the emails DID NOT REFER TO BENGHAZI. This lie was told in the White House yesterday despite the fact that the e-mail itself references the desire to get people who harmed Americans; the only Americans harmed — killed — were in Benghazi.

We now know that the video demonstration cover story was crafted in the White House desperate to maintain the Candidate's image. It took the White House 20 months to release that information, and clearly sets the stage for the public to wonder what else this Administration is hiding.

The reason of course that Benghazi remains in the news is because of the undeniable fact that the White House has refused to disclose the facts on excuses so flimsy that they clearly show that this Administration holds the people's right to know in contempt.

 

[The Big Dog]

The Chief of Intelligence for the AFRICA COMMAND just testified:

He said U.S. officials knew this was a "hostile action" from the outset, and they didn't know how long the attack would last.

"This was no demonstration gone terribly awry," Lovell said. "The facts led to the conclusion of a terrorist attack."

Under questioning, he also said the Internet video was "briefly discussed" on the ground but "dismissed" as a motive shortly afterward. He said officials soon concluded that Islamic militant group Ansar al-Sharia was involved.

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!

 

[A'isha]

There were no protests in Benghazi. None at all. Rice's State Department confirmed that the street outside he consulate was quiet all day. There were no demonstrations, protests, protesters or anyone else outside the consulate.

Therefore, every single thing you said in your post was wrong.

We have covered this at length in the thread.

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.