Patterico's Pontifications

11/16/2012

Petraeus to Tell Congress He Knew Almost Immediately that Benghazi Was a Terrorist Attack?

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:15 am

That’s the word — and he also says the Rice talking points came from the Administration:

David Petraeus is going to tell members of Congress that he “knew almost immediately after the September 11th attack, that the group Ansar al Sharia, the al Qaeda sympathizing group in Libya was responsible for the attacks,” CNN reports.

In his closed door meeting on the Hill, “[Petraeus] will also say he had his own talking points separate from U.N. ambassador Susan Rice. [Hers] came from somewhere other in the administration than his direct talking points,” Barbara Starr of CNN reports, referencing a source close to Petraeus.

The former CIA director will move to further himself from comments that didn’t accurately characterize the terror attack that Rice made 5 days after on national television shows.

“When he looks at what Susan Rice said,” CNN reports, “here is what Petraeus’s take is, according to my source. Petraeus developed some talking points laying it all out. those talking points as always were approved by the intelligence community. But then he sees Susan Rice make her statements and he sees input from other areas of the administration. Petraeus — it is believed — will tell the committee he is not certain where Susan Rice got all of her information.”

Maybe he made it clear that he was going to tell the truth, and the revealing of the affair is retaliation. If so, he should say so.

214 Responses to “Petraeus to Tell Congress He Knew Almost Immediately that Benghazi Was a Terrorist Attack?”

  1. Ding.

    Patterico (8b3905)

  2. Hope he’s paid up on his life insurance!

    (joke)

    Maybe he made it clear that he was going to tell the truth, and the revealing of the affair is retaliation

    In this mess, it has become clear that Eric Holder’s FBI was investigating something that was a scandal, not a crime.

    General Petraeus shouldn’t have resigned. In fact, I hope he returns to his career despite making a major personal mistake. If anything, he’s immunized against scandal.

    Dustin (73fead)

  3. I’m afraid that this will all soon be buried by war in the Middle East triggered by Obama’s reelection.

    Amphipolis (d3e04f)

  4. i’m starting to wonder but whether Susan Rice isn’t sort of a lying whore

    and that’s not good cause in her job she represents America to the world

    happyfeet (ae0e64)

  5. Comment by happyfeet — 11/16/2012 @ 7:27 am

    What other kind of person do you expect to work in the cabinet of the one, someone who tells the truth? Which department can get away with that? Not State, DOJ, or treasury for starters.

    Hope he’s paid up on his life insurance!
    (joke)

    Only half of a joke, and no “suicides”, car crashes, or plane crashes allowed.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  6. Leviticus thinks your concerns over the General’s well being are a laff riot of epic proportions.

    elissa (74bc77)

  7. But then he sees Susan Rice make her statements and he sees input from other areas of the administration. Petraeus — it is believed — will tell the committee he is not certain where Susan Rice got all of her information.

    Wow. Who could have thought this could happen more than once.

    First, they ask oil industry experts to review and sign of on a slate of DoI proposals. Then someone in the administration edits the document to make it appear they endorsed the administration’s plan for a moratorium when they had not. After the industry experts wrote editorials shouting to the world that they had never even seen the portion of the document proposing an off-shore drilling moratorium, the WH chalked it up to an inadvertent editing error.

    There was no intent to deceive, of course. Never would the Barack “if you like your plan, you can keep it” Obama administration do that.

    And now, lookie. Another inadvertent editing error. This time resulting in all references to terror on the 9/11 anniversary commemorative consulate attack being innocently and accidentally removed from Rice’s talking points.

    Again, wow. I never would have suspected.

    Steve57 (7a880e)

  8. Again, I really look forward to these guys grilling Susan Rice. I know, I know. She’ll say, “I got my talking points from intel.”

    But, of course now we know she didn’t.

    Even more important, does the ambassador to the UN and the potential Secretary of State ever talk to the Dept. of State.

    Dept. of State: Background Briefing on Libya

    First question is from the line of Anne Gearan with the Washington Post. Please go ahead.

    QUESTION: Hi. You said a moment ago that there was nothing unusual outside, on the street, or outside the gates of the main compound. When did the agents inside – what – excuse me, what did the agents inside think was happening when the first group of men gathered there and they first heard those explosions? Did they think it was a protest, or did they think it was something else?

    SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: The agent in the TOC heard the noise, heard the firing. Firing is not unusual in Benghazi at 9:40 at night, but he immediately reacted and looked at his cameras and saw people coming in, hit the alarm. And the rest is as I described it. Does that help?

    …OPERATOR: The next question is from the line of Brad Klapper with AP. Please, go ahead.

    QUESTION: Hi, yes. You described several incidents you had with groups of men, armed men. 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.

    So nobody concluded this was a result of a protest. News reports via CNN claimed Petraeus had 20 or so intel reports that said the attack might have been motivated by anger over the video. But nowhere in the reporting do I see any indication that he said there was even a protest, just an attack. And who wants to bet CIA had other intel reports about the nature of the attack. State certainly didn’t conclude this was over a video. They just described an attack.

    Yet on those 16 September Sunday Shows Rice went out and said this:

    SUSAN RICE: We do not– we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned. …

    SUSAN RICE: Those with extremist ties joined the fray and came with heavy weapons, which unfortunately are quite common in post-revolutionary Libya. And that then spun out of control. We don’t see at this point — signs that this was a coordinated, premeditated attack. Obviously we’ll wait for the results of the investigation and we don’t want to jump to conclusions before then. But I do think it’s important for the American people to know our best current assessment.

    Methinks Rice is going to be exposed as the willing dupe for this administration that she is.

    Steve57 (7a880e)

  9. ____________________________________________

    talking points came from the Administration

    The following is an admittedly extreme example of how intrinsically corrupt a place can become when left-leaning voters — and, in turn, their representatives — are the mainstay. But variations of a similar lack of integrity and honesty (and I won’t even mention a lack of common sense) do exist in communities and societies (or entities like the current White House) where liberalism is running amok.

    bet.com, November 11:

    Detroit native Brian Banks won a seat in Michigan’s state assembly with a commanding lead of 68 percent, but the representative-elect may never be sworn in. Banks, 35, is a multiple convicted felon, which, according to some of his prospective colleagues, makes him unfit to serve. CBS Detroit has reported that some Michigan lawmakers may try to stop him from taking office.

    Banks’ crimes involved writing bad checks and credit card fraud for which he was convicted eight times between 1998 and 2004. But that didn’t stop him from using the campaign slogan “You Can Bank on Banks.” It also didn’t stop a majority of Detroit voters from giving him their support.

    “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves…”

    Mark (5bf7b1)

  10. “Wow. Who could have thought this could happen more than once.”

    Steve57 – Don’t forget about the EPA cutting its in house scientific expert out of the process during the CO@ endangerment finding. He was tasked with surveying relevant scientific literature on the subject and determined there was not a consensus concerning CO2 and anthropogenic global warming. His work was immediately sent to the circular file and alarmist conclusions inserted. Of course an investigation revealed there was no wrong doing and that altering procedures did not change the conclusion, because it was the desired outcome.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  11. Petraeus of course DID say that he knew almost immediately that it was a terrorist attack, but someone else changed the narrative, and he doesn’t know who, but it wasn’t meant to deceive and it wasn’t political, and he knows this because . . . well, he just knows is all.

    Icy (e89474)

  12. I’m not forgetting, daley. It’s just there are too many incidents to list.

    Maybe that’d be a good idea for a future comment thread. Listing all the occasions when this administration altered the facts to fit the narrative.

    Steve57 (7a880e)

  13. Something curious from the AP story on Petraeus’s testimony:
    Petraeus has acknowledged cheating on his wife of 38 years with a woman later identified as Broadwell. The FBI began investigating the matter last summer but didn’t notify the White House or Congress until after the election.

    – Has ANYONE from the FBI made such a claim? that they didn’t tell anyone in the WH or Congress about it until after the election? Not that I know of, they haven’t, but here’s the Associated Press making that claim.

    Icy (e89474)

  14. 3. I’m afraid that this will all soon be buried by war in the Middle East triggered by Obama’s reelection.

    Comment by Amphipolis — 11/16/2012 @ 7:26 am

    One thing we can count on is that when WWIII breaks out in the ME, the Obama admin will respond forcefully.

    “Baghdad Bob” Carney will immediately announce a press conference. And I already know what he’ll say:

    This latest kinetic military action was not caused or aggravated by this administration or its policies. Just like the spontaneous assault in Benghazi.

    Because, of course, that’s the most important thing. Assuring the flock that their messiah is not to blame. Carney continues:

    In fact, just as with the economy, this overseas contingency would be far worse if not for the president’s policies and actions in the region. We have said all along it would take time to recover from the failed policies of George Bush. But just as the president’s plans to repair the economy have worked, so have his plans to repair America’s reputation, influence, and bring about peace worked. We are seeing the results now, and this success will form the basis for the president’s platform for a third term so he can finish the job.

    And you know what? The people who voted for him twice will buy it, and will accuse the GOP and white people of racism if they don’t help repeal the twenty second amendment.

    Steve57 (7a880e)

  15. 13. – Has ANYONE from the FBI made such a claim? that they didn’t tell anyone in the WH or Congress about it until after the election? Not that I know of, they haven’t, but here’s the Associated Press making that claim.

    Comment by Icy — 11/16/2012 @ 9:05 am

    FBI director Robert Mueller briefed Congress on the 14th. I’m sure he swore up and down the WH narrative is entirely correct.

    Now if the administration would be so kind as to force out a ranking FBI official we might actually get the truth.

    Steve57 (7a880e)

  16. “Listing all the occasions when this administration altered the facts to fit the narrative.”

    Steve57 – I just don’t want anybody to think I implying that the administration is anti-science or anything because there are multiple instances of them deep sixing scientific conclusions which don’t fit its goals.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  17. Dustin, if Pataeus began his affair with Broadwell before he left active-duty, he is in violation of the UCMJ, probably at least three different sections, and it could cost him at least two-stars (reduction to Permanent-Rank – Major-General/Rear-Admiral is the highest Permanent-Rank).

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  18. Just so you know, it appears the Da Won is not happy Patreaus didn’t get the hint and decided to testify:

    CIA Inspector General launches investigation of Petraeus’ conduct

    They didn’t arrest Nakoula for making that film that they claimed caused all those riots across the Muslim world. They arrested him for violating the terms of his supervised release.

    They aren’t investigating Petraeus for blowing the cover off of their “intel said it was the video” claim.

    Nope. They’re investigating him for that affair they had the FBI keep looking into long after they said there was no criminal misconduct.

    Steve57 (7a880e)

  19. (GOP Congressman Says) Petraeus Says Terrorist-Attack Talking Point Was Scrubbed at Last Second

    Petraeus apparently told lawmakers that he and the rest of the CIA brass quickly determined that the Sept. 11 attack was the work of terrorists. The reason that view wasn’t relayed to the American public in the immediate wake of the attack, however, was because somewhere along the chain of command the terrorism talking points were left on the cutting room floor.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  20. Q. Did the new CIA Director say that the talking points were changed? Or not?

    Nobody in the CIA has leaked such a thing until now.

    That there was an earlier version.

    The State Department said “Not us.”

    But the CIA did not.

    Instead we had leaks about how reasonable the whole things was.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  21. From the Associated Press:


    Petraeus told the lawmakers it was removed by other federal agencies who made changes to the CIA’s draft.

    Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., said Petraeus said he did not know who removed the reference to terrorism. King said to this day it’s still not clear how the final talking points emerged that were used by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice five days after the attack when the White House sent her to appear in a series of television interviews.

    Just one thing: Maybe it wasn’t “other federal agencies” who changed that. Maybe that was what other people in the CIA told the Director, but they changed it. I mean they didn’t even tell him exactly who!

    I think they changed it, and they lied to the Director.

    Q. Who has the power to edit the draft?

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  22. Today is my birthday.

    The Emperor (e1814e)

  23. Now we see why it was so important for the CIA to start an investigation of Petraeus – why they needed to discredit him.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  24. The whole thing stinks.

    The Emperor (e1814e)

  25. You can not fix a problem if you lie to yourself…

    US Politics in general, Pres. Obama’s foreign policy specifically.

    BfC (fd87e7)

  26. A sort of CIA prison in Somalia 2011. (CIa pays salaries and participate in interrogations)

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/11/world/africa/11somalia.html?pagewanted=all

    If there were any prisoners in Benghazi perhaps the British held them?

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  27. This whole “Real Housewives of Benghazi” thing keeps getting weirder and weirder.

    I won’t quote it as it’s an AP report posted on the Daily Caller.

    But per this report Jill Kelley and her sister Natalie Khawam visited the WH three times this year, twice eating in the Executive Mansion Mess.

    WTFO!

    OK, so this mentally unstable Natalie Khawam enlists Petraeus’ and GEN Allen’s aid in her custody battle, meets John Kerry at a DSCC event in Martha’s Vineyard, gets a $300k personal loan from a R.I. Democratic party mover-and-shaker, and at least twice is invited to Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse’s family clambake.

    Meanwhile, Jill Kelley kicks off an FBI investigation because she’s getting emails the FBI cybercrimes unit determines contain no overt threats. Yet for some reason they pursue it anyway only to discover the emails are coming from a gmail account that Broadwell and Petraeus share to send lovenotes. In the course of the investigation that continued for who knows what reason since there were no overt threats they discover Allen and Kelley have exchanged 20-30k (again, WTFO) pages of email.

    Now it turns out both Kelley and Khawam are semi-regular guests at the WH. Supposedly of a “mid-level WH aide.” (Need I point out it’s a regular Washington practice for a senior official to assign an aide to pretend he’s the one dating the lady in order to bring her to her actual date? You don’t think JFK was going out and getting all those hookers himself, do you?)

    I’m not connecting any dots. I’m not even saying there are any dots to connect. I just find it odd that these sisters penetrated (again, double entendre intended) the CIA, the Pentagon, the Senate, and the WH.

    Plus this Kelley chick has diplomatic plates on her car. I know the story is she somehow got appointed an “honorary consul” by South Korea for her work at CENTCOM. But I read one article that said she was the State Dept.s liaison to CENTCOM. I figured the reporter just made a mistake. But now I’m not so sure. Maybe she’s got an in there too.

    Steve57 (7a880e)

  28. Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., said Petraeus explained that the CIA’s draft points were sent to other intelligence agencies and to some federal agencies for review. Udall said Petraeus told them the final document was put in front of all the senior agency leaders, including Petraeus, and everyone signed off on it.

    Schiff said that Petraeus said Rice’s comments in the television interviews “reflected the best intelligence at the time that could be released publicly.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2012/11/16/us/politics/ap-us-libya-attack.html?pagewanted=2&hp&_r=0

    Looks less like lying and more like ‘wrong’. Or incomplete if you’re feeling generous. Pretty dammaging info about the security though.

    time123 (33ce8e)

  29. So the revised talking points were not a surprise to Petraeus. He was not a detail man, and assumed people were honest. Well, that theory makes more sense anyway.

    Sammy Finkelman (c002ae)

  30. Another source in the room also took issue with King’s characterization that Petraeus never called it terrorism the first time around, saying “that’s just incorrect.”

    “When General Petraeus was here the first time on Sept. 14, he said it was terrorism,” the source said. “They thought it was armed militants, extremists.” Petraeus also named possible groups, including Al Qaeda, who could have been involved, the source said.

    Dana (292dcf)

  31. “No one knows yet exactly who came up with the final version of the talking points.”

    Or who removed the reference to AQ and terrorism.

    JD (318f81)

  32. 28. Looks less like lying and more like ‘wrong’. Or incomplete if you’re feeling generous. Pretty dammaging info about the security though.

    Comment by time123 — 11/16/2012 @ 12:40 pm

    No. Rice insisted there was a spontaneous protest that evolved into an attack. To the point where she said on those talk shows there was no evidence of any other possibility.

    Which was false, and everyone knew it was false.

    Now, you could argue that Rice didn’t know that if all she had been given were those unclassified talking points.

    But there was no protest. And her own DoS knew that as evidenced in the background briefing they gave the press. They told the press that there was nothing unusual before 9:40 that night. Then the DS agent manning the TOC heard shots, looked at his monitors and saw large numbers of armed men assaulting the compound.

    It was never the DoS’s conclusion that this had anything to do with a protest over the video. There was no protest. The protest was a complete fabrication.

    Rice should have known that. If she did she lied. If she didn’t she’s incompetent.

    But somebody made that lie up about the protest, and this committee needs to find out who that was.

    Steve57 (7a880e)

  33. “He was not a detail man, and assumed people were honest. Well, that theory makes more sense anyway.”

    Sammy – I don’t see where that is implied anywhere. The article linked by time123 clearly says the references to specific terrorist groups included by the CIA were deleted by others in the process in the rush to get the talking points out.

    Maybe the Saudis deleted the references.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  34. The idea of an unclassified version of a classified briefing is definitely not to misrepresent what’s in the classified version.

    What Rice was provided wasn’t an unclassified version of anything; it was pure misinformation. She had access to information that would have told her that.

    I linked to that NYT article, time123.

    Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., said it’s clear that Rice “used the unclassified talking points that the entire intelligence community signed off on, so she did completely the appropriate thing.”

    This is pure spin. The intel community would have know there was no protest. If what the state department had recorded when communicating with Benghazi wouldn’t have been enough, they would have debriefed the survivors the next day, Sep 12th. The intel community wouldn’t have signed off on that. The idea of talking about a protest came from somewhere else.

    Steve57 (7a880e)

  35. ==But somebody made that lie up about the protest, ==

    Perhaps it was the same nefarious person or group who “hired” the shady Coptic to make that silly amateurish you tube video trailer in the first place. That video existed, was made in America, and was placed at the center of this for a reason. Its filming has always had the odor of black ops or a false flag operation that was just waiting on the shelf for when it was “needed”. The film maker guy’s in prison. Will he ever be able to tell his version of the story and how and why he came to make the film? What his purpose was? Doubtful.

    elissa (74bc77)

  36. Bingo, Steve. And she stated it was a fact, not their best guess based on a available intelligence.

    Now it is racist and sexist to criticize her.

    JD (185efa)

  37. It’s such a curiosity to me that we were fed the ‘spontaneous protest’ line for so long and yet no one in the MSM was troubled the protesers just happened to be armed with far more than their fists, rhetoric and rage.

    Islamist militants armed with antiaircraft weapons and rocket-propelled grenades stormed a lightly defended United States diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, late Tuesday, killing the American ambassador and three members of his staff and raising questions about the radicalization of countries swept up in the Arab Spring.

    Dana (292dcf)

  38. JD @ 36,

    Unfortunately, we are reminded that it is necessary to dumb down expectations and standards for women and minorities.
    Even at the highest levels of power.

    Dana (292dcf)

  39. Sen Ayotte is a sexist.

    JD (185efa)

  40. “What Rice was provided wasn’t an unclassified version of anything; it was pure misinformation. She had access to information that would have told her that.”

    Steve57 – As a cabinet member Rice receives a daily intelligence briefing, but that is probably prepared by Saudi disinformation agents and composed entirely of propaganda.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  41. “Sen Ayotte is a sexist.”

    JD – She’s a traitor to her gender.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  42. Today is my birthday.
    Comment by The Emperor — 11/16/2012 @ 11:04 am

    – 12 years old and holding?

    Icy (e89474)

  43. I love this:

    “The evidence of officials’ efforts to evade transparency laws includes EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson’s use of the fake name ‘Richard Windsor’, and hidden e-mail accounts, according to a Nov. 16 letter sent by the committee to several White House officials, including Jackson.”
    H/T- Instapundit

    Shouldn’t use of a false identity to skirt transparency laws be a FELONY, when done by an appointed official, requiring their immediate removal from office?

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  44. Dana – maybe you can help me come up with the right word, ironic is not quite right. There were 3 Senators criticizing Rice – McCain, Graham, and Ayotte. The puff chested responses from Teh One, and then today the House Dems and MFM referred to McCain and Graham as racists and sexists. Maybe Ayotte is just racist, but not sexist?

    JD (185efa)

  45. @icy. I try to be young at heart. :)

    The Emperor (09061e)

  46. It just confirms, JD, that women are their own worst enemies.

    And it’s probably best we don’t play with logic. We’ll just get hurt.

    Dana (292dcf)

  47. This whole cover up reminds me of Bush’s false wmd claim. The only difference is how some of you where vigorously defending him and trying to spin it as much as humanly possible. But now things have changed. Same story, different party.

    The Emperor (08c3d2)

  48. The Emporer of False Equivalence– Bush was using the intelligence he was given. This administration contradicted the intelligence they were given.

    Birdbath (716828)

  49. @birdbath. “Bush was using the intelligence he was given.” So was Rice.

    The Emperor (08c3d2)

  50. Rice wasn’t given “intelligence”, she was given propaganda.

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  51. 40. Steve57 – As a cabinet member Rice receives a daily intelligence briefing, but that is probably prepared by Saudi disinformation agents and composed entirely of propaganda.

    Comment by daleyrocks — 11/16/2012 @ 2:22 pm

    I thought they just followed Da Won’s lead and blew those off.

    Steve57 (7a880e)

  52. “Rice wasn’t given “intelligence”, she was given propaganda.

    Comment by askeptic — 11/16/2012 @ 3:21 pm”.
    To her it was credible intelligence. Hindsight is different.

    The Emperor (b2c6a3)

  53. 47. This whole cover up reminds me of Bush’s false wmd claim. The only difference is how some of you where vigorously defending him and trying to spin it as much as humanly possible. But now things have changed. Same story, different party.

    Comment by The Emperor — 11/16/2012 @ 3:00 pm

    It would because you’re an idiot. The whole western world thought Iraq had WMDs.

    Germany’s leading role in arming Iraq

    Friedbert Pflueger, foreign policy spokesman of the main opposition Christian Democratic parties and an embittered critic of Schroeder’s and Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer’s Iraq policy, last Thursday accused the red-green coalition government of deliberately keeping the German and world public uninformed of BND (German foreign intelligence service) evidence and assessments on the continued existence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). “If we trust our [intelligence] services, and I do, then we know that there exist weapons of mass destruction in Iraq,” said Pflueger, and referred to a November 13, 2002, BND briefing of members of parliament’s foreign affairs committee in which relevant information was disclosed.

    You ought to quit smoking crack on your birthday, chimperor.

    Steve57 (7a880e)

  54. No the feed, streaming to the DS Ops Center, and mostly likely the CIA drone’s home base at Creech, AFB, would disprove that,

    narciso (ee31f1)

  55. @Steve. Is it conceivable that the Bush administration did not know that there were no WMDs in iraq before invading it? Really? Bush did not act on real intelligence as he did on propaganda. And yes my birthday is going nicely, thank you.

    The Emperor (08c3d2)

  56. Emperor: The Ambassador to the U.N. is not the President.

    Birdbath (716828)

  57. As with Conrad’s Kurtz ‘most of the world’ built up Saddam, the Russians, the German, the French, most significantly, they were also the primary beneficiaries of the OFF program,

    narciso (ee31f1)

  58. Revisionist history about Iraq WMDs. Easy enough to watch all the dems (PRE-Bushitler) pontificating on youtube about the necessity of removing the evil Saddam Hussein and his inventory of weapons. And also nearly intelligence agency insisted the WMDs were there also. Of course idiots will discount that said weapons were trucked to Syria. Those Kurds that were gassed don’t count either.

    Calypso Louis Farrakhan (e799d8)

  59. To her it was credible intelligence. Hindsight is different.

    Like some around here, she is easily convinced of something’s credibility.
    Fools leading fools.

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  60. @bird. Tell that to John Mccain and his group of gang bangers, trying to bully Miss Rice

    The Emperor (b2c6a3)

  61. Chimperor conveniently ignores that WMD is NOT limited to radiological devices.

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  62. Would that include Kelly Ayotte, Emperor? Is she also a “gang banger”?

    Dana (292dcf)

  63. Dana, she’s not a Real Woman!

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  64. Like some around here, she is easily convinced of something’s credibility.
    Fools leading fools.

    Comment by askeptic — 11/16/2012 @ 3:54 pm

    It goes both ways. So using your logic you were a fool to believe the wmd propaganda then until the truth came out. You were a fool being led by a fool. (Bush).

    The Emperor (9ae02a)

  65. this was supposed to be a Mince-free Friday, Whimperor. D’OH!

    Colonel Haiku (1aafef)

  66. @Dana. Bullying is not just a male vice.

    The Emperor (9ae02a)

  67. The interesting deal is the intercepts suggest AQIM was thee driving force, however, they haven’t pulled
    off such an assault in a long time, possibly the attack of the Djerba synagogue, almost a decade ago,
    when they were the GSFC

    narciso (ee31f1)

  68. Except Chimpey-one, IRAQ did have WMD, they used them against their own people; or didn’t you see the pix of the dead Kurds, and Marsh-arabs?

    Inconvenient Truths!

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  69. On my birthday –especially on a birthday–I cannot even imagine spending time and life energy trolling around a lefty blog for excitement and entertainment. If it’s really the Emperor’s birthday how truly sad and pathetic that she’s here. Go have cake.

    elissa (74bc77)

  70. Emperor

    There is no “both ways” about anything, unless you are using the partisan BDS revised history of the world. I doubt there is any reasoning with you, so what I say is for the benefit of anyone reading who needs reliable information.

    It is clear, it has been clear, that the CIA and State Dept and anyone else who had access to the surveillance video that the attack on Benghazi was a planned terrorist attack. Even Feinstein said so on the simple basis of the weapons used (mortars with deadly accuracy).

    Anyone who payed attention knew that the presumed presence of WMD’s was only one (of I think 5) reason given for removing Hussein from power. In addition, please name one national intelligence agency in the world that made the argument ahead of time that Iraq had no such weapons. And the last of my points (at this moment) is that David Kay in Senate testimony stated that Hussein was “more dangerous than we thought” because of long range missile components and such that they were surprised to find, even if the quantities of WMD present were far less than anticipated.

    If there was ever a liberal who wanted to have an honest discussion about the wisdom of going into Iraq it would be a meaningful discussion, but the “Bush lied” disingenuous garbage should be beneath you.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  71. Not accepting Susan Rice’s explanation for her incompetence or her collusion in the lie is not bullying. Bullying is something different.

    Birdbath (716828)

  72. Chimperor is a spammer somewhere in northern Nigeria. Do not give it heed.

    nk (875f57)

  73. 52. “Rice wasn’t given “intelligence”, she was given propaganda.

    Comment by askeptic — 11/16/2012 @ 3:21 pm”.
    To her it was credible intelligence. Hindsight is different.

    Comment by The Emperor — 11/16/2012 @ 3:31 pm

    There’s no “hindsight” about it. That idiotic story about “spontaneous movie criticism” wasn’t credible when the Obama admin uttered it. Moreover, I didn’t figure it out after Rice went on TV. I knew well before she went on TV it was a lie.

    The whole thing; Cairo and Benghazi both.

    Jihadis Threaten to Burn US Embassy in Cairo

    September 10, 2012 – 4:20 pm

    Got that, Chimperor? The date on this press release about the “spontaneous” demonstration they were going to have in Cairo is September TENTH.

    Jihadi groups in Egypt, including Islamic Jihad, the Sunni Group, and Al Gamaa Al Islamiyya have issued a statement threatening to burn the U.S. Embassy in Cairo to the ground.

    According to El Fagr, they are calling for the immediate release of the Islamic jihadis who are imprisonment and in detention centers in the U.S. including Guantanamo Bay: “The group, which consists of many members from al-Qaeda, called [especially] for the quick release of the jihadi [mujahid] sheikh, Omar Abdul Rahman [the "Blind Sheikh"], whom they described as a scholar and jihadi who sacrificed his life for the Egyptian Umma, who was ignored by the Mubarak regime, and [President] Morsi is refusing to intervene on his behalf and release him, despite promising that he would. The Islamic Group has threatened to burn the U.S. Embassy in Cairo with those in it, and taking hostage those who remain [alive], unless the Blind Sheikh is immediately released.”

    See anything about a video in there, chimperor?

    Zawahiri’s Brother at Cairo Embassy Assault

    That’d be the brother of Ayman al Zawahire, Emir of Al Qaeda, Mohammed of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad. You know, one of those groups who put out the above press release.

    11:21 AM, Sep 12, 2012

    Once more for emphasis. Press release; day before assault. This report; day after assault.

    During the assault on the U.S. embassy in Egypt, demonstrators reportedly chanted “Obama! Obama! We are all Osama!” They yelled this obvious reference to Osama bin Laden as an al Qaeda-style flag was hoisted and the American flag brought down. At least one of the protesters at the anti-American rally knows a thing or two about al Qaeda: Mohammed al Zawahiri, who is the younger brother of al Qaeda’s emir, Ayman al Zawahiri.

    He was there to take credit for organizing the protest.

    And CNN interviewed the dude outside the US embassy the day of the assault on the Cairo embassay.

    CNN’s Nic Robertson Interviews Brother of Blind Sheik

    I don’t know who labeled that YouTube video, but he’s the brother of the leader of AQ, not the blind Sheik.

    Note the big billboard of the blind sheik. Note Nic Robertson asking “And this is the protest calling for the release of sheik Abdul Rahman?”

    Never does anyone mention a video. CNN knew it, but went with the lie. Because “Obama, Obama we are all Osamas” would have been a lot more damaging to Obama’s reelection effort than “it was an offensive anti-muslim YouTube video that we had nothing to do with.”

    Their first impulse to desperately claim these assaults they called protests which had nothing to do with them or their policies means with this crowd it had everything to do with their policies.

    Plus, Rice would have known or should have known what the Diplomatic Security Operations Center monitored the night of the attack. Although she’s demonstrating herself to be such an incompetent I’m now inclined to believe this Cabinet-level member of the State Dept. doesn’t know there is a DS Operations center in DC.

    Of course, I didn’t have access to that. But there was a lot of press reporting that proved there was no protest at the Benghazi compound the night of the assault. Such as:

    Massachusetts General Hospital doctor was in Benghazi at time of attack

    September 14, 2012

    Hey, check out the date on that! Two days before Rice went on TV and made a fool of herself.

    Burke’s colleagues had spoken with Stevens just 45 minutes before the attack, and Burke was on the phone with an embassy attaché when the shelling began.

    “He yelled, ‘Oh my God, Oh [expletive],’ and then he hung up,” said Burke, who was in a hotel about a mile from the consulate when the attack began. “Then we heard these deep blasts. We didn’t know what was going on. Nobody knew if the whole city was being attacked.”

    I can tell you without a shred of doubt in my body that had there been a protest outside that compound the staffers would not have been on the phone schmoozing with some visiting doctors about the next day’s activities. Business as usual like. Not any day in Libya. Especially not on the anniversary of 9/11. And Especially not on an anniversary of 9/11 when a protest turned into an attack on a US embassy one country over (or maybe you think US diplomatic facilities don’t warn each other of such things).

    So, that isn’t all, but if I knew with a certainty this whole “offensive video” story was a lie, and that there was no protest outside the Benghazi compound before the attack by 14 September, what excuse does Rice have for still believing the lie on 16 September?

    She’s either a liar or a credulous fool. In either case she’s not qualified to be SecState.

    Steve57 (7a880e)

  74. @askeptic. Granted. But where was it? Why couldn’t we find them? What happened to them?

    The Emperor (09061e)

  75. Go suck a watermelon, chimp!

    nk (875f57)

  76. ITN does provide some of CNN’s most clueless figure,
    not only is he not the Blind Sheik’s brother, but he served a particular function;

    http://www.defenddemocracy.org/media-hit/cnn-interviews-mohamed-al-zawahiri/

    narciso (ee31f1)

  77. Everybody here is too afraid to tell a
    Soros tool to go peel bananas with its feet?

    nk (875f57)

  78. Bush derangement syndrome is so passé. Those who still spout BDS are like those ladies who still cuelessly wear their 1980′s big hair style even though it’s now 2012. (And we laugh at them too.)

    elissa (74bc77)

  79. I like women with big hair, elissa.

    nk (875f57)

  80. 63. It goes both ways. So using your logic you were a fool to believe the wmd propaganda then until the truth came out. You were a fool being led by a fool. (Bush).

    Comment by The Emperor — 11/16/2012 @ 4:03 pm

    Was Billy Jeff? Remember 1998? Remember Operation Desert Fox, the first US military operation ever named after a Nazi general (only a libtard would come up with that)?

    Of course you don’t. You’re only 12. Which, by the way is a little young to be hitting that crack pipe.

    Here’s a Wiki article on it you can use as a primer.

    The operation was a major flare-up in the Iraq disarmament crisis. The stated goal of the cruise missile and bombing attacks was to strike military and security targets in Iraq that contribute to Iraq’s ability to produce, store, maintain and deliver weapons of mass destruction.

    The intel hadn’t changed between the Clinton presidency in 1998 and the Bush presidency in 2002. They were still saying Iraq had WMDs and/or WMD programs.

    Steve57 (7a880e)

  81. logic

    Don’t use words you don’t undestand, chimperor. You are clearly unfamiliar with the term.

    Steve57 (7a880e)

  82. Trying to find the vizzini clip in the princess bride

    narciso (ee31f1)

  83. And there’s tons of stuff we don’t need to know about each other.

    nk (875f57)

  84. @Steve. You are preaching to the choir here. There’s no doubt that there is some kind of cover up going on here. This I have pointed to in some of my comments on this whole Benghazi fiasco. I really want to know what happened that day. I also believe that this administration needs to do more to clear the dark cloud hanging over them on this issue. This is why in a previous comment here I called it a “cover up”. I was only drawing a comparison between the Bush wmd cover up and this present one and how partisanship is making it hard to know what is really the truth. I also said Rice simply said what she was told to say. Don’t kill the messenger cos you hate the message.

    The Emperor (5647ed)

  85. “This whole cover up reminds me of Bush’s false wmd claim.”

    Lovey – Except for Obama’s cover up you might be right, but I don’t understand why you limit your description to only Bush’s false wmd claim when Bill Clinton and virtually all of the leading Democrats made the same claims about the wmd’s. Care to explain?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  86. 37. It’s such a curiosity to me that we were fed the ‘spontaneous protest’ line for so long and yet no one in the MSM was troubled the protesers just happened to be armed with far more than their fists, rhetoric and rage.

    Comment by Dana — 11/16/2012 @ 2:14 pm

    Dana, they’re still doing it. This is from yesterday.

    CNN: ‘Real-time’ video shows Benghazi drama, but questions remain

    Demonstrators set the U.S. Consulate compound in Benghazi, Libya, on fire on September 11…

    Who knew? You can have no demonstration at all and “demonstrators” can still assault your consulate.

    I guess “demonstrators” flew those planes into the WTC on 9/11/2001.

    Steve57 (7a880e)

  87. I’m beginning to think that with three exceptions everyone working in D.C. is a lying weasel’s dropping (no offense to spoor intended.) The exceptions are a pair of family friends, who spend more time in Minnesota than in Virginia, and only work in D.C.) and Gen. Petraus, who is only an adulterer.

    htom (412a17)

  88. Patterico, you destroyed the site. Don’t waste time and money fiking it. Let it go.

    nk (875f57)

  89. @Daley. The only difference is that Bush was the only one who went ahead and invaded Iraq based on flawed intelligence. He prosecuted that war and by so doing diverted his attention from the war in Afghanistan. I really don’t wanna go into the argument about that war because it is an exercise in futility. You will continue to believe Bush did the right thing and nothing I say will change that. But history is the best judge of all human actions and intentions.

    The Emperor (5647ed)

  90. Have they gotten a bead on who took out Camp Bastion,

    narciso (ee31f1)

  91. “He prosecuted that war and by so doing diverted his attention from the war in Afghanistan.”

    Lovey – What attention was diverted from Afghanistan? Can you be specific, please? I know this is a very popular talking point among the community-based reality, but I have never seen any facts supporting it.

    It’s your birthday, shouldn’t you be having sex with your Obama blow up doll right about now or paying to get laid?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  92. Again, Emporer, everybody from the prezzy to the floor sweeper in the Bush Administration cited the intelligence. So far, everybody from the prezzy the the floor sweeper in the Obama Administration has denied the intelligence. Oh, except for the guy in charge of the intelligence.

    Birdbath (716828)

  93. You noticed how they all of a sudden, decided Afghanistan wasn’t the good war anymore, of course, previously, they touted it as the ‘graveyard of empires’

    narciso (ee31f1)

  94. Have they gotten a bead on who took out Camp Bastion,

    Comment by narciso — 11/16/2012 @ 4:55 pm

    The Taliban took responsibility for that attack.

    The Emperor (09061e)

  95. The noose is tightening on the folks who watched an American ambassador dragged from an embassy without lifting a finger. There is no way this ends nicely. Unless there is complicity from the New York Times.

    Oh, wait…

    Birdbath (716828)

  96. 83. I was only drawing a comparison between the Bush wmd cover up and this present one and how partisanship is making it hard to know what is really the truth. I also said Rice simply said what she was told to say. Don’t kill the messenger cos you hate the message.

    Comment by The Emperor — 11/16/2012 @ 4:38 pm

    I will give you a polite answer. There is no comparison.

    In Benghazi we didn’t need intelligence to figure out what was going on outside the embassy compound. We had operational information. We had US personnel eyes on. There was no doubt.

    Susan Rice may not have lied, but the story was an obvious lie. I’ve given you a lot of sources that prove that.

    1. The people who organized the Cairo embassy told the world what their protest was about before and during. It was not about a video.

    2. If you go back and search, you will no doubt find comments from me saying there was no demonstration outside the Benghazi consulate the night of 9/11 before Rice ever went on TV.

    It was not an intelligence matter. No it’s also not classified information. No more than if you drive by city hall and see the Occupy crowd staging a protest.

    On the other hand, we could not have the same degree of certainty about the Iraqi WMD program without eyes-on. In other words, inspectors. There were none.

    To the be forced to rely on intelligence methods to find WMDs in a country the size of Iraq leaves a degree of uncertainty. What everyone was relying on were levels of confidence as expressed by analysts.

    Me? I still have no doubt they were there. I don’t believe you understand just how small WMDs can be when talking about chemical and biological weapons. And don’t forget how the French (who along with us, Canada, the UK, Germany, etc., were certain Saddam Hussein had WMDs) screwed up the timing of the invasion by getting the Turks to deny us permission to launch a ground assault from their territory. Giving Hussein plenty of time to get them to Syria. His chemical and biological weapons could have physically fit in one 40 ft. shipping container (not like you’d do that due to the handling and storage hazards involved) and would have represented the lethal capacity to kill millions.

    Here’s an article from 2007; an interview of a British NATO analyst. She is definitely not a Bush apologist.

    New English Review – Syria’s Bio-Warfare Threat: an interview with Dr. Jill Dekker

    Syria’s biological weapons capability today is closely tied to the former and current Soviet and Russian programs respectively, the DPRK, Iran and the former Iraq regime.

    …The Syrians work on most Category A pathogens: anthrax, plague, tularemia, botulinium, smallpox, aflotoxin, cholera, ricin, camelpox. Some of these they acquired during natural outbreaks, others they acquired from the Soviets, Russians, DPRK, Iran and Iraq.

    …Gordon: We heard that some of the late Saddam Hussein’s Bio-warfare research and pathogens may have been transferred to Syria during Operation Enduring Freedom. Is that accurate to your knowledge, and who facilitated the transfer? What types of bio-warfare agents and materials might have been transferred?

    Dekker: Yes. It is important to remember that the Iraqi programs were far more advanced at the time than what the Syrians had, and were developing. The delivery of certain pathogens in a ‘weaponized’ form taught the Syrians new techniques they previously had not mastered. This is very problematic. I am less concerned about the types of pathogens or specific pathogens as these were available to Syria from other sources. What Hussein’s transfer taught the Syrians was more sophisticated ways of weaponization and dispersal. I believe Russian special ops- their Spetsnaz teams – transported sections of the programs. Remember these are not MIRVed ICBM’s we are talking about – you don’t need to stockpile biological weapons. It is the quality of the pathogen and ‘weaponization’ or aerosolization, milling processes that count, not the quantity. I don’t believe they moved some biological arsenals into the Baqaa Valley in Lebanon, perhaps sections of their chemical and nuclear weapons, but not the biological programs. Those are much too sensitive to dump in the desert. They must be carefully maintained in a defense laboratory. If you take something like Bot – I gram of crystalline Botulinium is estimated to kill about a million people if it were evenly dispersed – you don’t want to bury it out in the desert.

    This is a scientist who’s been analyzing this issue for over 20 years. She’s paid as a consultant for NATO. And note the small quantities. 1 gram of a particular toxin can kill a million or so people.

    You can hide 1 gram of anything in a country like Iraq, It’s not as big as the US; about a third the size of Texas. But still, even with our collection capabilities it’s difficult to find and track one gram of anything.

    I’m sure they were there; I’m sure they were moved. And this NATO consultant detected an improvement in Syrian bio-weapons capabilities as a result.

    I’m not being partisan. I’m just noting the differences in circumstances.

    Steve57 (7a880e)

  97. @Daley. September 11th, AQ attacked America on American soil. An attack master-minded by OSL. After that attack America launched an attack against AQ then located in Afghanistan. The mission was to hunt down those who murdered thousands of Americans. It was a mission supported by all including the world community. It put AQ on the run and if they had stayed focus they could have found and killed OSL, the guy who attacked and killed Americans. But somewhere along the line Bush decided that finding OSL was not the most important thing on his mind and began to talk about iraq, the focus shifted. I am really using crayons here, Daley.

    The Emperor (09061e)

  98. I really don’t wanna go into the argument about that war because it is an exercise in futility.

    This is rich. Toss out a dishonest leftist meme, and then claim you do not want to talk about it because the other did us unwilling to accept your narrative/lie.

    JD (318f81)

  99. I vaguely remember there was an overwhelming vote in congress which authorized the US to go into Iraq. Seems like all the necessary congressional committees which included ranking members from both parties had seen regular Saddam WMD intel through both the Clinton and early Bush admins. Do I recall that correctly?

    But I can’t seem to find the vote totals that got us into Libya. That whole Libya/Benghazi thing has been conducted sort of strangely and secretively, no?

    elissa (74bc77)

  100. It put AQ on the run and if they had stayed focus

    Can you point out a specific thing we should have done, but did not, because the focus and resources had been diverted to Iraq?

    JD (318f81)

  101. Elissa – surely you jest

    JD (318f81)

  102. @Steven. Let us agree to disagree on this Iraq issue. The fact as it is is that when they got to Iraq there were no WMDs. That is not in contest. Whether they were smuggled out of the country to Syria is another issue all together. The issue at hand is Benghazi and on this issue, we are on the same page: we both want to know the truth. Politics apart.

    The Emperor (9ae02a)

  103. “…I am really using crayons here, Daley.”

    I’m sure Daley doesn’t need confirmation of this.

    Birdbath (716828)

  104. @Steven. Let us agree to disagree on this Iraq issue.

    Steve has his facts. You have your canards, and bumper sticker slogans. I do not suspect you will ever find agreement b

    JD (318f81)

  105. Notice the amount of distraction lovie is engaged in to avoid discussing the fact that the administration changed the intelligence in order to attempt to advance a BS narrative.

    JD (318f81)

  106. But somewhere along the line Bush decided that finding OSL was not the most important thing on his mind and began to talk about iraq, the focus shifted.

    Al Qaida operated in Iraq, and we actually found Osama Bin Laden thanks to the intel gained from a person captured in Iraq.

    Bush was indeed more interested in fighting Al Qaida than in killing Osama Bin Laden. No single terrorist is as important as protecting our country.

    As the failure on 9/11/2012 proves, democrats did not learn the lessons of 9/11/2001.

    Dustin (73fead)

  107. Actually they found WMD, just not the quantity expected. Where they went (and if they existed) are open questions.

    htom (412a17)

  108. The fact as it is is that when they got to Iraq there were no WMDs. That is not in contest. Whether they were smuggled out of the country to Syria is another issue all together.

    so if Iraq had a WMD program that was shut down and shipped off to Syria, as you claim possible, the war in Iraq was unjustified?

    BTW, we indeed found a tremendous amount of WMD material, such as uranium and biological agents, in Iraq. You need to get out of the lefty meme bubble.

    Dustin (73fead)

  109. so if Iraq had a WMD program that was shut down and shipped off to Syria, as you claim possible, the war in Iraq was unjustified?

    Iraq also financed terrorist attacks on Israel.

    Michael Ejercito (2e0217)

  110. “The fact as it is is that when they got to Iraq there were no WMDs. That is not in contest.”

    The fact as it is is that the attack in Benghazi was a planned operation. That is not in contest.

    One of these is not like the other. Despite the clunky language. (as it is is)

    Birdbath (716828)

  111. Can you point out a specific thing we should have done, but did not, because the focus and resources had been diverted to Iraq?

    Comment by JD — 11/16/2012 @ 5:21 pm”
    How did going to iraq get justice for the families that lost loved ones on 9/11? How did it make the world a safer place? What you should have done is continue to focus on the war in Afghanistan, hunt down OBL and kill him. That is precisely what Bush should have done. Obama did that and took out OSL within 2yrs of his presidency. Kill the guy who did kill Americans and let the world know you don’t attack Americans and get away with it.

    The Emperor (9ae02a)

  112. Forbes has kind of an interesting video essay up which explores what Petraeus may do and how he may ddre in the future once this crisis fades.

    http://video.forbes.com/fvn/leadership/petraeus-future/

    elissa (74bc77)

  113. 88. @Daley. The only difference is that Bush was the only one who went ahead and invaded Iraq…

    Are you forgetting all the Congressmen, Republican and Democrat, who approved the AUMF?

    Bush most certainly wasn’t the “only one who went ahead and invaded Iraq” in that regard.

    Or do you think Bush was the only leader to send troops into Iraq?

    If so you’re forgetting Albania, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Singapore, Slovakia, Spain, South Korea, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom.

    There were more.

    based on flawed intelligence.

    Comment by The Emperor — 11/16/2012 @ 4:49 pm

    That is the nature of intelligence. There is no such thing as perfect intelligence. It is all flawed. It will never have the certainty of an Operations Report (What are US forces doing right now) or an After Action Report (What did US forces do).

    This is why you cannot compare the Bush “cover-up” to the Obama cover-up.

    Bush had the first, Obama had the latter two.

    You can not compare Bush’s failure to predict the future when he invaded Iraq to Obama’s failure to explain the past after that consulate in Benghazi got sacked.

    You don’t get it. You don’t seem capable of getting it.

    Steve57 (7a880e)

  114. OMG. Running around with the goalposts must get tyresome after a while.

    I hope those crayons you are eating are non-toxic.

    JD (185efa)

  115. Notice the amount of distraction lovie is engaged in to avoid discussing the fact that the administration changed the intelligence in order to attempt to advance a BS narrative.

    Comment by JD — 11/16/2012 @ 5:33 pm

    Evidently you have not been paying attention to my comments on this issue.

    The Emperor (09061e)

  116. It’s interesting that the Emperor tries to equate the Behghazi mess, lies, cast of characters, and coverup with Iraq rather than its more obvious first cousin, Watergate.

    elissa (74bc77)

  117. You also answered a question I did not ask.

    Osama was killed while Teh One was president. There has been no shortage of spiking the football, and nobody disputes that. It didn’t do much to stop AQ did it? Helluva lot if good it did for the dead in Benghazi.

    Your entire act tonight is based on your leftist canards, and an aggressive refusal to acknowledge facts. BDS is incurable, apparently.

    JD (185efa)

  118. if everyone is just gonna be all sexist maybe it’s time to think about maybe not putting lying whores in positions of responsibility

    also we should let that youtube guy out of jail at least for Thanksgiving

    happyfeet (927431)

  119. @jd so you mean that killing OBL means nothing? You sound as though killing him was not important. Pls clarify.

    The Emperor (09061e)

  120. Also, Quaddafi for all his other faults, was a strong opponent of jihadists, he filed the first interpol warrant against UBL in ’94, with brilliant
    foresight MI-6 used several AQ operatives to try to take him out, spooked by the Iraq war, he gave up his nuclear program, and worked with us, to intercept many mid level AQ figure, well how did we pay him back, and what lesson have other countries learned, from this?

    narciso (ee31f1)

  121. Mr. Emperor at walmart you can buy this thing to where your kids can make cake pops without using the oven

    happyfeet (927431)

  122. Narciso, you are absolutely right.

    In a world where this country has accepted some dictators will stand because we can’t possibly fix everything, we should have shown these tyrants that the ones who behave as Libya did will be treated much better than those who don’t.

    Libya is one of the most powerful proofs that Emperor is wrong. The Iraqi invasion ended Libya’s nuclear weapons program, because Qaddafi did not want that to happen to him.

    Obama squandered that victory, and I’m not surprised. He was only squandering Bush’s legacy, after all.

    Dustin (73fead)

  123. 114. Evidently you have not been paying attention to my comments on this issue.

    Comment by The Emperor — 11/16/2012 @ 5:51 pm

    I admit, it’s hard.

    But the difference is what happened at the US consulate is not entirely an intelligence matter. Yes, intel gets involved when it comes to determining who did this and why.

    But what they did is operational. They invaded a compound in Benghaze and US DS agents and CIA contractors engaged them and attempted to protect diplomatic personnel.

    You don’t need intel to determine what they did and saw. You just need them. Ask them.

    Petreaus should know this better then anyone. If he’s concerned about his troops in a firefight, he doesn’t head to the intel shop and ask “what are my troops doing?” He heads down to his operations center and communicates with his troops.

    Background Briefing on Libya

    The Tactical Operations Center, which is just across the way from Building B, has offices and a bedroom. That’s where the security officers had their main setup, that’s where the security cameras are, a lot of the phones – it’s basically their operations center. So I’ll call it the TOC from now on.

    …At 9:40 p.m., the agent in the TOC and the agents in Building C hear loud noises coming from the front gate. They also hear gunfire and an explosion. The agent in the TOC looks at his cameras – these are cameras that have pictures of the perimeter – and the camera on the main gate reveals a large number of people – a large number of men, armed men, flowing into the compound.

    My bad, though; State calls its operations center in DC the “Diplomatic Security Command Center.”

    The fact that the Obama administration is pretending this is an intelligence matter is part of the cover-up.

    Steve57 (7a880e)

  124. Comment by narciso — 11/16/2012 @ 6:05 pm

    Removing Gaddafi was not a very strategic decision. I think in many ways Libya will be Obama’s Iraq.

    The Emperor (5647ed)

  125. @jd so you mean that killing OBL means nothing?

    I said nothing of the sort.

    JD (185efa)

  126. Steve57 @ 72,

    She’s either a liar or a credulous fool. In either case she’s not qualified to be SecState.

    I agree – she is either one or the other. However, is focusing on her yet not another distraction? We are assured of one of the two options, and regardless which it is, she still answers to the president and that’s who I want to see the spotlight on.

    After all, State reports to the President. The U.N. Ambassador reports to the President. The Director of National Intelligence reports to the President. The Director of the CIA reports to the President. The buck stops there.

    Dana (292dcf)

  127. 118. @jd so you mean that killing OBL means nothing? You sound as though killing him was not important. Pls clarify.

    Comment by The Emperor — 11/16/2012 @ 6:03 pm

    OBL had been rendered irrelevant. He hadn’t left that building in that Abbottabad compound in five years. He sat in room and watched his porn collection. He no longer ran AQ.

    And frankly he probably didn’t run it for a while before that. Zawahiri merged his EIJ organization with OBL’s AQ in 1998. OBL was really a terrorist venture capitalist, not a terrorist himself. He never fought in Afghanistan against the Soviets. He financed the operations of others, though. Zawahiri had been much more hands on. Most people believe that it wasn’t really too long after the merger (but probably after 9/11) that Zawahiri was really the guy running things.

    Which is why AQ could afford to have OBL retire to his Pakistani porn room.

    Steve57 (7a880e)

  128. I’m very glad OBL is no longer with us. However, I do not think in the moment President Obama handled it with proper gravitas and dignity, nor do I think he or media ever gave proper credit to all those whose behind the scenes efforts for years– and whose skill and bravery that night (including non-Americans)- ultimately made it possible to get OBL. The “gutsy call” crap was, and is, nauseating.

    elissa (74bc77)

  129. Awlaki, was a more significant target, and we got him, because the Danes had an undercover agent in AQ, of course, they ended up outing him, discouraging anyone else that had any such notions,

    narciso (ee31f1)

  130. Not to mention the Saudis blown agent from this spring, a once in a generation find,

    narciso (ee31f1)

  131. OBL could have been captured and used for intel. The operation should have been kept secret instead of broadcasting what happened, burning our allies who helped us and ruining intel value as protocols where changed.

    I agree with Elissa that the gusty call crap was nauseating.

    Bush acted like a President, but Obama falls far short.

    It’s too bad. Bush sought real victories that would lead to democracy. Obama sought campaign points.

    Dustin (73fead)

  132. However, is focusing on her yet not another distraction?

    Most certainly, Dana. I’ve already admitted it’s a side issue. It’s just something to have in your hip pocket (if you’re a Senator) just in case Obama nominates her for SecState.

    Divert, obfuscate, muddy the waters. That’s all part of the Dem M.O., not just Obama’s.

    So this spin that the only reason Rice said what she said was due to the fact she was working off an unclassified version of the briefing is an attempt to muddy the waters.

    Obama’s bluster, “hey, don’t beat up that girl; try to beat me up, punk” is part of the diversion. The House Dem women and the CBC calling the GOP racists and sexists is part of the diversion.

    The press eats up all this drama, so that’s all they’re going to report on. Nothing substantive.

    You can tell the truth must be pretty damned bad, given how hard they’re trying to bury it.

    Rice is only important to the Benghazi investigation in one regard; why was she chosen to be the face of the administration when she had nothing to do with Benghazi.

    I think the answer’s pretty obvious. To create exactly this diversion.

    Steve57 (7a880e)

  133. Obama’s bluster, “hey, don’t beat up that girl; try to beat me up, punk” is part of the diversion. The House Dem women and the CBC calling the GOP racists and sexists is part of the diversion.

    The press eats up all this drama, so that’s all they’re going to report on. Nothing substantive.

    You can tell the truth must be pretty damned bad, given how hard they’re trying to bury it.

    Amen

    And it is coordinated now. Rice has been criticized for weeks, and they seized on McCain/Graham (but not Ayotte) to trot out all this nonsense.

    JD (185efa)

  134. I also think she was chosen because she is female and black, thus any pushback regarding the veracity of her Benghazi statement could be easily twisted into a tacit accusation of discrimination…And sadly, bullying.

    I think the administration is that cynical. They already know the truth of what happened, when. There just interested in making sure we don’t.

    Dana (292dcf)

  135. “He prosecuted that war and by so doing diverted his attention from the war in Afghanistan.”

    Obambi…Libya.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  136. Dana – At least McCain and Graham did not call Rice that despicable new code word “urban” that only Democrats can safely use, so they’ve got that going for them.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  137. Dana, definitely part of it.

    If Obama sent any of the more authoritative sources like Hillary! or Donilon the focus would have remained on Benghazi. Obama wanted a distraction, and making Rice the issue was it.

    Steve57 (7a880e)

  138. Yeah, the truth must be horrendous.

    If the Administration had a leg to stand on, they would never have trotted out the UN Ambassador to try to give an explanation. The UN Ambassador doesn’t have jurisdiction over our foreign embassies—it’s the domain of the Secretary of State and the President.
    There’s a reason Hillary took a red eye flight to go wine tasting in Australia.

    I would even submit that they sent Susan Rice out there on September 16 to tell lies knowing they could later defend against any inevitable criticism of her by playing the “you hate black women!” card as they’re doing now.

    And the Petraeus scandal just happened to be disclosed at this time, too ?

    “Look,….uh, squirrel !”

    Elephant Stone (65d289)

  139. Ahhh, I wonder if the coming economic hard times will mean there will be a shortage of straw, it would be nice:

    How did going to iraq get justice for the families that lost loved ones on 9/11? How did it make the world a safer place?
    Going to Iraq had nothing to do with getting justice of anything that happened on 9/11. Going to Iraq had to do with saying we had enough of letting tyrants and despots set up shop to export terror in an age where technology allowed a few to do damage once caused only by an invading army.

    What you should have done is continue to focus on the war in Afghanistan,

    Unfortunately, Bush went along with the “don’t be a cowboy going alone” crowd and let Afghanistan be dealt with by NATO, etc.

    hunt down OBL and kill him. That is precisely what Bush should have done. Obama did that and took out OSL within 2yrs of his presidency. Kill the guy who did kill Americans and let the world know you don’t attack Americans and get away with it.
    1) Obama did it relying on information obtained by Bush.
    2) Had Bush sent a team into Pakistan like the one did the Left would have been screaming how dare Bush violate another country’s sovereign territory.
    3) Suicide bombers and their ilk only care about the “doing” of it; “getting away with it” is a meaningless notion of those who think of a war in terms of neighborhood police activity.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  140. Ironically, MD, that was in part, Obama’s argument
    about ‘air raiding villages’ after one attempt went wrong in Bajaur province, in 2006,

    narciso (ee31f1)

  141. I think we need to come up with a parody of Taylor Swift’s “We are never, never, ever getting back together” for some folk around here..something about getting tired of people picking fights and arguments.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  142. Comment by narciso —

    And I think John (soon to be Sec. of Defense?!?!?!) Kerry said it was rude to ignore local customs and invade homes in the middle of the night reminiscent of Genghis Khan, as well.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  143. OT, since she takes out her frustrations in her latest song, that next song about Conor Kennedy might be a beaut,

    narciso (ee31f1)

  144. JD @ 140,

    The president sure knows precisely how his loyalists will react, doesn’t he? Why, it’s almost as if he counted on it.

    Dana (292dcf)

  145. Or planned it.

    JD (318f81)

  146. via Instapundit:

    BREAKING: The president knew the truth about Benghazi

    In a blockbuster report, John Solomon, the former Associated Press and Post reporter, has ferreted out the president’s daily brief that informed him within 72 hours of the Sept. 11 attack that the Benghazi attack was a jihadist operation.

    Citing officials directly familiar with the information, Solomon writes in the Washington Guardian that Obama and other administration officials were told that “that the attack was likely carried out by local militia and other armed extremists sympathetic to al-Qaida in the region.”

    Hence the racist hystrionics from the crones of the CBC today. The President has woven a web of lies, and they’re about to unravel.

    Rubin adds:

    Solomon cautions that there were bits of evidence pointing to a spontaneous attack but, as Eli Lake of the Daily Beast and others have reported, he writes: “Among the early evidence cited in the briefings to the president and other senior officials were intercepts showing some of the participants were known members or supporters of Ansar al-Sharia — the al-Qaida-sympathizing militia in Libya — and the AQIM, which is a direct affiliate of al-Qaida in northern Africa, the officials said.”

    As I wrote this morning:

    So nobody concluded this was a result of a protest. News reports via CNN claimed Petraeus had 20 or so intel reports that said the attack might have been motivated by anger over the video. But nowhere in the reporting do I see any indication that he said there was even a protest, just an attack. And who wants to bet CIA had other intel reports about the nature of the attack.

    There was just no way, no way, that there was as Rice said; there was no evidence that it was anything but “spontaneous movie criticism.”

    We don’t see at this point — signs that this was a coordinated, premeditated attack.

    How do I know? Lots of reasons. But one is that this administration kept talking about a “fog of war.” Let me tell you something; if all the evidence is pointing toward one thing and one thing only, then there is no “fog.”

    Rubin includes in interesting quote from Dana Milbank about Rice:

    It’s true that, in her much-criticized TV performance, she was reciting talking points given to her by the intelligence agencies. But that’s the trouble. Rice stuck with her points even though they had been contradicted by the president of the Libyan National Assembly, who, on CBS’s ‘Face the Nation’ just before Rice, said there was “no doubt” that the attack on Americans in Benghazi “was preplanned.” Rice rebutted the Libyan official, arguing — falsely, it turned out — that there was no evidence of such planning. . . . Obama can do better at State than Susan Rice.

    My first reaction was, not from Obama’s POV, Dana.

    We the citizens could do better, but we don’t count.

    The article Rubin gets her information from can be found here:

    President told within 72 hours Benghazi attack linked to al-Qaida extremists

    Steve57 (7a880e)

  147. @birdbath. “Bush was using the intelligence he was given.” So was Rice.
    Comment by The Emperor — 11/16/2012 @ 3:20 pm

    – Yeah, well, you be sure to let us know when she acknowledges the mistake, m’kay?

    Icy (e89474)

  148. “John Solomon, the former Associated Press and Post reporter, has ferreted out the president’s daily brief that informed him within 72 hours of the Sept. 11 attack that the Benghazi attack was a jihadist operation.”

    Steve57 – Yeah, but President Gutsy Call will just say he’s a better intelligence analyst than the career professionals in our intelligence community. In case you hadn’t noticed, he’s a true renaissance president in his own mind.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  149. 148. @birdbath. “Bush was using the intelligence he was given.” So was Rice.
    Comment by The Emperor — 11/16/2012 @ 3:20 pm

    – Yeah, well, you be sure to let us know when she acknowledges the mistake, m’kay?

    Comment by Icy — 11/16/2012 @ 10:13 pm

    I’m curious, is this so hard to figure out? Bush was given intelligence about what we would find in Iraq.

    By the time Rice went on TV, State and CIA had after action reports about what had happened in Benghazi.

    The future’s uncertain; the past isn’t. Whoever gave Rice those talking points about some spontaneous protest lied. It hadn’t happened.

    The fact that “intel” was giving her talking points is the first bit of evidence the Obama admin was covering up of a cover-up.

    These people would have us believe you have to have an investigation to find out what happened. The reason you have command centers like the White House situation room is to KEEP ON TOP OF THE EFFIN SITUATION.

    This administration would have us believe it’s just natural they need to have an investigation so Obama can find out where he was and what he did on 9/11, or Hillary! needs to have an investigation to find out what she had for lunch before she dares order dinner.

    Usually the past is certain. Not with this crowd. First they need to find out what you know about their past. Then they’ll come up with a story. And they’ll keep changing the story of the past until they find one that works.

    Steve57 (7a880e)

  150. The Electoral College has not met yet. (And, yes, I know what a pipe dream is.)

    nk (875f57)

  151. nk, my pipe dream is that somebody cuts through the BS and tell these lying a-maggots we know they’re lying and why.

    One of the functions of places like the WH situation room or the National Military Command Center is to log what happens as it occurs.

    The record of what happened is already there. You don’t need an investigation to find out what happened because we already have the record.

    Unless that is you want to sit on the evidence. Or change the record.

    Reagan went on TV and told the nation what happened 4 days after the Marine Barracks in Beirut was bombed. Obama’s still investigating.

    CIA talking points for Susan Rice called Benghazi attack “spontaneously inspired” by protests

    The above report is interesting for two reasons. The news babe talks about how the DoS still hasn’t interviewed Hillary! about her role during 9/11 v2.0. Yeah, that directive Obama gave, “find out what happened” is being taken about as seriously as his directive to do “all we can to secure our people.” But the info babe does cheerfully point out that the DoS has “already” debriefed the five DS agents involved. She seems to think that’s fast work.

    The second point I find interesting is they clearly report Rice had “CIA” talking points. Yet the former CIA director said she didn’t get them from him.

    I wonder how this crew will scrub this dodge and what their next con will be. And how CBS will bend over backwards to help them, like the editors of the New Soviet Encyclopedia telling subscribers to cut out pages as Politburo members are purged from the memory banks.

    Steve57 (7a880e)

  152. Shocka. Dana Millbank publicly turns racist sexist in one swell foop!

    Obama’s over-the-top defense of Rice was surprising, particularly in contrast to the president’s relative indifference in accepting the resignation of CIA chief David Petraeus, one of the most capable public servants. And it was disappointing, because McCain, even if wrong on the particulars, is right about Rice. She is ill-equipped to be the nation’s top diplomat for reasons that have little to do with Libya.

    Even in a town that rewards sharp elbows and brusque personalities, Rice has managed to make an impressive array of enemies — on Capitol Hill, in Foggy Bottom and abroad.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-susan-rices-tarnished-resume/2012/11/16/55ec3382-3012-11e2-a30e-5ca76eeec857_story.html

    elissa (2eaf50)

  153. How exactly is McCain wrong on the particular’s, I know baby steps

    narciso (ee31f1)

  154. This is a summary of all anyone needs to know:
    http://www.nypost.com/opinion/cartoons/ramirez.htm

    via PowerLine

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  155. WOMEN IN PETRAEUS SCANDAL HAD VISITED WHITE HOUSE
    WASHINGTON (AP) – Their close ties to the military community giving them unusual access to top generals, Paula Broadwell and Jill Kelley even visited the White House on separate and apparently unrelated occasions before a sex scandal brought down former CIA Director David Petraeus. Neither woman met with President Barack Obama during their visits, a White House official said.

    – Jay Carney knows 3 Paula Broadwell’s and 4 Jill Kelley’s.
    And, as usual, Barack Obama knows nothink (sic).

    Icy (093576)

  156. This is all a distraction from Buuuuuuuuush and the rethuglikkkan war on women.

    JD (318f81)

  157. oops! Taliban “accidently” cc’s by name everybody in its email address book.

    http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/11/16/taliban_accidentally_ccs_everybody_on_its_mailing_list

    elissa (88944e)

  158. It seems there were two problem with the talking points.

    The change at the last minute was striking the term “Al Qaeda” and replacing it with extremists. That’s what Petraeus signed off on.(This was supposedly to keep Al Qaeda from knowing we were on to them. Incidentally it really wasn’t Al Qaeda as commonly conceived anyway)

    The words “spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. diplomatic post in Bengazi and subsequently its annex” were already in there.

    Sammy Finkelman (69e89f)

  159. Note the “talking points” say nothing about a video, but “spontaneously” doesn’t make too much sense unless you think both Cairo and Benghazi were about a video because otherwise they have no sudden emotional trigger.

    Sammy Finkelman (69e89f)

  160. @Steve. Is it conceivable that the Bush administration did not know that there were no WMDs in iraq before invading it? Really? Bush did not act on real intelligence as he did on propaganda.

    Nobody knew. All the evidence showed that the weapons were there, and everybody in the world believed it. The documents found show that even the Iraqis believed it. There was no way anybody could have known that they weren’t there. The only reason we now think they weren’t is because we didn’t find them. There are at least three possible explanations: 1) they were there, but they were moved to Syria; 2) they were there and were so well hidden that we haven’t found them; or 3) the people who were supposed to be building them were only pretending to do so, and were pocketing the money. I think option 3 is the most likely, but if so these people were stealing from a man who put his enemies in plastic shredders; they would have had to keep their secret very well indeed. So if they could keep it secret from Saddam Hussein, how on earth could USA intel ever have found it out? Tell me that.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  161. I was only drawing a comparison between the Bush wmd cover up and this present one

    What Bush WMD cover-up? There was none. The Bush administration was at all times completely frank with the public about what it knew. That is the difference.

    I also said Rice simply said what she was told to say. Don’t kill the messenger cos you hate the message.

    She’s not some flunky, she’s a cabinet member. She was representing the administration, and the administration certainly knew what she was saying was untrue; if she personally didn’t know it then she’s unfit for office, and if she did know it then she’s also unfit for office.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  162. After that attack America launched an attack against AQ then located in Afghanistan. The mission was to hunt down those who murdered thousands of Americans. It was a mission supported by all including the world community.

    On the night of 11-Sep-2001, President Bush went on TV and declared that the USA was at war, not just with the specific people who were involved with this attack, but with the entire terrorist network of which they were part. That network included Iraq.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  163. But somewhere along the line Bush decided that finding OSL was not the most important thing on his mind

    It wasn’t. The war was never about catching one individual.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  164. How did going to iraq get justice for the families that lost loved ones on 9/11?

    What the hell does that have to do with it? Do you imagine we went to war to “get justice” for 3000 families?! What did invading North Africa have to do with “getting justice” for the families of the sailors killed at Pearl Harbor?

    How did it make the world a safer place?

    Are you f–ing kidding me?! Saddam Hussein was a danger to the world. He was promoting international terrorism, he was developing weapons with which he could once again attack other countries, and he was shooting at our planes. He had thoroughly corrupted the Oil-For-Food program, so that the sanctions against Iraq were reduced to little more than a joke. He tried to assassinate a former US president. Removing him by definition made the world both a safer and a better place.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  165. Oh, and as MD in Philly pointed out earlier, the invasion of Iraq was not “based on false intelligence”, because even if there was no huge stockpile of WMD that was not the only or even the main reason for the invasion. Congress, in declaring war on Iraq, listed about a dozen reasons, if I remember correctly, and I don’t think the presence of the WMD stockpile was one of them, or if it was then that leaves all the rest of the reasons intact.

    The main significance of the intel about the WMD stockpile was that it drove the timing of the invasion. We already knew we would have to take care of Iraq sooner or later, but it didn’t have to be done right then. We could have concentrated on Afghanistan, or maybe taken on North Korea or Iran, and left Iraq for later. What made us decide that Iraq had to be dealt with immediately was the fear that he had a stockpile of ready-to-use WMDs, and one could never know when he’d decide to use them. That fear turned out to be overestimated, and in hindsight it could have waited a year or two. But it would have had to be done anyway.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  166. 160.Note the “talking points” say nothing about a video, but “spontaneously” doesn’t make too much sense unless you think both Cairo and Benghazi were about a video because otherwise they have no sudden emotional trigger.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman — 11/17/2012 @ 8:59 pm

    Sammy, “spontaneous” is a word that can not be applied to either Cairo or Benghazi. As I apparently never get tired of saying (apparently) the Islamists in Egypt issued a press release sometime before Sep 9 calling for the assault on the Cairo embassy that was translated into English and posted on the internet by Sep 10.

    http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/09/10/jihadis-threaten-to-burn-u-s-embassy-in-cairo/

    Jihadis Threaten to Burn U.S. Embassy in Cairo

    Jihadi groups in Egypt, including Islamic Jihad, the Sunni Group, and Al Gamaa Al Islamiyya have issued a statement threatening to burn the U.S. Embassy in Cairo to the ground.

    According to El Fagr, they are calling for the immediate release of the Islamic jihadis who are imprisonment and in detention centers in the U.S. including Guantanamo Bay: “The group, which consists of many members from al-Qaeda, called [especially] for the quick release of the jihadi [mujahid] sheikh, Omar Abdul Rahman [the "Blind Sheikh"], whom they described as a scholar and jihadi who sacrificed his life for the Egyptian Umma, who was ignored by the Mubarak regime, and [President] Morsi is refusing to intervene on his behalf and release him, despite promising that he would. The Islamic Group has threatened to burn the U.S. Embassy in Cairo with those in it, and taking hostage those who remain [alive], unless the Blind Sheikh is immediately released.”

    Mohammad al Zawahiri is the brother of AQ leader Ayman al Zawahiri and is a member of Egyptian Islamic Jihad (he says he quit; he lies).

    He was at the embassy protest. I’m not going to post that CNN video in which he leads Nic Robertson to the protest site and explains that the protests is about getting the Blind Sheik as well as all the GITMO prisoners as well as other detainees released. Just as there is nothing about the “Muhammad” video in the press release neither does it come up in the CNN interview.

    Then on 12 September:

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/zawahiris-brother-cairo-embassy-assault_652217.html

    Zawahiri’s Brother at Cairo Embassy Assault

    During the assault on the U.S. embassy in Egypt, demonstrators reportedly chanted “Obama! Obama! We are all Osama!” They yelled this obvious reference to Osama bin Laden as an al Qaeda-style flag was hoisted and the American flag brought down. At least one of the protesters at the anti-American rally knows a thing or two about al Qaeda: Mohammed al Zawahiri, who is the younger brother of al Qaeda’s emir, Ayman al Zawahiri.

    Mohammed al Zawahiri has even claimed credit for sparking the anti-American protest. “We called for the peaceful protest joined by different Islamic factions including the Islamic Jihad (and the) Hazem Abu Ismael movement,” he said, according to CNN. Islamic Jihad is most likely the Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ), a core part of al Qaeda’s international jihadist coalition.

    They called for it. And we know they called for it because it was in the Egyptian press days ahead of the event. We know they called for it because CNN was onsite.

    Apparently the US Government has an entirely different definition for the word “spontaneous” than the rest of the English speaking world. Because in my book something that is announced days in advance is not spontaneous.

    Neither what happened at Cairo or Benghazi was spontaneous, nor did they have anything to do with the video. Embassy Cairo would have known that, or somebody either there or at State who is supposed to be monitoring the press wasn’t doing their job.

    Steve57 (7a880e)

  167. Just to add, the government knew these events had nothing to do with the video. They just flat lied.

    Steve57 (7a880e)

  168. 167.Oh, and as MD in Philly pointed out earlier, the invasion of Iraq was not “based on false intelligence”, because even if there was no huge stockpile of WMD that was not the only or even the main reason for the invasion. Congress, in declaring war on Iraq, listed about a dozen reasons, if I remember correctly, and I don’t think the presence of the WMD stockpile was one of them, or if it was then that leaves all the rest of the reasons intact.

    The main significance of the intel about the WMD stockpile was…

    Comment by Milhouse — 11/17/2012 @ 11:25 pm

    http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm

    Public Law 107-243 is the AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002.

    Milhouse is quite right; there are a laundry list of issues at stake. All of them taken from the armistice, commonly know as the Safwan Accords, that ended the hostilities but not the state of war known as Desert Storm One. I’ve often said that there were two places in the world where Bush couldn’t have lied us into a war. North Korea and Iraq, where at the time we were already at war, de facto and de jure. Peace treaties end wars; an armistice just ends the shooting which can resume at any time one of the contracting parties believes the armistice has been violated.

    Earlier I mentioned Operation Desert Fox, in which in 1998 President Clinton unleashed a four day air war intended to destroy Saddam Hussein’s WMD capabilities.

    I mentioned that the intel hadn’t really changed between 1998 and 2002 when Bush received this authorization to restart hostilities with Iraq for essentially violating the armistice. In the AUMF Iraq, in a detail I forgot, Congress reaffirms what I said in the first sentence of this paragraph.

    Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that
    Iraq’s continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened
    vital United States interests and international peace and security,
    declared Iraq to be in “material and unacceptable breach of its
    international obligations” and urged the President “to take
    appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant
    laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its
    international obligations”;

    Congress asserts the same thing; things hadn’t really changed.

    The idea that Bush lied us into war is fashionable now, I suppose, if you’ve been on crack for 10 or so years. But in 2002 everybody believed Saddam was still up to his same old tricks.

    Also, a word about the “flawed” intel. It never mattered to me because intel was the wrong tool for the job. It was up to the intel types to determine if Saddam still had WMDs or give him a clean bill of health. It was up to Saddam to prove to weapons inspectors that he had destroyed all known or suspected stockpiles. We weren’t supposed to guess from afar; the deal was we got to go into Iraq and frisk him. He violated the deal known as the Safwan accords (later incorporated into UN resolutions). When you violate an armistice you reignite hostilities; it’s that simple. Frankly, we should have done something years earlier about Saddam because he was in violation of the ceasefire within weeks of signing it 1991. It was actually one of the reasons I left active duty in 1997. I felt I was wasting my time if I had to go sit in the Persian Gulf “enforcing” something I knew neither my own country nor Iraq was serious about.

    So keep in mind the only reason we’re talking about intel and Bush “lying” us into war was that Saddam flagrantly violated the ceasefire and we eventually let him get away with it. Until Bush didn’t.

    Steve57 (7a880e)

  169. *It was wasn’t up to the intel types to determine…*

    Steve57 (7a880e)

  170. You love them conspiracy theories. Lets see if this one ends up being true, as opposed to ALL the other ones that didn’t. I mean you can rant and rave and all, but what it comes down to is whether it is BS or not, and it always seems to be BS. But keep on trying.

    Sirch Theoon (78cfaa)

  171. Comment by Steve57 — 11/18/2012 @ 12:38 am

    Sammy, “spontaneous” is a word that can not be applied to either Cairo or Benghazi.

    “Spontaneous” was used in CIA the talking points only about Benghazi, and the talking points never mentioned a video, or any cause of the protests Cairo (it claimed the Benghazi demonstrations, which they said evolved into assaults, were “inspired” by what happened n Cairo, which would mean they only got the idea after they saw what happened in Cairo. )

    Susan Rice added the idea of a video from other sources. Were this came from almost seems to be lost in the mists of time. The news media are derelict in tracing that. We all heard the idea of a video, yet the demonstrators in Cairo never mentioned it.So where did this idea come from? Was it in the statement from the Cairo embassy?

    Susan Rice also added the idea (perhaps at somebody’s urging) that President Obama, had, after all, dismantled Al Qaeda, and this was a contradiction to some of the classified information she had probably received.

    The idea of the events in Benghazi starting as something spontaneously inspired by the events in Cairo, and the idea that there was a demonstration which only evolved into an assault later was not what had been altered from the original talking points. That was there already.

    We don’t hear much, if anything, about where that came from. Probably it was the result of Sooper Sekrit intelligence.

    What was altered in the talking points by the deputies committee was the striking out of the term “Al Qaeda” and replacing it with “extremists.”

    The White House itself changed only one thing – Senator Feinstein said she looked into this very carefully – they replaced “consulate” with :diplomatic post” because it wasn’t technically a consulate, even though people in Benghazi (and reporters who copied them) called it that.

    …the Islamists in Egypt issued a press release sometime before Sep 9 calling for the assault on the Cairo embassy that was translated into English and posted on the internet by Sep 10.

    http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/09/10/jihadis-threaten-to-burn-u-s-embassy-in-cairo/

    Jihadis Threaten to Burn U.S. Embassy in Cairo

    Jihadi groups in Egypt, including Islamic Jihad, the Sunni Group, and Al Gamaa Al Islamiyya have issued a statement threatening to burn the U.S. Embassy in Cairo to the ground.

    According to El Fagr, they are calling for the immediate release of the Islamic jihadis who are imprisonment and in detention centers in the U.S. including Guantanamo Bay:

    Where, where, where, and when did the idea that this was about a video trailer for a (non-existent) movie about Mohammed with a misleading title come from???

    Apparently the US Government has an entirely different definition for the word “spontaneous” than the rest of the English speaking world. Because in my book something that is announced days in advance is not spontaneous.

    Cairo was announced, not Benghazi. And they used the words “spontaneously inspired” only with regard to Benghazi. They did not explain Cairo, but it was all over the world’s media that it was about a video.

    Neither what happened at Cairo or Benghazi was spontaneous, nor did they have anything to do
    with the video. Embassy Cairo would have known that, or somebody either there or at State who is supposed to be monitoring the press wasn’t doing their job.

    But the CIA’s Sooper Sekrit intelligence superceded what they knew at the State Department or could have learned from the press.

    Sammy Finkelman (69e89f)

  172. What I’m saying is that the idea of something spontaneous and the idea there was a demonstration in Benghazi originated at the CIA, not in the White House. It’s so hard for people to get rid of this paradigm.

    Threre are moles in the CIA – it’s not political interference.

    Sammy Finkelman (69e89f)

  173. You love them conspiracy theories.

    Sirch, can you tell us what you imagine a “conspiracy theory” to consist of?

    Because in this case, the “conspiracy theory” happens to consist of, oh, I dunno, executive branch cabinet secretaries work for the President. So if the cabinet secretaries are doing something, they’re doing it for the President.

    But the I’ll let you into just how deep and broad the conspiracy is, Sirch.

    Shhh! Don’t tell anyone, but, sometimes executive branch departments work with each other.

    (cue the horror movie music)

    Duh Duh Duuuuh!

    Steve57 (7a880e)

  174. Comment by Steve57 — 11/18/2012 @ 12:39 am

    the government knew these events had nothing to do with the video. They just flat lied.

    No, something happened to start this story. It is hardrdly likely that President Obama and David Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett dug up this video by themselves.

    Sammy Finkelman (69e89f)

  175. On short notice.

    No, somebody told various people in the U.S. government the protests were about a video – and they were believed.

    Sammy Finkelman (69e89f)

  176. And those stories about the ambassador’s body being abused – or about him being a homosexual? Where did that come from?

    (Today the New York Times magazine mentions he had a long-term girlfriend, off and on for ten years, Henriette von Kaltenborn-Stauchau, who went to Kabul in early September for routine work. She says she had a dream about him being pull ed away from her on the night of Sept. 11 and awoke to hear the news from Benghazi.)

    Sammy Finkelman (69e89f)

  177. Call me when all this BS pans out to be anything other than an inept attempt to smear the President by a bunch of sore losers.

    Sirch Theoon (78cfaa)

  178. Sammy @176, they had survivors on 12 September who were actual witnesses to the event. There was a Diplomatic Security agent in the Tactical Operation Center who sent the alarm.

    There was nothing unusual on the street, he reported, until he sent the alarm and said the consulate was under attack.

    He was not the only witness.

    Do you rely on eye witnesses, Sammy, eye witnesses who work for you when you put your after action reports together? Or do you rely on on your Saudi or Jordanian intelligence contacts to tell you what was going on outside that gate?

    Steve57 (7a880e)

  179. Buh bye, Sirch.

    Steve57 (7a880e)

  180. Call me when all this BS pans out to be anything other than an inept attempt to smear the President by a bunch of sore losers.

    Comment by Sirch Theoon — 11/18/2012 @ 8:23 pm

    No, I don’t think I will do so. Because I think you are a coward. And I do not accept the premises in your nonsense.

    JD (318f81)

  181. You love them conspiracy theories. Lets see if this one ends up being true, as opposed to ALL the other ones that didn’t. I mean you can rant and rave and all, but what it comes down to is whether it is BS or not, and it always seems to be BS. But keep on trying.

    Care to give some examples of “conspiracy theories” we believed that turned out to be BS?

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  182. Milhouse, he has the same idea of a “conspiracy theory” as MENSA member Soledad O’Brien.

    CNN’s O’Brien Furiously Spins to Blame Republicans in Congress for Dead in Benghazi

    O’BRIEN: It was Jay Carney who did not go as far. So my question for you would be when you say there was some kind of collusion. That was a very serious charge. Where are you seeing evidence of collusion between the State Department and the White House?

    How DARE the President order about Hillary!’s State Department. Who does he think he is, anyway? What’s next; he’ll want her to report back to him?

    Steve57 (7a880e)

  183. Which ones didn’t? I mean seriously. I’m sure there are a few you are still clinging to by your fingernails, like this one, but they’ve all been thoroughly debunked by pretty much the rest of the known universe which uses these things called facts and science, rather than conjecture and hyperbole.

    Sirch Theoon (78cfaa)

  184. Sirch, then they should be easy to list.

    Steve57 (7a880e)

  185. Oh, and SCIENCE! Don’t forget to tell us how the rest of the universe scientifically debunked them. That should be fun.

    Steve57 (7a880e)

  186. Which ones didn’t? I mean seriously

    Care to enlighten us, then? I mean, what the hell are you talking about?

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  187. Sirch is one of those serial liars. From it’s first comment it was apparent. Anything it disagrees with is. Conspiracy people pushed by crazy people. And have been debunked by science already. Like Benghazi.

    JD (318f81)

  188. 189.Sirch is one of those serial liars. From it’s first comment it was apparent. Anything it disagrees with is. Conspiracy people pushed by crazy people. And have been debunked by science already. Like Benghazi.

    Comment by JD — 11/18/2012 @ 9:33 pm

    So???

    SCIENCE! proves we still have a diplomatic facility there? And Stevens, Smith, Woods and Doherty faked their own deaths?

    Steve57 (7a880e)

  189. Cereal liars are those communists who misreported the grain harvests to make the kolkhoz look good.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  190. SCIENCE proves there’s no such place as Benghazi. Can you find it on a map? No. Then it must not exist. Oh, wait, my map has a crease in it, and there’s a Hostess™ cupcake crumb in it. Oh, hey, waddayaknow!

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  191. Sounds like a conspiracy to conceal the location of Benghazi to me, Milhouse. I believe the vulture capitalists creased your map right after the private equity firm dropped the cupcake crumb on it.

    And of course the union workers got screwed cuz theze corporate fatcats have all this extra inventory they can go around dropping crumbs all over Benghazi for free but they can’t give their workers a raise.

    Racists!

    Steve57 (7a880e)

  192. “No, somebody told various people in the U.S. government the protests were about a video – and they were believed.”

    Sammy – The Cairo Embassy apologized twice for the video on 9/11. Once before the demonstrations started and once during the demonstrations. They were criticized by Washington for their apologies. Obama, Clinton and Romney.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  193. 194. “No, somebody told various people in the U.S. government the protests were about a video – and they were believed.”

    Sammy – The Cairo Embassy apologized twice for the video on 9/11. Once before the demonstrations started and once during the demonstrations. They were criticized by Washington for their apologies. Obama, Clinton and Romney.

    Comment by daleyrocks — 11/19/2012 @ 7:45 am

    It’s hard to believe that our crack WH team of intellectual heavyweights could be so easily duped.

    As Obama stood next to the world’s most recognized democracy icon, he mispronounced her name repeatedly.

    Ever gracious, Suu Kyi did not correct her American guest for calling her Aung YAN Suu Kyi multiple times during his statement to reporters after their meeting.

    Proper pronunciation for the Nobel laureate’s name is Ahng Sahn Soo Chee.

    The meeting came after Obama met with Myanmar’s reformist new President Thein Sein – a name he also botched.

    As the two addressed the media, Obama called his counterpart “President Sein,” an awkward, slightly affectionate reference that would make most Burmese cringe.

    Note to presidential advisers: For future rounds of diplomacy, the president of Myanmar is President Thein Sein – on first and second reference.

    He’s a better linguist than the DoS language people. He’s better at protocol than the DoS protocol people. He’s a better intel analyst than the CIA…

    Steve57 (7a880e)

  194. Then again, Jesse Helms, reading from note his staff had prepared referring to Kim Jong Il, pronounced it “Kim Jong the second”. The next time they decided to spell it out phonetically as “Kim Jong Ill”; so he pronounced it “Kim Jong the third”!

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  195. Milhouse, I’ve always regretted the fact this nation elected such a functional illiterate as Jesse Helms to the presidency.

    Steve57 (7a880e)

  196. And yet Helms did yeoman duty pushing back against various admin’s acceptance of UN corruption.

    SPQR (7c2e45)

  197. Most of the time I think Obama’s numerous malapropisms are mere gaffes. But after Axelrod went on TV trying to claim that Obama supports the military because he meets the coffins I realized that corpse-man wasn’t just a simple slip of the tongue.

    It reveals when he’s most comfortable interacting with a servicemember.

    Steve57 (7a880e)

  198. Helms was a very good senator. Not getting this sort of thing is not a sign of general stupidity or incompetence; it’s a very localised sort of ignorance. I’ll bet that if instead of trying to correct his mistake by spelling it phonetically they’d simply told him about his mistake the first time, he wouldn’t have repeated it.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  199. While I was always convinced the attack on the consulate in Benghazi was a deliberate, planned assault, I’m still not convinced it falls into the category of “terrorism.” It may seem like splitting hairs, and yes Ansar Al Sharia is an AQ affiliate. But it is also a militia. And like the February 17th Martyr’s Brigade which was hired to guard the consulate undoubtedly its services are for sale to the highest bidder.

    http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/64/58423/Egypt/Politics-/Egypt-and-Turkey-can-bring-MidEast-stability-witho.aspx

    Egypt, Turkey can bring Mideast stability without foreign brokers: Erdogan

    Without foreign brokers; that’d be Erdogan’s buddy Obama.

    Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayipp Erdogan said Saturday that Egypt and Turkey are capable of jointly bringing stability to the Middle East. He made his comments during a speech at Cairo University after holding talks with President Mohamed Morsi on the situation in Gaza where at least 39 Palestinians have been killed in an ongoing Israeli onslaught on the coastal strip.

    Erdogan praised Morsi’s decision to recall Egypt’s ambassador to Israel, adding that Turkey will continue to cooperate with Egypt on Gaza. The Turkish premier affirmed that his country will work with Egypt and the international community to support the Palestinian people.

    He added that Turkey and post-revolution Egypt can guide the region without the need for outside “brokers.”

    The last guest Amb. Stevens entertained at the Benghazi consulate, and in his life, was the Turkish consul general. Who would have then had to run the Ansar Al Shariah gauntlet of roadblocks to depart, apparently without difficulty.

    It certainly makes it appear the Turks had some level of complicity in the events of that night.

    I just can’t shake the impression that whatever was going on in that consulate its demise is related to Erdogan’s conviction that he doesn’t need or want outsiders meddling in what he sees as his patch.

    Steve57 (7a880e)

  200. Not getting this sort of thing is not a sign of general stupidity or incompetence; it’s a very localised sort of ignorance.

    Perhaps, Milhouse. But Foreign Policy was supposed to be one of President Tiger Beat’s strong points. He consistently blunders around the Foreign Policy stage like a drunken moose throught the well-tended garden of diplomacy. How many times did he mangle Aung San Suu Kyi’s name?

    A small point? Perhaps, but a revealing one. His lack of attention to detail reflects his disinterest in the whole subject. He’s disengaged. And his disengagement from reality allows him to convince himself he’s doing a marvelous job.

    Case in point:

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/18/us-britain-warn-about-risks-israel-becoming-involved-in-ground-war/

    “If that can be accomplished without a ramping up of military activity in Gaza, that’s preferable,” Obama said. “It’s not just preferable for the people of Gaza. It’s also preferable for Israelis, because if Israeli troops are in Gaza, they’re much more at risk of incurring fatalities or being wounded.”

    I don’t care what anyone might think of Bibi Netanyahu, he did fight as an Israeli foot soldier in the ’67 and ’73 wars and was himself shot in the shoulder. Any man in Obama’s position, especially a man with Obama’s curriculum vitae, with the slightest toehold on reality would be embarrassed to give him the above advice.

    Obama is so disengaged from reality, so self-unaware, he is not. He actually seems pleased with himself for being so insightful.

    if instead . . . they’d simply told him about his mistake the first time, he wouldn’t have repeated it.

    I was being tongue-in-cheek about Sen. Helmes earlier. But I’ll bet nobody could ever correct this President because first you’d have to convince him he made a mistake. And good luck with that.

    Steve57 (7a880e)

  201. Not getting this sort of thing is not a sign of general stupidity or incompetence; it’s a very localised sort of ignorance.

    Perhaps, Milhouse. But Foreign Policy was supposed to be one of President Tiger Beat’s strong points. He consistently blunders around the Foreign Policy stage like a drunken moose throught the well-tended garden of diplomacy.

    Yes, absolutely. He has alienated our allies, and amused our foes. He has turned America into an international joke, and his imagined “friends” secretly regard him as a slave and an apostate. But I was talking about Jesse Helms, who had clear vision and a good sense of his job, but perhaps not as much general knowledge as he should have had, specifically in the names of major players in international affairs.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  202. So how’s this conspiracy theory working out so far for you? Susan Rice will make an excellent Sec. of state.

    Sirch Theoon (78cfaa)

  203. Sirch, she’s incompetent. Like Hillary and Obama.

    SPQR (7eb50a)

  204. Sirch, what’s amusing about your ” conspiracy theory” BS is had this klown kar admin managed to “conspire” to (in order) 1. Get briefed on the dangers in Benghazi 2. Close the consulate 3. Having failed to do that secured it. 4. Having failed to do that developed contngency plans. 5. Having failed to do that put together a relief force. We woldn’t be where we are now. And now they can’t even “conspire” to cobble together a cover-up that can pass the laugh test.

    Steve57 (0e996b)

  205. What is your native tongue, Steve57? English can be so difficult as a second language. That last response reads like some sort of to-do list written in a kind of tortured and confusing logic.

    Sirch Theoon (78cfaa)

  206. Well, its easy for his points to go over your head, Sirch, since it appears that your head is about knee level to most people.

    SPQR (768505)

  207. Well Helms had a cracker jack staff that included at various times, John Bolton, Otto Reich, really
    the top bench of the conservative foreign policy
    network,

    narciso (ee31f1)

  208. Comment by Steve57 — 11/18/2012 @ 8:25 pm

    Do you rely on eye witnesses, Sammy, eye witnesses who work for you when you put your after action reports together? Or do you rely on on your Saudi or Jordanian intelligence contacts to tell you what was going on outside that gate?

    If you’re the CIA, you rely on your trusted informants, and the Libyan government and foreign intelligence contacts you’ve been dealing with every day, and you afterward justify what you did as the logical way to proceed.

    And if you are Obama, you accept this kind of nonsense because after all, they worked hard.

    Sammy Finkelman (4da72c)

  209. The White House only change thw wrd consulate. The Directorate of National Intelligence (which apparently is located in some other building than the White House – its Zip code is 20511( eliminated the terms “Al Qaeda” and “terrorist” and replaced it with “extremist.”

    The idea of a spontaneous demonstration about the vide originated within the CIA.

    Sammy Finkelman (4da72c)

  210. Like Clapper’s ‘mostly secular’ remarks about the Brotherhood, no this comes from the White House, although Justice is probably the intermediary,

    narciso (ee31f1)

  211. “The idea of a spontaneous demonstration about the vide originated within the CIA.”

    Sammy – Where do you see the video angle originating from the CIA?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  212. ‘Forget it, he’s rolling’

    narciso (ee31f1)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4951 secs.