Patterico's Pontifications

5/10/2013

More Benghazi Talking Point Revelations, Plus: Is Nakoula a Political Prisoner?

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:36 am



Jonathan Karl at ABC News:

When it became clear last fall that the CIA’s now discredited Benghazi talking points were flawed, the White House said repeatedly the documents were put together almost entirely by the intelligence community, but White House documents reviewed by Congress suggest a different story.

ABC News has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show they were extensively edited as they evolved from the drafts first written entirely by the CIA to the final version distributed to Congress and to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice before she appeared on five talk shows the Sunday after that attack.

White House emails reviewed by ABC News suggest the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department. The edits included requests from the State Department that references to the Al Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia be deleted as well references to CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack.

That would appear to directly contradict what White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said about the talking points in November.

I’m concerned that Jonathan Karl’s reporting is coming dangerously close to advocacy. Can we shut him up in any way?

Speaking of shutting people up, a small Internet debate has been occurring concerning the question of whether that Nakoula fellow is a “political prisoner.” Those saying “yes” include folks like iowahawk and Adam Baldwin on Twitter. (UPDATE: And Instapundit, who has a refrain echoed in several posts: “filmmaker Nakoula is still in jail.” Thanks to Rob Crawford.) On the “no” side is Ken White at Popehat, who makes the eminently sensible argument, which we have discussed before, that Nakoula’s antics of being a fraudster using a phony name while being on supervised release and under orders not to use a phony name . . . well, that kind of thing tends to get you locked up. And rightfully so, I would think.

And yet, with an Administration that tried to get YouTube to remove his video . . . and with Hillary declaring: “We will make sure that the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted” . . . it kinda feels like he was targeted for his speech, doesn’t it?

I think Ken from Popehat is giving short shrift to that concern in his post. He shows concern for the possibility that Obama has abused his position, to be sure, but he’s a bit harsh on the people raising that concern, in my view.

I guess my question is: if an Administration targets people for criminal investigation because of their speech, and it turns out some of them have committed crimes, does that make everything hunky dory? The answer, I think, should be no. If an Administration targets only critics of the President for IRS audits (not that any such thing could ever actually happen!!), and it turns out some of those critics have cheated on their taxes, I’m not sure those people should get a pass for their tax evasion . . . but I also think that President should be impeached.

In other words, there is a problem.

Ken promises a post on the law in this area soon. I look forward to it. I hope it concentrates, not just on the narrow question of whether a conviction should be reversed for selective investigation, but also what free speech concerns are raised by selective investigation, and what the remedies for that might be.

291 Responses to “More Benghazi Talking Point Revelations, Plus: Is Nakoula a Political Prisoner?”

  1. Also on the “yes” side appears to be Instapundit, who has a bit more legal chops than Baldwin and Iowahawk. Seems unfair to leave him out.

    Rob Crawford (c55962)

  2. There are a lot of people on that side, but Popehat was interacting directly with Baldwin and iowahawk on Twitter, which is why I mentioned them. But you’re right, I will update.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  3. Note I say “selective investigation” since Ken has addressed the legal doctrine of selective prosecution and it appears that it does not apply.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  4. How about “Nakoula is in jail for massively violating his parole, and being a general all-around swine. Obama and Ms. Clinton are shamelessly using this to score political points, which is about the level of ethics one has come to expect from politicians in this country. If Nakoula was jailed as a consequence of his idiotic video, then that is a case of “If you are going to break the law in a wide and impolitic manner, don’t shout it from the housetops.”

    C. S. P. Schofield (adb9dd)

  5. R.I.P. Bangladeshi Factory Workers – Death Toll Reaches 1,000

    Leviticus (17b7a5)

  6. i dont see him as a political prisoner, per se, but it is clear he was targeted by the SOS and President, and at that point they were not aware of his status on parole. He is jailed for violating the terms of his parole, but frankly, it seems clear that absent the fevered rantings and political cover they tried to use in blaming him for their incompetence and lack of action, this would have never even been investigated.

    JD (b63a52)

  7. The unfair comment was more about Ken than you.

    And I’m still waiting for an example of when a possible parole violation merited a late-night arrest and notification of the press.

    Rob Crawford (c55962)

  8. and with Hillary declaring: “We will make sure that the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted.”

    I forgot that part of the story. Probably because even as cynical as I am about the left, if I didn’t know better, I’d swear that such an outrageous comment — so blatantly anti-First Amendment — couldn’t in reality have been voiced by anyone with some sanity and decency, even by an unrepentant liberal like sniper-fire Hillary.

    These top officials reflect the current state of American society (eg, Hillary’s hug-hug-kiss-kiss ratings in various opinion polls), and we therefore truly are, in the immortal words of Obama’s former spiritual adviser, God damned.

    Mark (9ba6f2)

  9. I am just curious who issued the stand down order(s), and what Clinton and Obama were doing while the others were left to die.

    JD (b63a52)

  10. Mr. Nakoula was held up by America’s fascist government for all to Hate and Despise.

    They did this for so their propaganda sluts like the Candy Crowley and the Joe Scarborough would have something other than the silly and typical American incompetence once again on display in the middle east.

    And ain’t that America somethin to see baby.

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  11. something *to talk about* other than I mean

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  12. To me, the most incredible aspect of all this is that Teh One did nothing, went to bed early to rest for his fundraising trip to Las Vegas, and the MFM is completely incurious.

    JD (b63a52)

  13. I don’t know why you consider it “incredible” with regard to the make believe media’s incurious attitude on Benghazi, happyfeet. They’ve almost completely ignored the Gosnell case, claiming that it was a “local” story. Children being butchered, and at least on woman dying. When it comes to the hierarchy of victimhood, wymyns and chilren are nearly as high up as gheys, and still received no coverage.

    Amalgamated Cliff Divers, Local 157 (f7d5ba)

  14. Oops, I meant JD, not happyfeet! PIMF!

    Amalgamated Cliff Divers, Local 157 (f7d5ba)

  15. Petraeus objected to September 15 talking points:

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/benghazi-scandal-grows_722032.html?nopager=1

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  16. Is there anyone else who thinks Nakoula’s film is a little like the play “Springtime for Hitler” in “The Producers”. Intended as a money losing vehicle to defraud potential investors, it instead becomes an unanticipated smash hit, ruining the scam.
    In this case, the known fraudster Nakoula used this trailer to entice investors with no thought that it would ever be seen by anyone else, but instead it was catapulted to fame by Hillary, Susan Rice, and the rest of the crew.
    I’ll leave now.

    orcadrvr (5daf3f)

  17. “Before circulating the talking points to administration policymakers in the early evening of Friday, September 14, CIA officials changed “Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda” to simply “Islamic extremists.” But elsewhere, they added new contextual references to radical Islamists. They noted that initial press reports pointed to Ansar al Sharia involvement and added a bullet point highlighting the fact that the agency had warned about another potential attack on U.S. diplomatic facilities in the region. “On 10 September we warned of social media reports calling for a demonstration in front of the [Cairo] Embassy and that jihadists were threatening to break into the Embassy.” All told, the draft of the CIA talking points that was sent to top Obama administration officials that Friday evening included more than a half-dozen references to the enemy​—​al Qaeda, Ansar al Sharia, jihadists, Islamic extremists, and so on.

    The version Petraeus received in his inbox Saturday, however, had none. The only remaining allusion to the bad guys noted that “extremists” might have participated in “violent demonstrations.”

    In an email at 2:44 p.m. to Chip Walter, head of the CIA’s legislative affairs office, Petraeus expressed frustration at the new, scrubbed talking points, noting that they had been stripped of much of the content his agency had provided. Petraeus noted with evident disappointment that the policymakers had even taken out the line about the CIA’s warning on Cairo. The CIA director, long regarded as a team player, declined to pick a fight with the White House and seemed resigned to the propagation of the administration’s preferred narrative. The final decisions about what to tell the American people rest with the national security staff, he reminded Walter, and not with the CIA.”

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  18. If an Administration targets only critics of the President for IRS audits (not that any such thing could ever actually happen!!)

    I assume you’ve seen the news item today about the IRS apologizing for “inappropriately flag[ging] conservative political groups for additional reviews during the 2012 election”. ..bruce..

    bfwebster (e0c464)

  19. What is left out of your commentary is the problem of (forgive me as words fail at the moment) law by bureaucracy, and a combination of statute and regulations where “All that is not prohibited is mandatory,” and where it is impossible to avoid unknowingly breaking the law twice a day. (Hopefully that conveys the sentiment.) In such a culture, selective investigation (such as the IRS “apologizing” that they TARGETED conservative groups for investigation) leads to de facto oppression of speech/dissent. In other words, with so many laws on the books, the admin has simply to say, “find out what they did wrong” and boom, all your political opponents are “legally” harrassed, and possibly imprisoned or bankrupted.

    NewEnglandDevil (820235)

  20. I am having troubles following these hearings.
    Is there a reference guide I can go to that explains procedures and where this is headed?
    What inning is this in?
    Same questions for Fast and Furious.
    Thanks.

    mg (31009b)

  21. The problem is that Nakoula would not have been locked up if not for the video. Federal probation officers don’t bring probationers in for probation violations for issues not directly related to their crime. The film, regardless of what name was used on the credits, was unrelated to his crime.

    Furthermore, Federal probation officers don’t arrest probationers at night, much less at midnight, much less have the local sheriff’s office arrest a probationer unless the probationer is a particularly violent criminal that must be immeditately arrested. There was no need for his immediate arrest.

    The proper proceedure would have been for the probation officer to call or mail the probationer with an appointment in his office.

    In any event, federal probation officers usually use Deputy U.S. Marshals for any arrest, especially in a large urban area like Los Angeles. The USMS could have easily arrested him the next day or at the probation office when he appeared to be interviewed about violations of his probation.

    There was nothing usual about the arrest of Nakoula. It was all politics from the start. No other federal probationer would have been treated like this for a minor violation of his conditions.

    Federale (325bd5)

  22. I guess my question is: if an Administration targets people for criminal investigation because of their speech, and it turns out some of them have committed crimes, does that make everything hunky dory?

    No, for a simple reason: The federal criminal code now is so extensive and so baroque that as a practical matter all of us are violating it in some way. If you wish to nail someone, and you investigate him closely, you can pretty much always find some way to do it.

    Steven Den Beste (99cfa1)

  23. White House emails reviewed by ABC News suggest the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department. The edits included requests from the State Department that references to the Al Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia be deleted as well references to CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack.

    This is interesting. I knew that the State Department was involved, and they caused the correction from the word “consulate” to “diplomatic facility” and presumably there were other chanes that were rejected or maybe proposed. What we need to know who suggested what, and then maybe we can start working on why.

    We have to be very careful to assign responsibility correctly. Right now I think if the leaks are accepted at face value we’d just be protecting the leakers.

    The important point is where did this idea of a unplanned demonstration come from. The State Department flatly denied this to reporters at the time of the first Benghazi hearings. If it was imposed on the CIA, I’d suspect there’d be some whistleblowers there, and where are they?

    Now there’s something else: Hillary did not want to fight this (about a demonstration about a video in Benghazi) very much.

    So much so she interfered with Hicks.

    The problem has survived Hillary because the State Department was offering expolanations this week as to why Hicks was rebuked for not having a lawyer present when he talked to a member of Congress. A lawyer, someone told the New York Times, was required when there was a Congressional investigation. But this was one member of Congress, and not an investigation yet! (Hicks left a lawyer out of one meeting with Congressman Jason Chaffetz becaus the lawyer did not have a security clearance – that that lawyer was sent may not have been an accident)

    Hillary was not fighting to correct the record.. (when pressed, she said what difference did it make what people were saying after the fact)

    There could be any number of reasons. Maybe she didn’t want to tell Obama he had made a mistake in relying on something. Maybe she could be blackmailed if it turned into a all out fight. Maybe she had a Machiavellian motive in maiing Obama look not too competent.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  24. Comment by Steven Den Beste (99cfa1) — 5/10/2013 @ 9:02 am

    The federal criminal code now is so extensive and so baroque that as a practical matter all of us are violating it in some way. If you wish to nail someone, and you investigate him closely, you can pretty much always find some way to do it.

    And the tax code too, which is why it is not tolerated to have IRS audits of political opponents, and it was a big scandal when Nixon just talked about doing that wiuth John Dean. (JFK actually did it)

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  25. Have you forgotten Nakoula was a fraud, and made that video at the instigation of the moslem Brotherhood et al, and contrived to blame the video on the Jews?

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  26. No sympathy for Nakoula. No, he is not a political prisoner, he is a small-time grifter who got caught in a net (the law) designed to catch him and his gypsy ilk long, long time before anyone knew Benghazi was not a variant of cous-cous. That he was exploited and used as a smokescreen by self-serving politicos even slimier than him? Well, yeah, and we should not be fooled by that but otherwise it could not have happened to a better guy.

    nk (875f57)

  27. This ABC “revelation” is old news:

    David H. Petraeus, the former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, told lawmakers on Friday that classified intelligence reports revealed that the deadly assault on the American diplomatic mission in Libya was a terrorist attack, but that the administration refrained from saying it suspected that the perpetrators of the attack were Al Qaeda affiliates and sympathizers to avoid tipping off the groups.

    So yes. The administration changed the intelligence reports, or at least, the part of it that they were going to reveal to the public. TO AVOID TIPPING OFF THE GROUPS INVOLVED.

    Ohmigod!!!!! That’s imPEEEEEEACHable!!!

    Kman (5576bf)

  28. Michelle Malkin is running an article today reporting on the Obama IRS in 2012 targeting Tea Party groups and any non-profit with the word “Patriot” in it. The investigations went well beyond a legitimate examination of the group’s financials and actions to include investigation of the groups’ members AND their family members’ political leanings and actions.

    http://michellemalkin.com/2013/05/10/obama-irs-admits-witch-hunt-against-tea-party-patriot-groups/

    in_awe (7c859a)

  29. Sammy won’t give up. Utter lack of any factual support does not daunt him!

    SPQR (5557ef)

  30. I believe there is much much more to the Nakoula story than any of us now know. The purpose and filming of that video was hinky from the beginning and, as has been pointed out, on several levels Nakoula appears to be a shady and mysterious and perhaps duplicitous character such as one might find in a good spy novel. Several public people whose opinions I normally respect a great deal seem to be going out on a limb, staking out positions, but taking differing sides on the Nakoula incarceration situation. Frankly, I think it is kind of foolish for anyone to do that with so little verified and verifiable information to go on.

    elissa (a5337e)

  31. Elissa, I always thought so. Said so back when. What “more to the story” would make sense?

    SarahW (b0e533)

  32. Well, it’s British law, R v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy ([1924] 1 KB 256, [1923] All ER Rep 233), but it seems to apply in spades.

    Nakoula is at once the unluckiest and luckiest conman. They’re going to have to let him go because it appears that they’ve done this to him intentionally.

    … It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the notes of the evidence in case the justices might desire to consult him, the justices came to a conclusion without consulting him, and that he scrupulously abstained from referring to the case in any way. But while that is so, a long line of cases shows that it is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.

    The question therefore is not whether in this case the deputy clerk made any observation or offered any criticism which he might not properly have made or offered; the question is whether he was so related to the case in its civil aspect as to be unfit to act as clerk to the justices in the criminal matter. The answer to that question depends not upon what actually was done but upon what might appear to be done. … [emphasis added]

    It’s not what the fools in Washington did, but what it appears they might have done, that’s going to get him out.

    What 0 & crew did or didn’t do we will never know with any kind of certainty (well, that they’ve lied about it at least once we know!) Whether their lying started before the dying, or after, there are still four dead. That’s a lot of blood to spread around, even if it was for the very very best of blackest secret reasons. Master plot by supreme grandmaster 0 … or simply incompetence? Hanlon’s Razor, anyone?

    htom (412a17)

  33. Comment by mg (31009b) — 5/10/2013 @ 8:55 am
    PowerLine has some good posts (but I think understated).

    My very brief effort, following the example of others.
    1) Issues about before the attack-It was clear early on that the security measures were inadequate, that requests had been made for additional security, and that security had actually been decreased in the months prior to the attack.
    None of that was ever contested by anybody, and the new testimony did not change any of that.
    BUT:
    Back at the time it was claimed that Clinton knew nothing of the requests for additional security, etc., etc., and it was left largely as a vague somewhere along the line between the ambassador and the secretary the communication was dropped. (It was claimed that any communications “signed” by Clinton were not by Clinton personally, but an administrative stamp).
    In testimony it was claimed that Clinton did know about the security, that she had to in the process of approving state dept officials to be in Benghazi. I believe more than one gave testimony confirming this.
    2) Issues about the events of the attack
    The question was raised as to what reaction happened to the attack. It was communicated that there was no military response. It was repeatedly claimed that there was no military intervention because “no one could get there in time”. It was repeatedly said that there were no “Stand down” orders given, that it was not true that there could have been a military response but orders were given to not go. There was a small force from Tripoli organized through the state dept #2 person Hicks, including 2 of the men who died in thne attack.
    In testimony yesterday it was claimed that there was a small group of special ops military in tripoli under a Lt. Col who were prepared to go but were told twice that they did not have approval to go. We do not know who gave the order to the Lt Col, nor how high up the chain of command that decision was made. (Some say such an order would have had to come from the President).
    There is a claim that one of the reinforcements was using a laser device to “paint a target” when killed by a direct mortar shell hit. It is widely claimed he would not have done that unless he thought there was an aircraft above ready to fire (a drone or aircraft, a missile or cannon/machine gun fire).
    3) Issues after the attack
    It was soon claimed there was a spontaneous demonstration caused by a film clip on YouTube that turned into a violent attack. That there was confusion at the time as to “what really happened”, and that there was adequate investigation by the State dept and others that cleared Sec. Clinton and others of wrongdoing/mistakes.
    The testimony demonstrated (as really has been clear all along) that there was no evidence of any spontaneous demonstration and that it was clear it was an organized terrorist attack from the beginning.
    Somewhat new was the discovery that there was active intimidation to suppress the truth about the attack, including a demotion and attempts to interfere with a Congressional delegation.

    So, it seems clear that:
    1) the Benghazi facility was known to have inadequate security ahead of time. Why this was so, if there was a specific reason (such as some CIA operation), is unknown.
    2) Claims that the security situation was unknown to Sec. Clinton seem to be false, and the possibility that Clinton lied under oath before Congress has been raised.
    3) at least one military option was available and had been told to stand down, contrary to previous claims by sec of defense, chairman of joint chiefs, and the president
    4) the attempt to blame the event on an unpredicted spontaneous protest of a You-Tube film was known to be false, even though the Sec. of state and VP directly told the victims’ families they would get and prosecute the person behind the film.
    5) those who protested the faulty narrative were at times ignored during the investigation and intimidated (or intimidation was tried, including demotion) when they persisted in making the truth known, and this directly involved sec. Clinton’s chief of staff and others in the State dept.

    Painted Jaguar (a sockpuppet) (3d3f72)

  34. “Now there’s something else: Hillary did not want to fight this (about a demonstration about a video in Benghazi) very much.”

    Sammy – She wasn’t fighting it because she was busy propagating it in press releases and public statements. Why would she contradict herself?

    Plus it had the virtue of taking the focus off the deteriorating security situation in Benghazi and State Department’s refusal to provide additional security despite repeated requests for a facility which did not meet minimal departmental security standards.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  35. “Now there’s something else: Hillary did not want to fight this (about a demonstration about a video in Benghazi) very much.”

    Sammy – When Hillary stood over the coffin of Ambassador Stevens and lied about the video, what makes you believe she would in any way want to fight that narrative?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  36. putting people in jail for youtubes is no good

    happyfeet (c60db2)

  37. Comment by Painted Jaguar (a sockpuppet) (3d3f72) — 5/10/2013 @ 9:53 am

    I would add to the “Issues after the attack”:

    Hicks testified that he has never been contacted by the FBI concerning the events of that night.

    I mean, what could the senior authority on the scene possibly offer an investigation of the events in question?

    Blue Ox (bf4380)

  38. 30.==What “more to the story” would make sense?==

    I really have no idea, SarahW. And I am not going to put out a conspiracy theory based on my intuition (which may be faulty) that the whole thing just feels hinky. But at the very beginning higher-ups in the State Department in several different locations did seem to know an awful lot about– and talk about–and apologize for–an otherwise seemingly obscure amateur looking video with fourth rate production values and actors, whose only apparent distribution channel was You Tube.

    And yet, how conveeeenient it was that the Nakoula video was just sitting there available and ready to take the early blame for Benghazi. How interesting that it was so immediately traced to him, and that he could be so easily tracked down and arrested.

    elissa (a5337e)

  39. 28. Sammy won’t give up. Utter lack of any factual support does not daunt him!

    Comment by SPQR (5557ef) — 5/10/2013 @ 9:33 am

    It’s amazing, isn’t it?

    The only questions that needed to be answered after the attack is who, what, when, where, and why?

    The when and where were obvious. The what was also obvious because they had a stream of reporting from the agent in the facility’s TOC, later the video feed from the drone, and also special operators who are trained observers when they arrived on the scene. To claim this is not adequate intelligence is the height of absuridity.

    They would have also debriefed the US personnel working for DoS. The surviving DSS agents would have provided greater detail on the what, and the local security guards would have told us the who. They would have had this information by the next morning if not earlier. Which is why it the Undersecretary for Near East Affairs stated in her cable to the Libyans the very next day that the attackers were Ansar al Sharia.

    This administration has a pattern of injecting uncertainty into areas where little or none exists. Which is why this story still matters. We are still living with these idiots who won’t face facts and constantly look for excuses not to. Obama demands a “chain of custody” before he’ll accept the fact that Assad has crossed his “red line” in Syria.

    In other words, we’d need a months long investigation to meet his lousy lawyerly standard of proof. Which is ridiculous in a war zone. Which is the big fact he won’t accept. Acts of war are not legal matters. What happened in Benghazi was an act of war, and you can’t react in a war if you can’t make a decision without an FBI investigation.

    I would say his OODA loop is broken, but obviously he never had even a vestigial OODA loop to begin with. Benghazi gives insight into just how he intends to get other Americans killed in the future.

    As for Nakoula, as Glenn Reynolds has been pointing out Hillary! was vowing to find and punish the film maker even before she knew who he was. And what’s more she’s favorably disposed toward the Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s “Religious Intolerance” UN resolution. She’s publicly stated that while they may not criminalize “anti-religious” speech they can use “shaming” (aside: since when do the shameless have that sort of moral authority?).

    Nakoula may be a lousy person, but look how they “shamed” Joe the Plumber? If they decided to scapegoat you you’d become a public person just like Nakoula and Joe. They’d make you a target if they wanted to blame you for their screw ups in the ME.

    Did they really have to make him a target for Muslim extremists over a parole violation?

    That is the issue, in my view. Not whether he should have gone back to prison for very real parole violations.

    I brought Joe the Plumber into this because note how Ohio authorities released his tax and (if I recall correctly) child support records to the press in an effort to embarrass him. Do we really want the federal government that believes it should “shame” people getting hold of our medical records per Obamacare?

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  40. (From Weeklystandard via PowerLine)
    Hayes reports that CIA director David Petraeus promptly expressed unhappiness about the scrubbed talking points in an email to his legislative director. He complained (internally only) that the talking points had been stripped of much of the content his agency had provided.

    As some suspected before, more evidence that the timing of Petraeus’ issues made public linked to keeping him quiet about what he knew about “Ben Ghazi”. I would have to look back to detail the timing (which I won’t but maybe someone else will), but it does fit with the Chicago Way of keeping your friends close, your enemies closer, and everyone under your thumb.

    Just heard, ya’ know, if Biden or JFKerry want a chance at 2016, maybe they would sacrifice Hillary. Ooh, this could get ugly.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  41. Nakoula was simply way too much of a stroke of good luck for the administration and far too convenient. That has been clear from the get-go.

    Dana (292dcf)

  42. MD,

    Do you believe the Petraeus Broadwell affair and Timing of the subsequent explosion a little too convenient of a distraction?

    Too much conspiracy there???

    Dana (292dcf)

  43. He is a political prisoner. But for Obama’s need for a scapegoat, he would still be walking the streets of L.A. like thousands of other parole violators.

    There is legal and there is legalistic. Like others have said, the law is so vast and complicated, it can be used to target anyone.

    Patricia (be0117)

  44. Hayes reports that CIA director David Petraeus promptly expressed unhappiness about the scrubbed talking points in an email to his legislative director. He complained (internally only) that the talking points had been stripped of much of the content his agency had provided.

    This. The barking moonbats are howling over how this is not new, because it was reported in Nov that Petraeus signed off on this. However, the reporting in NOV did not address his displeasure in doing so, and how it was done.

    JD (7200c9)

  45. 39. Just heard, ya’ know, if Biden or JFKerry want a chance at 2016, maybe they would sacrifice Hillary. Ooh, this could get ugly.

    Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 5/10/2013 @ 10:54 am

    Oh, yes. Obama and Hillary! both talked about what a good friend Stevens was. And look how they treated him?

    As Richard Fernandez at Belmont club has pointed out the Congressional Dems are stupid to carry this administration’s water because no matter how much they spin, and how much the MFM covers for them, the failure in the ME can’t be hidden.

    It will soon become apparent to everyone, not just me, that what happened in Benghazi wasn’t an isolated incident. It’s part of a pattern. And when it does these people in Congress will be part and parcel to it for their deliberate participation in the cover-up. And those in the administration will be turning on each other just because as Stevens learned their is no loyalty among thieves.

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  46. We’ve heard about Nakoula’s video for about 8 months now and I’ve yet to see even a snippet, and I’ve kept an eye open and tried to find it half a dozen times without success. Has anyone seen it, or parts of it, or previews of it?

    ropelight (8c8ae3)

  47. Comment by Dana (292dcf) — 5/10/2013 @ 10:59 am

    That’s why I said we need to review the dates in detail, which I’m not going to take the time but maybe someone else will.
    Which is harder to believe, that no one knew a clue about Petraeus’ behavior, or that he was picked anyway?
    I find it harder to believe that no one had a clue,
    which then means why did they pick him anyway?
    Well, he was popular with all, but he was also controllable by the White House because of what they knew.

    We now know directly that people in the Admin are willing to intimidate people to hide the truth. So the only remaining question is how often.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  48. Rush had a caller today that noted Mr. Kerry has today pledged cooperation in releasing any emails or information needed.

    The knife being inserted into Medusa and Ms. Nuland should spook someone at the CIA and DOD eventually as the rats at State go down swinging.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  49. “(From Weeklystandard via PowerLine)
    Hayes reports that CIA director David Petraeus promptly expressed unhappiness about the scrubbed talking points in an email to his legislative director. He complained (internally only) that the talking points had been stripped of much of the content his agency had provided.”

    MD in Philly – Link to Hayes piece in #15.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  50. Patterico,

    Given that you’re a prosecutor, I’m sure you’ve seen more than your share of cases get tossed because, while the guy had the proverbial kilo of coke in his trunk, were it not for the finding of an illegal search, he wouldn’t be in custody at that point.

    Therefore, you’ve got as much credibility, if not more, than most others in this debate, and I’m persuaded by your argument, despite leaning the other way much of the morning.

    Logic’s a real pisser sometimes.

    My Sharia Moor (7ede7d)

  51. ==He is a political prisoner. But for Obama’s need for a scapegoat, he would still be walking the streets of L.A. like thousands of other parole violators.==

    Patricia- I don’t know what to think, but I do know that I just take nothing at face value any more. He “voluntarily” allowed himself to be taken from his home. “Nakoula”‘s head was covered when he was spirited into the waiting car the night he was arrested. We never saw his face. That made me immediately suspicious. I would have expected the spectacle of a full blown perp-walk by the Feds for the salivating media of the world. But, no. It was all done very, very low key.

    Who is Nakoula really, and who (if anybody) is actually in jail with no allowed bail? Is he a political prisoner to keep him quiet?–maybe. Is his life in danger?-maybe, but from whom. Or is he under protection of some sort for some reason?-maybe, and what might that currently unknown reason be? A man with many aliases he is. A man of mystery he is. Why?

    elissa (a5337e)

  52. Who is Nakoula really, and who (if anybody) is actually in jail with no allowed bail?

    Persons on MSR (Mandatory Supervised Release) and/or parole aren’t entitled to bail. They’re generally held until they appear before a review board to determine whether or not they’re to be released back into the community.

    These persons also generally don’t enjoy the freedom from warrantless searches until they’re discharged at the end of their term.

    My Sharia Moor (7ede7d)

  53. Supposedly, Nakoula had a fake driver’s license (that is, not a real driver’s license with a name different than any of those he’s used in the past) and that, in and of itself, is sufficient to send him back to prison. Then there are all of the other things he’s accused of doing while on parole. And then there’s the supposed film. And then the politics. He’s probably safer in than out.

    htom (412a17)

  54. The stupid liberal talking point of the day is to cling to the process point that the intelligence community edited the talking points for Rice’s 9/16 television appearances while ignoring demands that they reflect input from the State Department and White House !!!!1111eleventy1111!!! Also please ignore all these departments report to the White House and Obama, SQUEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  55. What does “Deep Background” meeting on Benghazi for reporters occurring at White House signal?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  56. Nakaula is an unworthy vessel for the admiration of — or even much sympathy for — opponents of the Obama Administration’s ridiculous lies about foreign affairs in general and Libya in particular.

    The Administration’s misuse of authority is important and worth focus, but this is a minor footnote to it that gives our opponents the benefit of an effective distraction. It’s a strategic mistake to push it.

    Beldar (4b6c09)

  57. Put another way:

    Obama: I and mine have screwed up again. We need a distraction. Here’s a small-time badguy who’s done something wrong, and who we also, coincidentally, can use as an effective distraction.

    Opponents: You’re misusing your power!

    Obama: See, this is what I face every time I try to do the right thing. These are the same right-wingers who attack me for being soft on crime, and when I actually act to punish someone who’s behaving badly, they attack me for that too! Karl Rove! Buuuuuuuuuuushhhhhhhhhhhh!

    America: Oh, just another argument about George W. Bush again. Yawn.

    Obama: Thank you America!

    Beldar (4b6c09)

  58. We’ve all seen the riveting image of a lone man standing up to a Chinese tank in Tieneman Square, but one man can’t stand up to a government determined to bring him down. Our rights are designed to protect us from the awesome power of the government, but even that isn’t enough if the government misuses its power.

    The issue is here is whether the government misused its power for a political purpose in targeting Nakoula. The fact that Nakoula was an easy target who violated his probation isn’t the issue. The issue is what motivated the government to target him.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  59. Benghazi was a long time ago. We should all be focused on things that matter today. :)

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  60. I see Beldar and I have the same concern but come to a different conclusion. Nakoula’s mistakes and crimes aren’t enough for me to let the Democrats sacrifice him. But even if he were that bad, I also fear any one of us could be the next Nakoula.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  61. daleyrocks,

    If the “Deep Background” meeting is happening today, then I assume it’s the meeting where the White House issues its talking points of what the media must say to make this story go away.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  62. I love the off the record meeting with the press to discuss the administration’s cover up and lack of transparency.

    Watch Teh Narrative emerge.

    JD (b63a52)

  63. Patrick:

    I’ve pulled about 20 cases and will be writing up the subject this weekend.

    What the law is, of course, is a very different question than what it should be, and legal consequences are distinct from political and social ones.

    Also, I’m billing you for this.

    Ken (2e87a6)

  64. DRJ – Carney is now spinning like crazy at press briefing.

    Back to claiming that since Obama called attack an “Act of terror” that meant an acknowledgement of terrorism, even though he would not acknowledge that on the View, Letterman and other public appearances. They want to us to ignore inconsistencies in public stories and minimize importance of White Wash of talking points.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  65. So he’s trying to throw Hillary and Susan Rice under the bus, then? Think it’ll work?

    elissa (a5337e)

  66. DRJ – Carney – This is all due to the politicization of the tragedy of those damn Republicans from the very start (not in any way our knee jerk blaming it on the exercise of free speech rights by Americans).

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  67. Carney – The only thing proved wrong about the talking points was that there was no demonstration (nevermind that we misled people about what we actually did know and deleted from the talking points and that Obama really did not do anything to help the people in Benghazi, but other than that, everything was accurate)

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  68. interesting debate. I don’t think the administration did anything wrong, they were just working with the information they had at the time.

    TateRehmet (921c29)

  69. Did Carnie explain why Rice directly contradicted the Pres. of Libya and essentially called him a know-nothing liar when she insisted there was a demonstration (on the CBS show that morning)?

    elissa (a5337e)

  70. Except they weren’t, Tate. But nice try.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  71. As a transactional lawyer who had a long career drafting documents for various purposes, I object to the use of the phrase, “the CIA’s now discredited talking points were flawed.. .”

    Whatever the heck they were, they were no longer the CIA’s talking points.

    I frequently did the initial draft of a document on a transaction. By the time that draft had been subjected to 12 edits by various parties with their various biases, predilections and axes to grind, no one could say that the document was “my draft”. You lose control of the drafting pen–as the CIA did here–and the document becomes a foundling, born in a house of ill repute, and swaddled in a tissue of lies. Other than that, there’s nothing wrong with the document. Just ask Jay Carney, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

    Comanche Voter (29e1a6)

  72. At least the presser and closed door “deep background” session with reporters today proves they recognize they are in some deep doo doo about this. Obviously they still think they can talk/charm their way out of it, though. I wonder what other new whistle blowers are waiting in the wings that they already know about and has them so concerned and on edge today.

    elissa (a5337e)

  73. interesting debate. I don’t think the administration did anything wrong, they were just working with the information they had at the time.

    I don’t think … Shoulda stopped right there.

    JD (7200c9)

  74. they were just working with the information they had at the time.

    Oh, you mean the information they had that said this was a terrorist attack?

    More accurately, they were just trying to get around the information they had at the time.

    Chuck Bartowski (11fb31)

  75. TateRehmat, so do you think that because you believe whatever lies that Obama tells you or because you are utterly ignorant of the entire story but feel compelled to jump to Obama’s/Clinton’s defense?

    SPQR (768505)

  76. SPQR–I’m pretty sure Tate is “on assignment” and has no independent beliefs about this, whatsoever.

    elissa (a5337e)

  77. “they were just working with the information they had at the time.”

    Well, working with some information, but leaving a lot out. Ever hear the phrase lies of omission?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  78. The reason the White House has to hold “deep background” briefings on Benghazi for select reporters is because there are no unanswered questions on Benghazi.

    #getyourstoriesstraightlapdogs

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  79. elisa we share that belief.

    SPQR (768505)

  80. As a supporter of the Constitution and middle class families, I would love to see Obama and Hillary and Rice nailed. But Benghazi aint gonna do it. That’s my prediction, timestamp it and feel free to gloat and call me names if anything happens.

    Here’s why – half the media doesn’t care and is burying this. But the worst of it is the hypocrisy and inconsistency of the right. There’s an article out called “13 Benghazis That Occurred on Bush’s Watch Without a Peep from Fox News” with these facts:

    January 22, 2002. Calcutta, India. Gunmen associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack the U.S. Consulate. Five people are killed.

    June 14, 2002. Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber connected with al Qaeda attacks the U.S. Consulate, killing 12 and injuring 51.

    October 12, 2002. Denpasar, Indonesia. U.S. diplomatic offices bombed as part of a string of “Bali Bombings.” No fatalities.

    February 28, 2003. Islamabad, Pakistan. Several gunmen fire upon the U.S. Embassy. Two people are killed.

    May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al Qaeda terrorists storm the diplomatic compound, killing 36 people including nine Americans. The assailants committed suicide by detonating a truck bomb.

    July 30, 2004. Tashkent, Uzbekistan. A suicide bomber from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan attacks the U.S. Embassy, killing two people.

    December 6, 2004. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Al Qaeda terrorists storm the U.S. Consulate and occupy the perimeter wall. Nine people are killed.

    March 2, 2006. Karachi, Pakistan again. Suicide bomber attacks the U.S. Consulate killing four people, including U.S. diplomat David Foy who was directly targeted by the attackers. (I wonder if Lindsey Graham or Fox News would even recognize the name “David Foy.” This is the third Karachi terrorist attack in four years on what’s considered American soil.)

    September 12, 2006. Damascus, Syria. Four armed gunmen shouting “Allahu akbar” storm the U.S. Embassy using grenades, automatic weapons, a car bomb and a truck bomb. Four people are killed, 13 are wounded.

    January 12, 2007. Athens, Greece. Members of a Greek terrorist group called the Revolutionary Struggle fire a rocket-propelled grenade at the U.S. Embassy. No fatalities.

    March 18, 2008. Sana’a, Yemen. Members of the al-Qaeda-linked Islamic Jihad of Yemen fire a mortar at the U.S. Embassy. The shot misses the embassy, but hits nearby school killing two.

    July 9, 2008. Istanbul, Turkey. Four armed terrorists attack the U.S. Consulate. Six people are killed.

    September 17, 2008. Sana’a, Yemen. Terrorists dressed as military officials attack the U.S. Embassy with an arsenal of weapons including RPGs and detonate two car bombs. Sixteen people are killed, including an American student and her husband (they had been married for three weeks when the attack occurred). This is the second attack on this embassy in seven months.

    So that happened, but the right never criticized Bush’s embassy security, even as death after death piled up. Until the Benghazi attack, where suddenly it’s a firestorm. So it’s politics and exploitation of THESE four dead while none of the other dead seemed to matter.

    I have a question for you guys, because if you really want to get Obama out of office sooner than 1/21/17, why not go where there’s better evidence? Rand Paul started flirting with the unconstitutional drone issue, before he said we should use them stateside (cue whoopie cushion sound). But it’s actually illegal to kill Americans without a trial, I saw it in the Constitution.

    Next, what about the immunity Obama gave banks? You know the robosigning settlement, where thousands of instances of forgery were just forgiven in a “poof” when the banks agreed to pay fines of pennies on the dollar. Did you know Holder worked for the banks he just gave that deal to? No one cares about Obama selling justice?

    How about turning a blind eye to overseas bribery? There was slamdunk evidence of Walmart shelling out mucho pesos illegally all over Mexico, with damning proof going right up to the tippy top in Bentonville. No one care?

    How about rendition? Obama had detainees held and interrogate on military ships way outside of due process, no one care? How about his NDAA law that says it’s okay to indefinitely hold US citizens if his government says you are a terrorist? That sit well with ya? The left took him to court on that, while the right seems to think it’s peachy.

    Did you know the killing of bin Laden runs counter to a law President Ford signed targeting political leaders for assassination? If you guys think street justice on bin Laden is okay, why shouldn’t we have to change the law first?

    You guys like Obama and Hillary eavesdropping on your calls, texts and emails? It could be happening, but was never put to the people for approval. The whole Patriot Act doesn’t pass the muster of the privacy clause in the 4th Amendment, allowing fishing expeditions and willy nilly profiling.

    Didn’t the Declaration base all our powers on the consent of the governed? Does everything the founders set up go by the wayside when we are attacked by one grimy terrorist?

    Finally, is there any limit to the taxpayer dollars you think it would be okay to spend trying to impeach Obama for lying about Benghazi, or is a blank check necessary, like it was for the Lewinsky scandal that the public also yawned about…

    Mahalia Cab (601651)

  81. This piece by Cullison had a ‘look squirrel’ quality, Tamerlan just happened to visit this fellow’s mosque, who had just curiously been killed by the Russians, in 2003.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324059704578473160866108832.html

    narciso (3fec35)

  82. Mahalia Cab – You’re late. We saw that cut and paste tripe yesterday. Why did you stop with Bush?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  83. You remain a liar, Mahalia. We are not criticizing Obama’s embassy security except in passing. We are criticizing his intentional obstruction of any rescue and Obama’s intentional lies about the incident.

    Which you do nothing to address.

    Oh and Mahalia, I find it fascinating that you are calling Bin Laden a “political leader”. I guess you’ve confirmed that you are a terrorist apologist.

    The rest of your squirrel shows your utter ignorance and practice of making things up – not least about the bounds of the Fourth Amendment.

    SPQR (768505)

  84. Sorry, I stopped trusting Ken, etal, at Popehat when they censored my comments regarding the fact that the whole “gay marriage” thing isn’t just about gay rights, it’s also about religious rights.

    The comment was completely polite and as non-offensive as anything disagreeing with something you believe is possible to be… but they never allowed it to be published. Direct queries sent their way were never responded to, either. They made sure no one ever heard any valid arguments against their “it harms no one” position.

    P.S., anyone wants to see what I attempted to post, feel free to ask: Igotbupkis at yhdotc… you should be able to figure it out. I believe I’ve still got a copy I can find.

    IGotBupkis, Legally Defined Cyberbully in All 57 States and some Canadian provinces (871e92)

  85. Mahalia – that mendoucheous talking point has been thoroughly debunked here. Not that it would stop you from lying. You do it as effortlessly as breathing. Like when you claimed to be a fiscal conservative that wants tax rates up to 90%. Good Allah.

    JD (7200c9)

  86. Carnie sure did get worked up telling lies and spinning today.

    JD (7200c9)

  87. I notice that Jonathan Karl does NOT say that it was the State Department who put that in about spontaneous protesters. He says the State Departmemt wanted the name of the group Ansar al-Sharia deleted, as well as references to CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack.

    We need a blow by blow account, not self-serving leaks.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  88. Yeah, you’d LOVE to see Obama and Hillary and Rice get nailed. Mahalia, your true colors are shining through. All that copy-pasta of yours was thoroughly debunked on another thread here last night. You should find it and look at it and digest it before you further embarrass yourself here and elsewhere.

    elissa (a5337e)

  89. Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/10/2013 @ 1:25 pm

    Back to claiming that since Obama called attack an “Act of terror” that meant an acknowledgement of terrorism, even though he would not acknowledge that on the View, Letterman and other public appearances.

    That was later in the week. As time went on Obama backtracked and leaned more and more toward the propositoiopn that this was a spontaneous demonstration. This Romney did not understand.

    They want to us to ignore inconsistencies in public stories and minimize importance of White Wash of talking points.

    But we must understand there was a double reversal. They had it close to right at the very beginning. Now eople rarely tell lies that are going to be exposed – therefore they thought it was true. I wanmt to know who actually came up with every single word in teh talking points.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  90. At the beginning they thought it was a terroist attack. But then contradictory information started coming in.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  91. Wall Street Journal on political IRS audits:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324744104578475102810171208.html

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  92. That was later in the week. As time went on Obama backtracked and leaned more and more toward the propositoiopn that this was a spontaneous demonstration. This Romney did not understand.

    Good Allah.

    JD (03cdb3)

  93. If you ever wonder why some don’t seem to take you very seriously here sometimes, look at your comment #89 for a clue as to why that is. Sammy, the contradiction was NOT in the information coming in. The contradiction was in the scrubbed talking points going out.

    elissa (a5337e)

  94. At the beginning they thought it was a terroist attack. But then contradictory information started coming in.

    Hogwash

    JD (03cdb3)

  95. It would be nice if “Mahalia Cab” and “dad” at least coordinated their efforts so as to avoid posting the exact same lame talking points here, which only reinforces what we already knew: they are scripted talking points created to deceive, not inform.

    elissa (a5337e)

  96. I suppose Sammy’s SOOPERSEKRIT intelligence gave him info nobody else has, because there was no info coming in the day after, or 2 weeks after, that this was a result of a demonstration about a YouTube video. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. Zifr. That is a fantasy.

    JD (03cdb3)

  97. Any minute that Cab person will show a lie told by Bush’s State Department, DOD, or White House staff about any of those embassy attacks…

    Birdbath (716828)

  98. The problem of course, was a common element between the Benghazi attack, which was directed by a release Gitmo detainee, bin Qumu, thanks to the efforts of the CCR/Levick lobby, and the one who directed the Underwear bombing plot, another former detainee, Al Shehri, who’s debut was the unsuccessful attack on the embassy in Sanaa,

    narciso (3fec35)

  99. Carnie earned his money today.

    JD (03cdb3)

  100. A consulate subcontractor/former Navy Seal reported accurate mortar fire coming into the compound from the angry movie reviewers.
    Because Muslims *always* bring mortars in to those sorts of events.

    SteveG (794291)

  101. “This Romney did not understand.”

    Sammy – Romney understood perfectly well and so did Candy Crowley when she corrected her mistake after the fact.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  102. So, in addition to blaming Romney and Bush and the Repubs, what else did we learn today?

    I wonder if he’s correct that the committee leaked the 12 pages of memos. I was hoping it was someone in the WH or CIA.

    Patricia (be0117)

  103. That reminded me of the “jihadis taking advantage of a protest” talking point.
    As soon as the jihadis show up, (other protest going on or not) they are conducting a terror attack. On the calendar date of 9-11.

    The “movie protest in Benghazi” story is like a really bad alibi.

    SteveG (794291)

  104. Tommy Vietor said Republicans are to blame for White House and State Dept being forced to lie.

    JD (03cdb3)

  105. It is not unlike the plot of ‘Rules of Engagement’
    from 2000, when a protest at the American Embassy in 2000, hid an attack against the compound, and the national security advisor, suppressed the tape, in order to blame the Marine detachment leader.

    narciso (3fec35)

  106. The lefties are getting really nervous about this whole Benghazi cover-up.
    If an investigation would prove that Obama and Hillary answered the 3AM phone call adequately, then the lefties would certainly welcome an investigation into what happened.

    But the lefties and their choir in the mainstream media know that Obama and Hillary were negligent—and an investigation will prove that.

    It’s kind of like when a cop asks Mahalia Cab if he can search the glove box of his car. The reason Mahalia Cab says, “No, you cannot !” is because he’s got something in there that he doesn’t want the police officer to see.

    Elephant Stone (65a34b)

  107. On the tangent, one of the only suspects connected with the attack, Ani al Harzi was released, correct, I’m not sure about Jashef (Ahmed) so it looks like Nakoula is the only person in jail, connected with this matter,

    narciso (3fec35)

  108. I bet Nakoula isn’t afforded the opportunity to play soccer on impeccably manicured fields, as Obama’s prisoners at Gitmo are.

    Elephant Stone (65a34b)

  109. Jerry Rivers revived the “they were doing an Iran-Contra type deal and were passing arms and shoulder held surface to air missiles out of Libya into Turkey for ultimate delivery to Syrian rebels” story today. That allegation’s been around a while and does help explain the strange meeting between the Turks and Ambassador Stevens as well as the significant the presence of the CIA in Benghazi.

    It may get more attention/play now, after this week’s revelations about Benghazi.

    elissa (a5337e)

  110. An interesting detail, the fellow in the link, was involved ‘once upon a time’ in Zawahiri’s visit to Dagestan, meating with the same fellow, whose mosque
    Tamerlan visited.

    narciso (3fec35)

  111. Henry Blodgett’s Business Insider website which historically stands second to none in toeing the Obama line went on a rampage against Jay Carney today:

    Barraged with questions about the new revelations, Carney did an elaborate word dance that failed to provide any substantive answers accounting for the White House’s role in crafting the talking points.
    Instead, he stood by the administration’s initial claim that the CIA was responsible for the talking points, saying that the White House had merely “suggested” revisions. That assessment contradicts the emails, which show the White House brokering revisions to those suggested by the State Department.
    He even claimed that the talking points were correct, except for the references to demonstrations before the attack.

    Predictably, Carney accused Republicans — including Mitt Romney — of politicizing the attacks and of leaking the White House emails to the press.
    As Carney continued to wilt, commentators eviscerated his performance on Twitter:

    Rick Wilson @TheRickWilson
    Jay Carney is wrinkling his forehead so hard I want to plant crops in those furrows.
    2:59 PM – 10 May 2013

    Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/white-house-carney-benghazi-2013-5#ixzz2Sw5zDCJr

    elissa (a5337e)

  112. 32-Painted Jaguar [a sock puppet]
    Thank You.

    mg (31009b)

  113. 55. Nakaula is an unworthy vessel for the admiration of — or even much sympathy for — opponents of the Obama Administration’s ridiculous lies about foreign affairs in general and Libya in particular.

    The Administration’s misuse of authority is important and worth focus, but this is a minor footnote to it that gives our opponents the benefit of an effective distraction. It’s a strategic mistake to push it.

    Comment by Beldar (4b6c09) — 5/10/2013 @ 12:46 pm

    I disagree. The press couldn’t have discovered Nakoula’s identity on their own. They reported that an anonymous law enforcement source gave them the real identity of the film maker.

    That’s the issue. I don’t think we should excuse that no matter how bad of a guy Nakoula may be. Because someone in law enforcement, and I can’t imagine anyone other then someone in federal law enforcement in an authorized leak, painted a target on his back.

    He clearly deserved to be imprisoned for parole violations. But there’s no excuse for individuals in the federal government to essentially finger whatever scapegoat they choose for an already inflamed Muslim world in order to divert attention from themselves.

    The fact he’s unsympathetic is no doubt why they think they can get away with it. But that’s why we can’t let them get away with it.

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  114. http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/director-of-offending-film-swathed-in-mystery/article3893576.ece

    I included this link in a comment I made over at Popehat. Here’s the money quote:

    The Associated Press in particular said it had received information from an anonymous law enforcement official that a man named Nakoula Basseley Nakoula was behind the offending film.

    The man was convicted of a federal crime, sent to a federal prison, and was on federally supervised probation. I can’t believe the source of this information was the LA county Sheriff’s office or the local PD. Plus it was the federal government was the entity vowing to find and punish this guy for “inciting religious hatred” and getting four Americans killed.

    But if Nakoula’s crimes were so bad that he deserved to be publicly outed so he’d be a target for reprisal, what about the members of his family? They don’t appear to have done anything wrong. But with him identified as the blasphemer who angered the whole Muslim world, which was essentially the administration’s cover-lie, his whole family was put in danger when the thundering MFM camped outside his door.

    I certainly don’t think they deserved that, which is why I don’t think it’s a strategic error to seize on this as an issue.

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  115. Beldar @56, minor correction?

    Obama: I and mine have screwed Bush has screwed up again. We need a distraction. Here’s a small-time badguy who’s done something wrong, and who we also, coincidentally, can use as an effective distraction.

    htom (412a17)

  116. If communicating with Awlaki, didn’t get their attention;

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324244304578475300856008018.html?mod=djemalertNEWS

    narciso (3fec35)

  117. Mahalia Cab, you are a despicable, congenital liar. And a very, very stupid one.

    Go to my comments numbers 112, 127, 130, 150, and 151 on this thread to learn why you are not just a liar but an especially bad one.

    http://patterico.com/2013/05/09/still-more-benghazi-hackwork-from-the-l-a-times/#comments

    The American-Yemeni, by the way, was waiting in line to get her Yemeni husband permission to enter the US and was still outside the embassy when she was killed. In other words, where the US could not provide any security. Only the Yemeni government. But you try to blame the fact that the Yemenis can’t secure their own streets in their own cities on Bush?

    You are contemptible.

    I really don’t understand why you keep coming back here to disgrace yourself time and again. Everyone is onto your act. You are a shameless water carrier for the administration. Your pretense at even handedness is obviously a crock of ****.

    No, we don’t have to take your lies about the Bush administration seriously in order to take the Obama administration’s lies seriously.

    OK, little girl? Got it, Mahalia, hon?

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  118. AS long as dumb leftist broads like Ms. Cab (no offense elissa, DRJ, or anyone else; I have choice gender specific nicknames for people like “Dad”) are going to raise the issue of the numbers killed outside US diplomatic facilities under Bush as is if it were a failure, let’s face it head on.

    These leftist hacks include the terrorists who attacked the US diplomatic missions during the Bush administration in the body count in order to create the false impression Bush was negligent.

    They also include the locally hired security guards killed in firefights defending US diplomatic missions with those terrorists in the body count. Along with host nation security forces killed defending our diplomatic facilities.

    But that doesn’t prove negligence; in fact quite the opposite. Under Bush the DoS ensured they had armed support from the host nation to secure the embassy outside the perimeter.

    Question: Doesn’t this make Hillary! look stupid as all get out for locally hiring unarmed guards to provide exterior security for the Benghazi facility?

    Hey, you know what? Maybe the fatalities would be outside the perimeter if the local guard force Hillary! hired were armed with something more than a radio and a rape whistle. Maybe a baton. Instead of inside of the perimeter, which didn’t happen under Bush.

    Like I said, our historic Preezy has established some historic firsts. Like making sure his administration grew stooopider over his first term than when it started.

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  119. Shorter version.

    The high body count outside the mission while no US personnel inside the mission is actually proof the Bush administration took security in a dangerous world.

    The high body count inside the perimeter of the Benghazi mission (and yes I’m including the attackers because US forces apparently did quite a number on them but really we should be killing them outside the fort) is actually proof the Obama administration did not take security seriously in a dangerous world.

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  120. Mahalia is an imbecile. A dumb fvck who thinks he/she is brilliant. Low information libtard is what Mahalia is. But give “IT” credit, Mahalia believes in the JUG EARED MUTHER……….

    Gus (694db4)

  121. Here we go, leno’s take on Benghazi:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuMLwwV04xo

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  122. Patterico’s position is probably the best one about Nakoula: can’t overlook the violation, but can’t overlook the abuse of process to violate First Amendment rights either.

    So that happened, but the right never criticized Bush’s embassy security, even as death after death piled up. Until the Benghazi attack, where suddenly it’s a firestorm. So it’s politics and exploitation of THESE four dead while none of the other dead seemed to matter.

    No, they all matter. The differences are the Bush administration didn’t deny security forces’ requests to go in and rescue their staff and there wasn’t a cover-up with incredibly clear-cut lies to influence the course of a Presidential election.

    There are all sorts of things I’d criticise Bush on, but your argument is disingenuous.

    Former Conservative (6e026c)

  123. Mahalia is an imbecile. A dumb fvck who thinks he/she is brilliant. Low information libtard is what Mahalia is.

    You know, I have been known to oversimplify things from time to time; sometimes it’s malice.

    Robert J. Hanlon (6e026c)

  124. I’m beginning to suspect Ben Rhodes as the Chief Idiot in this. He’s 35 years old and a national security adviser?? On the basis of what, his speechwriting, or on the fact his brother is president of CBS news?

    He obviously is in that position to protect Obama from any fallout from a national security issue. And so he did. It got Obama re-elected. But now it’s FUBAR.

    BTW it’s kind of cute watching the liberal media dance around with this new story…that’s been out for 8 months!

    Patricia (be0117)

  125. He’s 35 years old and a national security adviser?? On the basis of what, his speechwriting, or on the fact his brother is president of CBS news

    I’ve read elswhere that he is actually a fiction writer by experience.
    and brother of pres of CBS news

    Coincidence? I don’t think so.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  126. Young Rhodes is in the security position because Obama is a Meta President. Sure, there might be a burning embassy, but it’s all about Obama as president! Obama lacks the imagination to even consider that our comfy world could be blown to smithereens in a second.

    And MD, could the fact that Rhodes’ brother is Sharyl Atkinson’s boss have anything to do with her rumored firing?

    Patricia (be0117)

  127. And MD, could the fact that Rhodes’ brother is Sharyl Atkinson’s boss have anything to do with her rumored firing?
    Comment by Patricia (be0117) — 5/11/2013 @ 8:04 am

    Intimidation of fact finders and people reporting the truth!?!?

    Shocked, shocked I tell you!

    But heh, the local 24 hr news station just commented about Benghazi, taking the angle “did the supposedly politically neutral state department play politics with reporting on it?”
    I thought that was kind of interesting.

    There is talk about how terrible Jay Carney was yesterday. I am not sure what people could have expected, he was given the job of defending the indefensible to an actually awake audience; I am not sure that was part of his job description.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  128. ==There is talk about how terrible Jay Carney was yesterday==

    If he only recently realized he was misled by somebody or was blatantly lied to about the talking point “one word edit” versus the reality of massive fabricated Benghazi propaganda, then Carney’s only avenue of salvation was to resign in protest. That he did not resign this week says it all. What a pathetic tool.

    elissa (e95433)

  129. People died; Candy Crowley lied too.

    AZ Bob (c11d35)

  130. Following the Carney lob of CIA under the limo now surviors, including CIA, are lining up to testify.

    I’m thinking with MSNBC and CNN doing drive bys on Benghazi of actual reportage, the misasma might just be clearing a little.

    State, you really are in the sights now, keep your head on a swivel. Couldn’t happen to a more anti-American crew.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  131. elissa,

    The founders created impeachment in order to remove executive or judicial officials who abused the power of their offices and were corrupt.

    I understand the argument that impeaching Obama may not be an effective political strategy, but IMO lying and covering up national security matters for political gain is an abuse of power and an impeachable offense. Ditto re: the IRS’s targeting of conservative groups, and Obama should be impeached if it is shown his office had knowledge of, facilitated, or participated in that policy.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  132. Uhhhh… isn’t Nakoula also a Coptic Christian! Yikes!

    Tonica (22ec8a)

  133. 84. Sorry, I stopped trusting Ken, etal, at Popehat when they censored my comments regarding the fact that the whole “gay marriage” thing isn’t just about gay rights, it’s also about religious rights.

    The comment was completely polite and as non-offensive as anything disagreeing with something you believe is possible to be… but they never allowed it to be published. Direct queries sent their way were never responded to, either. They made sure no one ever heard any valid arguments against their “it harms no one” position.

    P.S., anyone wants to see what I attempted to post, feel free to ask: Igotbupkis at yhdotc… you should be able to figure it out. I believe I’ve still got a copy I can find.

    Comment by IGotBupkis, Legally Defined Cyberbully in All 57 States and some Canadian provinces (871e92) — 5/10/2013 @ 2:22 pm

    I just discovered I’ve been banned at Popehat for saying what I’ve said here, in exactly the same manner I’ve said it here.

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  134. Apparently there’s someone who goes by the name “Patric Non-White” who can’t stand it when someone points out he’s spewing meaningless nonsense.

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  135. Steve57-Patric is one of the Popehat site’s proprietors. Not sure from your comment here if you are aware of that. I’m not taking sides. Just wanted to point that out.

    elissa (e95433)

  136. Those “banned at Popehat” may find this useful — http://www.popehat.com/2013/05/06/next-time-you-are-unexpectedly-banned/ The ways of computers are subtle and not always to be comprehended by humans.
    Link form of above.

    htom (412a17)

  137. 137. Steve57-Patric is one of the Popehat site’s proprietors. Not sure from your comment here if you are aware of that. I’m not taking sides. Just wanted to point that out.

    Comment by elissa (e95433) — 5/11/2013 @ 4:07 pm

    It’s a small matter because up until a couple of days ago I hadn’t even bookmarked Popehat. Because of this blog I became aware they were spreading complete BS.

    I made a couple of link heavy comments that contradicted their party line and now I’m banned.

    Telling.

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  138. Uhhhh… isn’t Nakoula also a Coptic Christian! Yikes!

    Comment by Tonica (22ec8a) — 5/11/2013 @ 2:21 pm

    If that’s what it takes to give him all your money so he can lift the curse that’s making you unhappy off of it, Tonica, then Yes! Yes he is!

    nk (875f57)

  139. Apparently he was, although Shoebat has some doubts. One would think as a Copt he could have offered a much more substantial critique of Islam,

    narciso (3fec35)

  140. Gypsies’ religion is as clouded with fraud, misinformation and secrecy as the rest of their culture.

    nk (875f57)

  141. 133. I think the list already runs to a couple dozen items.

    Using a WASP male as food taster isn’t among them.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  142. Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 5/11/2013 @ 12:01 pm

    Potential reasons to impeach Obama, let me count the ways:
    1) not upholding federal law, making appointments without congressional approval, ignoring federal judicial orders (re Gulf drilling permits)
    2) ignoring blatant civil rights violations and voter intimidation (New Black Panthers)
    3) fast and furious, ordering federal agencies to perform criminal acts for political gain
    then benghazi, multiple aspects
    the IRS

    But I doubt impeachment proceedings would be successful unless something among these things becomes so obvious and repulsive to the American people that the senate flips to repub in a big way in 2014

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  143. Is it true you aren’t allowed to make comments at Popehat in contradiction to “it harms no one?” Because I have some rather well thought out reasons to be wary, and hate to think mere counter argument gets a “shut up, bigot, UR banned” response.

    SarahW (b0e533)

  144. Maybe the banning was just very broad and based on time of first visit because there were too many rude persons?

    SarahW (b0e533)

  145. SarahW-

    FWIW, I go over read to Popehat often because I respect the great work they do to help people via the Popehat signal, I always learn something about the law, plus especially Ken often amuses me with the off-beat humor. I have never commented there, but my observation is this: the proprieters don’t mind well thought out, logical, original and salient dissent–at all. But they do not cotton to lots of links from other places or commenters who wander away from the very specific point of the thread. They really dislike what they consider to be rude or uncivil or non-contributing drive-bys by commenters. They even got after Treacher today because he was being—Treacher.

    elissa (e95433)

  146. True, the next thread about that crazy spammer, and the true unique defense strategy, is very illustrative,

    narciso (3fec35)

  147. I want to say that Obama will never be impeached because he has both a national constituency and political capital greater than his opponents do collectively but then I am reminded that so did Nixon. Hmm. But the odds are slim.

    So, I have already performed the Rite of Ash’Kente (the second updated version with an egg and two pieces of wood, no blood at all) on a new moon, at astronomical midnight, at an intersection equidistant from four premises where alcoholic beverages are imbibed. If all the omens stay in place, Obama will cease to be President on the stroke of midnight, January 20, 2017.

    nk (875f57)

  148. I can’t remember when I was first smitten with Ken White et al, and read the blog with enjoyment and the general feeling iof being improved. I haven’t visited in the last day or so, though.

    I saw this morning on the Popehat blog facebook feed a mysterious complaint involving allusions to prominent bloggers and a recent mass bannination of persons following their links to Popehat.

    I’m just hoping the bans were overbroad, maybe a sort of panic like my cat had when the 17 yr cicadas popped out last night for the first time.

    SarahW (b0e533)

  149. (The current brood of cicadas had been waiting for 64 degree temps overnight to pop out and yesterday was the big event)

    SarahW (b0e533)

  150. #147

    Ah…
    A lawyer without consideration of a sense of humor that does not fit his own… huh… lets go ask an engineer to weigh in… ummm
    OK then.
    Lots of fun…

    SteveG (794291)

  151. I only read Popehat because Patterico tells me too.

    nk (875f57)

  152. I had lunch the other day with some people… one of whom has a case that is going before the CA supreme court… he has won all the way along and the government is appealing. I asked him about his case and to describe it… what a mistake… obviously the guy is bright, but fun? Maybe after 10 Jack Daniels and an Menendez load of Dominican hookers, or maybe the lawyer is Mennonite and is predisposed to unfun. whatever… next time I’ll order my ribeye very well done and then hobble off into the garage with a garden hose and some duct tabe

    steveg (794291)

  153. *tape* or *tabe*… I’m killing myself out of boredom… who fricking cares

    steveg (794291)

  154. Attkisson on “Face the Nation” with Bob Schieffer manana.

    Let’s move on to “Stand Down”, Mmmk?

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  155. The point that’s not getting sufficient attention is that the only reason the parole people found out that this guy had violated his parole was that Holder told the FBI to find out who had made the video. At that point he had no reason to suspect that there was anything at all illegal about it, so what possible legitimate interest could he have in identifying the maker? That was the offense in all this. That was and is the sign of corruption. They investigated who the film maker was, publicised his identity, thus putting him and his family in danger, and then looked hard for any possible way to get him in trouble. They found one, let them do a little dance, but they shouldn’t have been looking.

    As for this Nakoula Nakoula fellow, no tears for him, I think Shoebat is right that he’s really an Islamist, despite posing first as a Jew, and then, when that failed, as a Copt. The film is ludicrous by Western standards, but is typical of Islamist ones.

    Milhouse (3d0df0)

  156. *tape* or *tabe*… I’m killing myself out of boredom… who fricking cares

    Comment by steveg (794291) — 5/11/2013 @ 10:55 pm

    If you’re gonna go there, it’s actually “duck tape”, like the bird.

    Anyway, Optimal Female Parental Unit Day, everyone.

    nk (875f57)

  157. A summing up, with recollection of some things you might have missed;

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/05/peeling_off_the_benghazi_cover.html

    narciso (3fec35)

  158. 160 – narciso
    Thanks.
    Hopefully, the increasing number of individuals coming forward will get us to a perp walk.

    mg (31009b)

  159. The Admin Talking Points team according to Hayes:

    “According to the email, several officials in the meeting shared the concern of Nuland, who was not part of the deliberations, that the CIA’s talking points might lead to criticism that the State Department had ignored the CIA’s warning about an attack. Mike Morell, deputy director of the CIA, agreed to work with Jake Sullivan and Rhodes to edit the talking points. At the time, Sullivan was deputy chief of staff to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the State Department’s director of policy planning; he is now the top national security adviser to Vice President Joe Biden. Denis McDonough, then a top national security adviser to Obama and now his chief of staff, deferred on Rhodes’s behalf to Sullivan…”

    Saturday, Rice served the drivel up next AM.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  160. Milhouse @ 5/12/2013 @ 12:40 am says the Nakoula film is ludicrous by Western standards, but is typical of Islamist ones.

    My comment #46 asked if anyone had seen it or parts of it. I can’t find it anywhere. Supposedly before it disappeared the “offensive movie trailer” was viewed only 264 times and those after the 9/11/12 Benghazi attack.

    Milhouse, if your conclusions are based on direct experience can you direct me to the source?

    ropelight (429cc2)

  161. One of Steyn’s best efforts:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/node/347980

    I think his organizing concept, effete delusion, has legs but does not convince with Panetta and Dempsey en suite at 5 PM.

    Jar Jar Binks is not the decider.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  162. 166. Pickering just related that the ARB took notes, no stenographer, no tapes.

    Trust us, we’re professionals.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  163. Spooks don’t fold and recede into the crevasses without counter measures:

    http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/05/jay-carney-attempts-to-throw-cia-under-the-bus-on-benghazi-talking-points/#more

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  164. Hey gary, gone fishin’ yet? I bet ya’ll could use some global warming up there.
    But seriously, thanks for the links.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  165. Attkisson was marvelously diplomatic w/ Schieffer. Next step suggestion re-depose Petraeus.

    The stealth approach, Ok, I’ll sit tight. ‘Spose trial could wait ’til first Monday, Jan. 2014.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  166. Attkisson was marvelously diplomatic w/ Schieffer. Next step suggestion re-depose Petraeus.

    The stealth approach, Ok, I’ll sit tight. ‘Spose trial could wait ’til first Monday, Jan. 2014.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  167. Re: that Popehat business – this might explain it. http://www.popehat.com/2013/05/06/next-time-you-are-unexpectedly-banned/

    SarahW (b0e533)

  168. 168. The last lakes in my immediate vicinity were declared ‘ice out’ May 8th.

    Governor’s Fishin’ Opener tho was in Park Rapids, couple hours north. The event was scheduled for Fishook Lake but the ice wasn’t safe so they had formalities in the river.

    We’ve had four or five days above 60 anyway, not today.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  169. Oh, MD, I’m more of a duffer but haven’t been in years, maybe since the squirt arrived.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  170. who is this Ben Ghazi guy y’all are talking about?

    Colonel Haiku (8be704)

  171. We are, going forward, advised to be specific in referring to ‘the coverup’.

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/05/records-show-tsarnaev-brothers-may-have-funded-terror-spree-with-ebt-cards/

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  172. 174.who is this Ben Ghazi guy y’all are talking about?
    Comment by Colonel Haiku (8be704) — 5/12/2013 @ 9:24 am

    Somebody that comes right before Ben Hur in the “List of Top 10 Famous Bens” on Letterman.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  173. (Channeling Count von Count’s voice from Sesame Street) ”
    Oh no, 3, yes 3 scandals at the same time. One, two, three, ha, ha, ha!!!!

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  174. Comment by Milhouse (3d0df0) — 5/12/2013 @ 12:40 am

    As for this Nakoula Nakoula fellow, no tears for him, I think Shoebat is right that he’s really an Islamist, despite posing first as a Jew, and then, when that failed, as a Copt. The film is ludicrous by Western standards, but is typical of Islamist ones.

    Which means it was only made an excuse – an “explanation” for attacks on U.S. government property and people, just like the fact of Ariel Sharon going on to the temple Mount was a “cause” of the second intifada.

    The Islamists weren’t taking any chances – they commissioned that so called film themselves. (or video)

    It is no more than a series of incoherent vignettes, if a full length version exists at all – this man lied every step of the way. he even let people believe it was a pro-Islamist film when it was first shown, and the title “Innocense of muslims” also tells you that.

    Anyway the perpetrators commissioned that film.

    So actually it was right to find out who did it.

    What was wrong, was to stop with him, and not let him go free if he only revealed who was really behind it. (His role in aiding terrorism was really very small)

    And it was wrong to accept any part of his story, like that he wrote the script himself – and is there a script anyway?

    Sammy Finkelman (6f9f42)

  175. The spin about Bengazi is so bad that I’m getting a little angry about it.

    Victoria Nuland is being made into the villain here, and she was probably about the most honest person in the State Department.

    Some of her objections related to the fact that she was being forced to be less truthful (or
    accurate) than what the CIA was now suddenly willing to say.

    And she had nothing to do with the final (or major) editing of the talking points. Yet they bring in her name.

    The spin about Bengazi is so bad that I’m getting a little angry about it.

    Victoria Nuland is being made into the villain here, and she was probably
    about the most honest person in the State Department. Some of her objections
    related to the fact that she was being forced to be less truthful (or
    accurate) than what the CIA was now suddenly willing to say. And she had
    nothing to do with the final (or major) editing of the talking points.

    Senator Durbin was blaming Victora Nuland today on the Face the Nation broadcast at 10:45 am EDT

    Sammy Finkelman (6f9f42)

  176. Comment by Steve57 (9b1cdb) — 5/10/2013 @ 6:03 pm

    The high body count inside the perimeter of the Benghazi mission (and yes I’m including the attackers because US forces apparently did quite a number on them but really we should be killing them outside the fort) is actually proof the Obama administration did not take security seriously in a dangerous world. </i./

    They outsourced it! The policy: avoid using U.s troops whenever possible. Actually even when it's not reallly possible, or wise.

    But also, they probably were penetrated. To some degree this was an inside job. the Ambassador
    was taken to a firetrap "safe room" and a fire was set. Who knew the Ambassador was there? who knew he would go to a safe room? Who knew it was a foretrap? Who was consulted on the security arrangements???

    Sammy Finkelman (6f9f42)

  177. Well she volunteered to ‘walk the plank’ but it is fundamentally about policy, using Islamist elements like Bel Haj and Bin Qumu, to topple Quaddafi, then using those same elements to organize and train the opposition in Syria.

    narciso (3fec35)

  178. 29. Comment by SPQR (5557ef) — 5/10/2013 @ 9:33 am

    Sammy won’t give up. Utter lack of any factual support does not daunt him!

    Just look at the evidence and ignore the spin.

    The Weekly Standard on page 13 of the May 13, 2013 issue (which I finally got and got around to reading) has 3, really 4, versions of the talking
    points.

    The first draft, Friday, September 14, 2012 at 11:15 a.m.; the final draft, on Saturday, September 15, 2012 at 11:26 a.m.; and an intermediate draft, which is really two drafts, showing what was crossed out by deputy CIA
    Director Mike Morrell on Saturday, September 15, 2012 at 9:45 a.m.

    The first draft, written entirely by the CIA has: “We are working w/Libyan authorities and intelligence partners in an effort to help bring to justice those responsible for the deaths of U.S. citizens.” The italicsv are mine.

    This is referring to the SOOPER SEKZRIT INTELLIGENCE. I continue to spell it that way – SPQR was first I think – because the
    intelligence was OBVIOUSLY NOT RELIABLE. But it existed.

    Now, remember in the beginning, they had it right, or more right. It was an attack, there was no demonstration, and it was done by a terrorist group.

    Then CIA Director David Petraeus told the Senate Intelligence Committee that it was terrorism. In fact, Sheryl Atkinson mentioned to Bob Schieffer
    today on Face the Nation, in the context of saying that she’s constantly learning new things, that David Petraeus was (paraphrasing) perturbed
    about the removal of references about terrorism from the talking points.

    The only place information about a demonstration could have come from was from Sooper Sekrit intelligence. It wasn’t made up in Washington, and it certainly wasn’t made up by the U.S. State Department.

    Sammy Finkelman (6f9f42)

  179. I meant SOOPER SEKRIT INTELLIGENCE.

    The following sentence here refers to the SOOPER SEEKRIT INTELLIGENCE that said there was a demonstration in benghazi about a video:

    “We are working w/Libyan authorities and intelligence partners in an effort to help bring to justice those responsible for the deaths of U.S. citizens.”

    Also, at some stage in the writing of the talking points, the following was added:

    On 10 September the Agency notified Embassy Cairo of social media reports calling for a demonstration and encouraging jihadists to break into the Embassy.

    This is clearly intended to have some relevance and was put into the
    talking points by the CIA (who else would be interested?)

    And besides, the CIA – or some people in the CIA -was writing the whole thing – just taking comments from others but writing the whole thing themselves.

    That line has not been mentioned in any newspaper stories. It was probably objections from the State Department that got that out of there.

    Sammy Finkelman (6f9f42)

  180. It was made up out of whole cloth, Sammy, to mask the truth about al Queda’s involvement.

    elissa (cd6b2d)

  181. Victoria Nuland is being made into the villain here, and she was probably
    about the most honest person in the State Department. Some of her objections
    related to the fact that she was being forced to be less truthful (or
    accurate) than what the CIA was now suddenly willing to say. And she had
    nothing to do with the final (or major) editing of the talking points.

    WTF?!

    JD (60eb27)

  182. 179. “Victoria Nuland is being made into the villain here, and she was probably about the most honest person in the State Department.”

    Faint praise, as in nigh to invisible. She knew she was lying and she did so without scruple.

    There’s a lot of mud to be slung before this pig wrassle is done.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  183. Others asked to be interviewed [for the ARB] and were not. Until they see how my client, Gregory Hicks, former chargé and deputy chief of mission (DCM) in Libya, and Mr. Thompson fare after their testimony, they will not step forward. – Victoria Toensing

    So, more whistle-blowers are lying in wait. Hopefully they will be more motivated by the need to get the truth out than their own circumstances, should that be the case.

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/administration-relying-shoddy-benghazi-report-absolve-itself-blame_722379.html?nopager=1

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  184. They took out what is a high value target, as payback for Al Libi, and another Libyan jihadist,
    on September 11th, on the 25th of Shawwal, everything else is beside the point,

    narciso (3fec35)

  185. Victoria Nuland is being made into the villain here, and she was probably
    about the most honest person in the State Department. Some of her objections
    related to the fact that she was being forced to be less truthful (or
    accurate) than what the CIA was now suddenly willing to say. And she had
    nothing to do with the final (or major) editing of the talking points.

    She actively sought to and succeeded in obscuring the truth to keep inconvenient facts from reflecting poorly on State – prior attacks, prior warnings, AQ involvement, etc

    JD (60eb27)

  186. 182. “The only place information about a demonstration could have come from was from Sooper Sekrit intelligence. It wasn’t made up in Washington, and it certainly wasn’t made up by the U.S. State Department.”

    That a skunkworks was pushing the You Tube video of whatisname weeks ahead of the Cairo demonstration gaining entry on the Embassy in hopes of securing the Blind Sheikh’s release is common knowledge.

    Exactly who was behind that effort is just a bit murky as yet.

    The reference to the video was rather oblique in the first CIA version pointing to the trouble in Cairo.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  187. And also: the very first version of the talking points – before anybody else got involved started off with:

    -” We believe based based on currently available information

    That is, new information came in – that’s why they are saying currently available information. Late information, not early information.

    What was this new information? Sooper Sekrit Intelligence that came from “intelligence partners”, i.e. Saudi Arabia and Qatar. What else? Something made up out of whole cloth in the White House? You think somebody would try? You think it would make sense?

    And what did the Sooper Sekrit Intelligence say:

    “that the attacks in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. consulate and subsequently its annex.”

    Now this was written by the CIA, and the CIA alone.

    Even if you want to say that somebody in the White House told them to say that, and they’d
    be idiots to do so without some reason to believe that story would hold up, and the CIA people spineless political tools to go along with it, spineless tools without a single whistleblower among them yet, the instructions didn’t run through the State Department!

    The spin now is the CIA is being thrown under the bus to protect the state Department. Well, the CIA should be thrown under the bus, but it is not really happening, and that’s part of the problem.

    The second sentence then even goes:

    “The crowd almost certainly was a mix of individuals from many sectors of Lbyan society.”

    That is, not one group, and not all of them extremists.

    The third sentence of the original CIA draft goes:

    “That being said, we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to Al Qa’ida (Is the that the US Government spelling of Al Qaeda?) participated in the attack”

    Sammy Finkelman (6f9f42)

  188. 188. And frankly, if the motivation of Jarrett, et al., in arranging that the drone in coverage was unarmed, the order not to scramble a jet for fly over or drop rescuers was just to offer the Muslim orcs a freebie,

    it is still TREASON.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  189. Comment by gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 5/12/2013 @ 12:52 pm

    That a skunkworks was pushing the You Tube video of whatisname weeks ahead of the Cairo demonstration gaining entry on the Embassy in hopes of securing the Blind Sheikh’s release is common knowledge.

    The CIA actually put into the talking points – because who else did that if not the CIA? – that it had warned the State Department about an uipcoming demonstration in Cairo.

    It doesn’t say what they said the demonstration would be about, but, most probably, based on the fact that the Cairo Embassy tweeted about the video, it was that the demonstration would be about the video, although that’s not actually what the theme of the demonstration was.

    Exactly who was behind that effort is just a bit murky as yet.

    This Administratiion it doesn’t look like has triued too hard to find out. They should be offering Nakoula a deal. He’s more than willing to be an informer – he was an informer before.

    The reference to the video was rather oblique in the first CIA version pointing to the trouble in Cairo.

    That wasn’t in the first version, if you are talking about the warning to the Cairo Embassy.

    Sammy Finkelman (6f9f42)

  190. 191. As if the CIA were monolithic. Mike Morell appears to have been in charge with Petraeus snookered as the evening of 9/11 got started.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  191. 193. “because who else did that if not the CIA? ”

    Brennan, for starters.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  192. 188. Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 5/12/2013 @ 12:46 pm

    They took out what is a high value target, as payback for Al Libi..

    No, that’s another red herring. As I commented once, this attack has too many fathers.

    They took out Stevens because he was interfering with the shipment of arms by Qatar and/or Saudi Arabia to Syrian jihadists.

    Sammy Finkelman (6f9f42)

  193. Sammy, (assuming you are an American citizen) as a citizen and taxpayer are you fully satisfied with the veracity of statements that Susan Rice made on all 5 Sunday morning talk shows immediately after 9/11/12? If not, why not? If so, why?. How do you explain her immediate and bold (some have said rude) contradiction of the prior statement of the leader of Libya concerning Benghazi being a heavily armed pre-planned terror attack replete with rocket launchers?

    elissa (cd6b2d)

  194. Elissa – because of SUPER SEKRIT intelligence. Duh.

    JD (60eb27)

  195. 196. And I say the attackers, allied al Qaeda and MB forces, roughly 20K flowing freely across the Egyptian border, had some bad luck with Stevens panicking and staying in the main building, in the lockup.

    One of the camera videos have the attackers finally breaking in.

    Shouts of “He’s alive” are followed with “Allah be praised”. He was the trade bait for the Blind Sheikh but they suffocated him.

    No EMTs among them. Stevens was expendable, whatever his loyalties, and I doubt they mattered.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  196. Comment by elissa (cd6b2d) — 5/12/2013 @ 1:04 pm

    Sammy, (assuming you are an American citizen) as a citizen and taxpayer are you fully satisfied with the veracity of statements that Susan Rice made on all 5 Sunday morning talk shows immediately after 9/11/12?

    Of course not.

    If not, why not? If so, why?.

    Because it is not true. It is party of a totally false story.

    But what bothers me above all, is I think she believed it was true.

    It was a story that would have the whole thing not be a planned assault. And if it not an a planned assault, there’s no mastermind or body to go after, right?

    How do you explain her immediate and bold (some have said rude) contradiction of the prior statement of the leader of Libya concerning Benghazi being a heavily armed pre-planned terror attack replete with rocket launchers? </I.

    She was sticking to the talking points. She was relying on the CIA. Or, as I maybe should have said, foreign intelligence moles in the CIA. The same moles, mostly, ho got rid of the CIA Director. Gary Gulrud in 194 is right. I used shorthand. I just don't know who exactly are the moles in the CIA.

    RSS feed for comments on this post.

    Sammy Finkelman (6f9f42)

  197. JD–doesn’t everyone always bring rocket launchers to their little spontaneous demonstration?

    elissa (cd6b2d)

  198. Can you point to us where the CIA blamed this on a video, Sammy?

    JD (60eb27)

  199. 200. Clinton’s CofS, Sullivan, made the final revisions for Rice.

    Your prob Sammy is you listened to Carney and believed word one. WTFU.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  200. Every time I do. Movie review, I bring along an RPG and mortars.

    JD (60eb27)

  201. 201. Or are skilled with mortars and carrying, putting one on the Annex roof after half their company are blown away.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  202. 201. Or are skilled with mortars and carrying, putting one on the Annex roof after half their company are blown away.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  203. 202. Comment by JD (60eb27) — 5/12/2013 @ 1:15 pm

    Can you point to us where the CIA blamed this on a video, Sammy?

    One version of the talking points had this line:

    On 10 September the Agency notified Embassy Cairo of social media reports calling for a demonstration and encouraging jihadists to break into the Embassy.

    Now what is the relevance of this unless a video sparked the attack in Benghazi.

    Also, they said that (currently available information = Sooper Sekrit Intelligence) told them that “the attacks in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by protests at
    the U.S. Embassy in Cairo”

    And the protests were supposed to have been about a video.

    82.Somebody evidentally objected to the summary of events in the initial CIA version of the talking points – maybe Victoria Nuland – because a later
    version of the talking points has this sentence, which stayed in till the very end:

    This assessment may change as additional information is collected and analyzed and currently available information continues to be evaluated.

    In other words, maybe we’ll take a look at the information that comes from Americans present in Libya and in Benghazi on the night of the events, and maybe we’ll take a second look at the Sooper Sekrit intelligence and maybe we’ll revise these conclusions.

    This is compromise wording.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (6f9f42) — 5/12/2013 @ 1:15 pm

    Sammy Finkelman (6f9f42)

  204. “Victoria Nuland is being made into the villain here, and she was probably about the most honest person in the State Department.”

    Sammy – Yes, she is the Jay Carney of the State Department and just as honest.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  205. On face the nation Schieffer held out hope for the Admin with the quote:

    “Never attribute to malice aforethought that which can be assigned to incompetence.”

    Plainly, the two are not exclusive, I give you Mursi and the MB. Case closed.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  206. On 10 September the Agency notified Embassy Cairo of social media reports calling for a demonstration and encouraging jihadists to break into the Embassy.

    At the very outset, prior to Hicks talking to Clinton, maybe this was reasonable. Given the coordinated sustained attack and Hicks direct statements, beyond that moment, there was no evidence to support it.

    JD (60eb27)

  207. It is exasperating that Saamy still clings to a scarnario that has no basis in reality.

    JD (60eb27)

  208. Sammy–I asked you to respond to those questions @197 because frankly the problem I am having here is that from your posts I simply do not understand who (or what) you are trying to stand up for, or defend. It appears you are pissed and that you think somebody has gotten a raw deal. But apart from the American people who I know for a fact have gotten a raw deal with respect to Benghazi, who do you think are the villains here and who are the victims?

    elissa (cd6b2d)

  209. On 10 September the Agency notified Embassy Cairo of social media reports calling for a demonstration and encouraging jihadists to break into the Embassy.

    Now what is the relevance of this unless a video sparked the attack in Benghazi.

    Why should we assume it was relevant?

    This is compromise wording.

    Compromise between what and what exactly?

    Gerald A (82a59d)

  210. Yes, the demonstration were due to Gamaa Islamiya tape, which I’ve referred to on dozens of times,

    narciso (3fec35)

  211. “And besides, the CIA – or some people in the CIA -was writing the whole thing – just taking comments from others but writing the whole thing themselves.”

    Sammy – After the production of the initial draft of talking points by the CIA on 9/14, the editing became a group project with all subsequent 11 iterations reflecting input and changes demanded by senior officials at the White House and State Department, yet the stupid liberal talking point advanced is that the final work product remains the sole responsibility of the CIA.

    That’s a good one!

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  212. It seems to me that the liberal media are trying to manage a contained explosion with this, hitting the administration with about a tenth of what they could, and calling every other allegation political. Watch and see how this is coordinated.

    That’s as far as it will go, and the media will proudly trumpet their lack of bias.

    Amphipolis (e01538)

  213. Hillary Clinton gave up the fight once the talking points had in them the idea that current assessment was not permanent.

    And she wanted everybody else in the Stgate Department to stop fighting this bureaucratic battle also.

    Sammy – what evidence do you have for this assertion?

    JD (60eb27)

  214. “And she also played along with the ongoing condemnation of the video, while at the same time
    being very careful not to say that it had anything to do with what happened in Benghazi, or even Cairo”

    Sammy – Hillary actively promoted condemnation of the video prior to Rice’s TV appearances and specifically cited it as a cause of the violence, which why I believe Rice continued the narrative in her appearances. Recheck your timeline.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  215. Will the MFM ever ask who gave the 2 stand down orders? Will the MFM ever ask Teh One WTF he did between the time he gave his speech and left for his fundraiser ?

    JD (60eb27)

  216. Who introduced the blame the YouTube video narrative into Rice’s talking points, and when?

    JD (60eb27)

  217. nk

    been in the trades long enough to know that the tape was originally to seal ductwork.
    once it came into common use the word transformed into *duck*, because no one out in everyday life had a clue what ducts are and *duct* sounded like *duct* and the manufacturers decided that who cares what it is called or how you want to use it… $1.99!

    SteveG (794291)

  218. *duct* sounded like *duck* but did not taste like potatoes fried in duck fat, so they went with the tastier option

    SteveG (794291)

  219. We’ve heard about Nakoula’s video for about 8 months now and I’ve yet to see even a snippet, and I’ve kept an eye open and tried to find it half a dozen times without success. Has anyone seen it, or parts of it, or previews of it?

    Just search Youtube for “Innocence of Muslims”

    Milhouse (3d0df0)

  220. So what do you call the shiny aluminum one with the wax paper covering the adhesive? Because that’s the one I used on my microwave vent.

    nk (875f57)

  221. I blame Sammy’s incoherence on watching too many videos—too many Justin Bieber videos.

    Elephant Stone (a59d01)

  222. There’s an article out called “13 Benghazis That Occurred on Bush’s Watch Without a Peep from Fox News” with these facts:

    These outright lies were already exploded the last time you posted them. Quick, how many of these dead were Americans, and how many were terrorists whose deaths were a good thing, and proof that Bush was on the job? How many of these attacks managed to penetrate embassy or consulate security, and how many were successfully repelled, again proving that Bush was on the job? For that matter, how many weren’t even on embassy or consulate grounds, making Bush’s security arrangements irrelevant?

    But it’s actually illegal to kill Americans without a trial, I saw it in the Constitution.

    Really? Where in the constitution does it say that it’s illegal to kill enemies making war on the USA just because they happen to be Americans? In fact where does it give Americans any more protection than aliens?

    How about turning a blind eye to overseas bribery? There was slamdunk evidence of Walmart shelling out mucho pesos illegally all over Mexico, with damning proof going right up to the tippy top in Bentonville. No one care?

    No, no sane person cares, even if this is true (I don’t trust you on that, but I don’t care enough to look it up). The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act is insane. If the way business is done in Mexico is to grease the right palms, then there’s nothing wrong with doing so, and piously refraining from doing so is not only stupid, but if you’re handling other people’s money then it’s a breach of fiduciary duty.

    Did you know the killing of bin Laden runs counter to a law President Ford signed targeting political leaders for assassination? If you guys think street justice on bin Laden is okay, why shouldn’t we have to change the law first?

    Liar again. There is no such law and never has been. Executive orders aren’t laws, they’re instructions from the president to his employees. Obviously the president himself is not bound by them, and nor is anyone whom the president specifically instructed to disregard them.

    Milhouse (3d0df0)

  223. It is not only a vent… it is a duct that vents. Some ducts hold wiring
    If you tape the venting duct with ordinary grey fabric duct tape it is not heat resistant. The silver stuff is heat resistant.
    So if you go to sell your home, the silver tape on the water heater exhaust duct work and the furnace duct work is usually per code. Fabric tape named after a “duck”? maybe not.
    depends on if you are on the buy.. or sell side of the transaction

    SteveG (794291)

  224. 200. Comment by elissa (cd6b2d) — 5/12/2013 @ 1:04 pm

    Sammy, (assuming you are an American citizen) as a citizen and taxpayer are you fully satisfied with the veracity of statements that Susan Rice made on all 5 Sunday morning talk shows immediately after 9/11/12?

    Of course not.

    If not, why not? If so, why?.

    Because it is not true. It is party of a totally false story.

    But what bothers me above all, is I think she believed it was true.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (6f9f42) — 5/12/2013 @ 1:11 pm

    Sammy, I honestly think you’re a decent guy. We might get together and enjoy a beer sometime. But you’ve got let this one go.

    There is no way Susan Rice believed she was spewing the truth that Sunday.

    State had people on the ground that night. Rice said she was getting her info from intel. There’s only one reason to do that. To not talk to your own people on the ground. And that reason is you want to lie.

    Susan Rice lied when she went on those talk shows. I’ve been saying since September 2012 that this was not an intelligence failure. It was not even an intelligence issue. It was an operational issue. A state department facility was under attack. Note that the state department confirmed it was in contact with Benghazi’s Tactical Operations Center. Via the Diplomatic Security Command Center. The reason the agent at the TOC was in contact with the command center was to give them the information needed to coordinate a response. THAT is operations, not intel.

    We, little state dept., are being served up a **** sandwich and you, big state dept., need to do something about it.

    I think I’ve been consistent for what’s now approaching a year. If Susan Rice was claiming her info was coming from CIA, it means she was lying. I was never state department and I know DSS exists. I know they have a command center. I know they’d have been in contact with the agents on the ground in Benghazi.

    And Rice was in line to be SecState? And she doesn’t know what I know? What thousands of people besides my eminent self know? Give me a ****ing break, Sammy.

    The fact that she so studiously avoided the places and people who could have given her the truth is all the evidence you need to know she lied.

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  225. Nakoula should be foil taped to his cell… foil tape being the new duct tape

    SteveG (794291)

  226. Of course, she was lying, the Administration had tasked the CIA to find the factions, disposed to topple Quadaffi, of course we relied on General Intelligence and whatever the Qatari agency is called to vet them, and hence they were armed,
    (if this sounds like the way the first Afghan intervention went awry, it’s deja vu all over again,

    narciso (3fec35)

  227. Rice lied
    Romney died

    mg (31009b)

  228. As an aside, I realize “conspiracy theory” is getting a bad rep. Like it could only be the raving of a mad man, unless it’s Hillary! and a vast right wing conspiracy. Then, it’s not crazy talk. But if I’m not mistaken the feds convict people of conspiring to commit a felony on a regular basis.

    Question: how many federal convictions does it take to prove conspiracies exist? Or the inverse; if conspiracies only exist in the twisted minds of right wing loons then shouldn’t a lot of falsely convicted prisoners be released?

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  229. When the official narrative, I really hate that word, is more ludicrous then the truth, what do you call it?

    narciso (3fec35)

  230. Steve57. Susan Rice knew she was lying. She had the SEC STATE JOB dangled in front of her, and she did what she was told. She’s no fuxing Bo Peep, she’s connected, wealthy and dirty.

    Gus (694db4)

  231. I don’t know if someone else has linked this article above, but some of his conclusions make sense to me. In addition, the author speculates David Petraeus may decide to speak out about what he knows and that, if he does, it will not be good news for Obama.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  232. 225. Furnace tape is similar to duct tape, tears even more readily but withstands higher heat and the glue is less gummy yet has excellent tack.

    I’ve used the foil tape but don’t know the jargon.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  233. 236. More popcorn.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  234. I loved hearing Pickering say when asked why the ARB did not address the altered talking points, “They had nothing to do with accomplished fact”, or words to the effect.

    Like identifying liars among those you’re deposing is irrelevant. A Dhimmi aparatchik sun up to sun down.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  235. If all the omens stay in place, Obama will cease to be President on the stroke of midnight, January 20, 2017.

    I think you mean noon

    Milhouse (3d0df0)

  236. David Petraeus was last seen whining about how the sequester cut the pentagon piggies’ slop rations

    before that he was forkling around with some chippie

    he can’t necessarily be counted upon to do what’s right for America

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  237. Maybe so, happyfeet. Maybe he just wants to get even.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  238. we’ll see

    he’s certainly never shown any appetite for getting even for how food stamp squandered the tremendous gains he made in Iraq and Afghanistan

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  239. I think you mean noon

    Comment by Milhouse (3d0df0) — 5/12/2013 @ 5:59 pm

    You’re right. Dang it! They did say that it had to be a fresh egg.

    nk (875f57)

  240. Why should he, happyfeet? As a military leader, Petraeus certainly understands that civilian leaders will take actions that undermine military decisions, but I doubt Petraeus’ reputation as a military commander or strategist has been harmed because of what happened in Afghanistan and Iraq after he left the military. But Petraeus was the head of the CIA on 9/11/2012, so pinning the blame (even a little) on the CIA does hurt Petraeus’ reputation.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  241. There will be a tipping point.

    JD (b63a52)

  242. @225 nk — it was probably 3m 3311 foil tape (although they make at least a half-dozen metal foil tapes) or some other company’s comparable foil tape product.

    htom (412a17)

  243. Judge Jeanine Pirro on fire. “They all lied to us. A lie is a lie is a lie. Let’s call it what it is.”

    Excellent video. Watch it

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urkBqOoL3n4

    elissa (cd6b2d)

  244. his reputation as a military commander and strategist is a moot point anymore

    cause of nothing much came of it

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  245. No, I candidly disagree, the task was not complete in either theatre, but lives were saved,

    narciso (3fec35)

  246. there’s something seriously scary about that judge lady’s face

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  247. yay lives were saved

    aaaaaaaaand

    done

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  248. Happyfeet, your decision to take on Gen. Petraeus at the very moment when it is rumored that he is ready to spill the beans about Benghazi is….how you say?…strange. His personal failings aside he is arguably the most brilliant military strategist of his generation.

    What’s your problem?

    elissa (cd6b2d)

  249. oh.

    Carolyn Maloney wins the scary face contest by a mile

    I really thought the judge lady was the winning horse there

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  250. Comment by gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 5/12/2013 @ 1:10 pm

    With all of the attention on the known events, the recent testimony, and the talk about the arms for Syria thing, I had completely forgotten about the angle that this was meant to be a kidnapping of Stevens so he could be traded for the Blind Sheikh.
    As bizarre as it seems, that makes about the most sense as anything, other than an assumed compilation of ineptness, incompetence, and delusional thinking, along with cowardice.

    Although the idea that they intended on letting Stevens be kidnapped raises the diabolical machiavellian quotient (DMQ) for Hillary higher than I would have ever imagined previously. Really getting into “24” plot line here, but truth is supposed to be stranger than fiction.

    The behavior pre-attack and during the attack would seem designed to make it easy to kidnap somebody and then let them get away with it.
    But for it to work it required expecting people to listen to orders that made no sense, people within the State Dept, the military, and the CIA. Who actually could have/needed to have known the plan, who didn’t know but suspected something and cooperated anyway, and who didn’t know but was expected to “just follow orders” but didn’t.
    From Obama on down was an unbroken chain of command except for those under Ambassador Stevens, who would have never suspected or gone along with the plot.
    So you have the muffed kidnapping which resulted in his death, complication #1 in someone in the CIA annex disobeying orders to go and help, and complication #2 in Hicks being far more responsible, proactive, and effective than anyone above in DC expected. (I guess they don’t know enough about loyalty and courage to have anticipated such behavior).

    It makes sense then why Clinton had so little interaction with Hicks; she couldn’t actively suppress his attempts without raising more alarms in his head, and she wasn’t going to help martial resources. She could not intervene in his attempts to get honorable volunteers to go with him to attempt a defense/rescue.
    Meanwhile military and CIA had an unbroken chain of command from the president on down that was told to do nothing and shut-up about it; complete with lies that there was nothing the military could do, and that cryptic clarification by Petraeus that “no one in the CIA” gave the order to stand down (or something like that) but, cough, maybe you should ask the military again.

    Sec of state sells out her friend the ambassador so Obama can do a favor for the leader of Egypt, hoping to not really sell out her friend thinking he will be returned alive?
    Very hard to believe, but more consistent with the facts than many other scenarios.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  251. I’m not really into David Petraeus elissa

    he lost me with the chippie thing then he really really lost me by how he tried to buy cheap redemption by writing an oped defending pork for pentagon piggies

    plus I really think he should’ve spoken up when food stamp turned his back on the hard-fought mind-blowingly expensive gains we had won in Iraq and Afghanistan

    it’s not like he has to maintain the hoity-toity appearances of a superpower military anymore

    it’s just an expensive albatross bedraped around the morbidly obese neck of a blatantly fascist sad little country what doesn’t prize freedom – ours or them foreign people’s – very highly at all

    Davey needs to go find himself another hot to trot lil groupie cause I guarantee you he won’t do anything about benghazi what isn’t 100% calculated to be in the best interest of his piteously disheveled career

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  252. That theory doesn’t seem compelling to me, if they wanted to kidnap him, why not intercept him on the way to Benghazi, no this was a payback operation,

    narciso (3fec35)

  253. Good point, narciso, about alternative and better kidnap opportunities
    but that assumes they were sold on trying to deny there was a terrorist attack at all even when it was happening and intervention could have been done
    even the most cynical could say they could have spun a rescue attempt, successful or not, into a claim of heroic leadership by the one, instead of assuming he had to try to keep alive the “Al Qaeda is dead” narrative.

    But who knows.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  254. Simply opportunistic, hitting an available target with available resources, would be in line with Al Qaeda’s pinprick asymetrical warfare approach.

    nk (875f57)

  255. simply opportunistic, hitting an available target with available resources

    this sounds a lot like the 2012 campaign really

    (to be clear the opportunistic hitty one wasn’t Mr. “Mitt Romney”

    turns out it was food stamp)

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  256. To me the idea that Clinton wanted so bad to make a low security footprint in Benghazi as a political statement against such overwhelming evidence and protests seems hard to believe. Other countries had already left. The US had previously been attacked numerous times. And there is no record of reasoned discussion as to why the request for more security was turned down. It seems to me like a big gamble for minimal gain to have left the facility such a begging target. One can blame incompetence, but it seems there were enough competent people around screaming that they should have been listened to.

    Interesting they loaded praise on Hicks immediately after the event before they later dumped on him. Perhaps they were just trying to buy his silence with some flattery.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  257. nobody is handpicked for these jobs what aren’t thought willing to play ball in a benghazi-type situation Mr. Dr.

    they’ve all proven themselves to be team players

    if it had occurred to Hillary and her incompetent little posse that they needed to buy his silence, they would’ve

    they would’ve made him an offer he couldn’t refuse

    she’s a damn clinton they know all about buying silence

    plus also they have some neat journalism skills with respect to interviewing corporate spokes-geckos

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  258. An aside if anyone wants to try to answer or direct me. I heard a comment minimalizing Benghazi as something to get upset about by comparing it to Iran-Contra; in other words, all presidents and their CIA operatives and people do shady and dishonest stuff, so why make such a big deal out of Benghazi? I was in residency when Iran-Contra was going on, meaning I didn’t pay much attention and I don’t know that much about it, though it seems to me that it wasn’t something I would have wanted to defend and I never understood why oliver north was a hero to many. of course, at the time, i did not realize how obstructionist the dems/left were being at US efforts to oppose the spread of Soviet influence and Marxism around the world.

    Any quick comparisons as to why Iran-Contra “wasn’t as bad as Benghazi”?

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  259. For starters no dead ambassador and Fawn Hall was cuter than Hillary.

    elissa (cd6b2d)

  260. Iran-Contra was like a thousand years ago

    do you know what America’s total debt was back then?

    (turns out it was negligible)

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  261. It makes sense to me (you kidnap Stevens, we trade for Blind Terrorist.) Everyone who needs to know, knows (or will follow orders to cover it up), except Stevens (who appears to have been bright enough not to go along) and those under him (likewise.) They had a brilliant plan, forgetting only one thing … no plan survives contact with the enemy … and making only one mistake … while for the purpose of the plan the terrorists are “the enemy”, in the real world, Stevens et all are the real enemy of the plan. Don’t know their parts, and make it up as they go along, as warriors do. Betrayed, they died as warriors do, taking an honor guard with them.

    The Grave of the Hundred Head.

    htom (412a17)

  262. We were trying to aid the good guys, the Nicaraguan resistance, some folks in my neck of the woods, saw it as ‘La Causa’, the left particularly Kerry and Harkin, were the Sandinista’s mouthpieces, Reagan saw it was necessary to keep them, intact, by any means necessary,

    narciso (3fec35)

  263. Yeah, i kind of assume they main point would be that in Benghazi the US government put people in danger, let them die without intervention, and lied about it to cover up.
    No American representatives were left to die by the highest levels of US officials in I-C.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  264. At one point in Kerry’s witchhunt, Felix Rodriguez, who had been slandered by the left, just got up, saying words to the effect ‘I can’t answer questions from someone I have no respect for, they used convicted drug dealers, to impugn the administration,

    narciso (3fec35)

  265. narciso, thanks for the comment.
    At the time, I thought that if Congress didn’t want to fund the Contra’s then the President should not have deceived them and have done it anyway. So on that basis, one could say, “Well, they all do it.”
    Like I said, since then I have come to appreciate the bankrupt foreign policy of the dems and understand the situation a bit differently
    however, we don’t want to get carried away with an argument based too much on “the end justifies the means”.
    One can still make the point that trying to go around Congress is one thing, abandoing our own people to die and lie about it is something else.
    Besides, you can give Obama “evens” for finding ways to subvert Congress, just not bothering to go behind their back to do it.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  266. We actually were in Costa Rica for 4 months in 87 and had a housekeeper from Nicaragua. She was in CR to get away from the Sandinistas. So, I was and am very sympathetic to the effort to oppose them.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  267. The saddest part of Iran-Contra for me was seeing Reagan being questioned on the stand in one of the proceedings and realizing that he likely had onset of dementia while still President.

    nk (875f57)

  268. Now the objectionable part was the ill considered approach to the ‘Iranian moderates’ which was a notion devised by a relatively junior CIA analyst
    Graham Fuller, yes the one who’s daughter married Uncle Ruslan.

    narciso (3fec35)

  269. Petraeus owes this country the gosh darn truth.
    Spit it out loser.

    mg (31009b)

  270. http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/215990.php

    Sharyl Attkisson of CBS talks about not only the Benghazi attack but Cairo.

    She mentions at about the 2 minute mark there is now a question due to the “slowly growing body of evidence” that the Cairo protest were not over the video. She cites a CIA warning that went out on September 10th.

    Well, I don’t know what body of evidence Sharyl Atkisson has at her disposal. But I’ve been referring you to Raymond Ibrahim’s press translations since September 2012. For a reason. It’s open source. It’s a hint, a big clue, about where the evidence that Sharyl Atkisson will uncover if she pursues it will lead.

    It’s no secret that I believe the worst about Obama and his administration. But believing and knowing are two different things. I can’t prove Obama’s a communist, for instance. But I can prove he’s lying about Benghazi. What’s even better than knowing that is knowing that a bunch of guys who are nine times tougher than me can prove it too. Listen to Sharyl Atkisson talk about the SpecWar guys at about the 17 minute mark. It’s heartwarming.

    I’m not particularly smart. I’m not particularly insightful. I’m not particularly clued in. So If I know what I know, lots of people do. And this horse is fixing to buck because it don’t like the way the Chicago mob is applying the spurs.

    This administration has kicked a hornets nest, and is now lying about the hornets. And to take my mixing of metaphors to what may be an obscene level, that won’t fly.

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  271. 225. “Very hard to believe, but more consistent with the facts than many other scenarios.”

    Very hard for 70% of Amerikkka, like John McVain, who nonetheless calls Dempsey a liar to his face and before God and all.

    Connect the dots. The Admin wastes Libyan hero of the war, al Libi, by drone in Pakistan, al Qaeda announces three days in advance they’ve a reprisal in the works, its 9/11, the green Ambassador is rushed to no-man’s-land which has been stripped of security, the CIA is the only remaining presence led by a naked Secretary getting locked out of his office, Brennan has been operating for months outside Cabinet level oversight, and Chairman of JCS complains the military cannot and should not be relied on to put out every fire the erupts on this wretched planet.

    Seeing easily a hundred heavily armed attackers, the whole compound alight in fuel oil they send Jar Jar to bed, cut their losses and spend the night working on the ‘detestable video’ narrative ’cause there’s an election to win and they just got dealt a deuce.

    We’d rather believe these reprobates are venal cowards than personified evil.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  272. This is why I love George Will:

    MARTHA RADDATZ, ABC NEWS: And they got the talking points out there. George Will, is this going to last? Is this going to have a lasting effect as an unacceptable way to do business at the White House?
    GEORGE WILL, CONSERVATIVE COLUMNIST: Lasting. A week ago, Mr. Carney, who’s usefulness to this administration is diminishing rapidly– A week ago he said, Benghazi was a long time ago as if it was the Punic Wars. This is a very live issue, because we now know three things.

    We know that Mr. Hicks, the night of the attack, speaking from Libya, said pretty much what it was, an armed interaction, not a movie review conducted with rocket-propelled grenades and mortars.

    Five days later on this program and on four other Sunday morning programs, the idea of an exceptionally boisterous movie review was still the administration’s position.

    And then, 14 days after the attack, at the UN, it was the same thing.

    We started out with three arguments. Was security lax in Benghazi? Demonstrably. Could forces have been there to rescue them? Doubtful. Has the nation been systemically misled? Certainly.

    elissa (982c21)

  273. 239. Comment by gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 5/12/2013 @ 5:41 pm

    I loved hearing Pickering say when asked why the ARB did not address the altered talking points

    YOu didnb’t catch his argument? It as that what hapepned after Sept. 11 had no effect on what happened before Sept. 11, 2011, and their manadate was only to investigate what happened before. (Specifically really only why there wasn’t more security. It found all kinds of fault but no errors of policy, or mistakes of judgement at the Senate confirmation level, which was the intention)

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  274. 272. Comment by nk (875f57) — 5/12/2013 @ 8:59 pm

    The saddest part of Iran-Contra for me was seeing Reagan being questioned on the stand in one of the proceedings and realizing that he likely had onset of dementia while still President.

    Did you think so at the time?

    He looked a little bad in a 1984 debate, but that was clearly the result of having his head overstuffed with memorized lines, and it could happen to a college student.

    There are stories – like the professor who thought he had a problem.. Nobody else noticed it, but years later he came dwon with Alzheimer’s.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  275. Comment by Gus (694db4) — 5/12/2013 @ 5:25 pm

    Susan Rice knew she was lying.

    She knew there were a lot of caveats to it, but she didn’t wnat to depart from her lines. She had soem classified informatiuon that altered the probabilities.

    She did not know that there never had been any kind of demonstration in Benghazi, just an assault.

    If she’d been interested in knowing, she could have just had an aide call Hicks.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  276. Comment by elissa (982c21) — 5/13/2013 @ 7:38 am

    We know that Mr. Hicks, the night of the attack, speaking from Libya, said pretty much what it was, an armed interaction, not a movie review conducted with rocket-propelled grenades and mortars.

    The whole State Department knew this (with the possible exception of Susan Rice, who wasn”t really a member of teh Satte Department)

    On Face the NAtion Susan Rice had claimed that (notice teh wordsZ) that they didn’t have any information that it was planned. Meaning they didn’t know who might have issued the orders etc. But without that you can still know it is a polanned assault. Ad hoc things just don’t happen that way.

    Five days later on this program and on four other Sunday morning programs, the idea of an exceptionally boisterous movie review was still the administration’s position.

    Not still. Had become. The position actually was that that was the best guess.

    We started out with three arguments. Was security lax in Benghazi? Demonstrably.

    Only against a massive suddeen attack – which some people thought might happen although not qwuite as suddenly as it did.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  277. ==The whole State Department knew this (with the possible exception of Susan Rice, who wasn”t really a member of teh Satte Department)==

    Sammy have you ever stopped to wonder why Ms. Rice, whom you seem to admit knew nothing about what she was talking about and had no first hand knowledge about any of it, was the one who went full Ginsburg that Sunday instead of someone in the State Dept.?

    elissa (b5a0c8)

  278. 280. Comment by Gus (694db4) — 5/12/2013 @ 5:25 pm

    Susan Rice knew she was lying.

    She knew there were a lot of caveats to it, but she didn’t wnat to depart from her lines. She had soem classified informatiuon that altered the probabilities.

    She did not know that there never had been any kind of demonstration in Benghazi, just an assault.

    If she’d been interested in knowing, she could have just had an aide call Hicks.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 5/13/2013 @ 8:56 am

    Dude, I don’t think there’s a shark in the ocean you haven’t jumped at this point.

    As a matter of fact, the sharks have signed a petition and forwarded it to me to pass to you. Quit jumping the sharks. They want you to know it’s hard enough making a living by trying to remain hidden so you can kill stealthily. And what with you hanging about just waiting for an opportunity to jump over them, it just makes their lives harder.

    One would hope at some point you’d grasp the fact that Obama’s cabinet member who just so happened to be his personal envoy to the UN avoided talking to everyone at state precisely because she knew what they’d tell her. Hillary! could have told her what they’d tell her, because she had talked to them. Which is undoubtedly why it wasn’t her on those talk shows. But then the point where it was plausible that Rice actually could believe what she was saying was true was passed 7.99 months ago. Yet hear we are, with you pretending against all hope and reason that’s not the case.

    Quit jumping the freaking sharks, Sammy. Because of your endless search for sharks to jump you’ve cut their daily protein intake down by more than half. And on top of that they have to put up with all the other fish and sea mammals laughing at them.

    They’re embarrassed and wasting away.

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  279. Over at NRO Andrew McCarthey is getting warm.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/348125/blame-it-video-was-fraud-cairo-rioting-too

    ‘Blame It On the Video’ Was a Fraud As To Cairo Rioting, Too

    By Andrew C. McCarthy
    May 13, 2013 11:34 AM

    …This conventional wisdom is wrong. There is a kernel of truth to it, which is more than you can say about the video’s connection to Benghazi, but no more than that.

    As we have covered here before (see, e.g., here), the release and return to Egypt of the Blind Sheik, Omar Abdel Rahman (whom I prosecuted in the Nineties), has been a cause célèbre in Egypt for many years. On September 10, 2012, the day before rioting at the U.S. embassy in Cairo, an Egyptian weekly, El Fagr, reported that several jihadist organizations, including the Blind Sheik’s group (Gama’at al-Islamia or the Islamic Group) and al Qaeda emir Ayman al-Zawahiri’s group (Egyptian Islamic Jihad), were threatening to burn the American embassy in Cairo to the ground. The promised action against the embassy was an effort to extort the release of Abdel Rahman and other jihadists jailed by the United States.

    We know this thanks to the invaluable Raymond Ibrahim – who makes it his business to scour the Arabic press, where Islamic supremacists are actually covered. Ray published a post on it in the PJ Tatler. The post echoes my observation, from back in July, that the Blind Sheik’s son, Abdallah Abdel Rahman, was threatening to raid the U.S. embassy in Cairo and hold our people hostage to coerce his father’s release

    Well, to be fair “we” know this due to a bit more than Raymond Ibrahim’s press transliterations. But those are important and are what’s publicly available.

    So how did the anti-Islamic video makes its way into the story. It increasingly appears that the Obama administration did more to publicize … the video and make it relevant than anyone else did.

    The Obama administration is responsible for inflaming the Muslim world with that video. Very few people had heard of it until they got involved. Your tax dollars at work; that ad campaign Hillary! conducted in Pakistan did more to spread the news about the video than anything the Muslim Brotherhood could have hoped to do.

    Benghazi is Obama’s national security and foreign policies in microcosm. I think we should all pause and thank God that Barack Obama is an incompetent. Because Lord knows what damage he and his Che Guevara T-shirt wearing teenagers in that freshman dorm formerly known as the White House could do if it were otherwise.

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  280. 278. Oh, I listened to his arguments, e.g., on why did they not interview Clinton? He says they interviewed every one with responsibilities in Libya and nothing further would have been gleaned.

    When, of course, the Secretary alone can sign off on a consulate or diplomatic mission with inadequate security.

    The truth is Pickering became physically ill at the prospect of interviewing Clinton.

    They made 29 recommendations about fixing it but rubber stamped the DOD assertion that it was not prepared and could not have changed the outcome.

    Like we give a rip whether they’d lose an F-16 on the runway scrambling.

    Two ex-SEALS ignored the ‘stand down’ order and nearly saved everyone on leaving from Tripoli and quick-timing it from the Annex to the consulate.

    You are going to tell me 4 SpecOps guys could not have made a difference leaving with them?

    So Pickering paying no attention to the man behind the curtain, just following his mandate, renders his work suitable for wiping?

    You aren’t the quickest study ’round here are you?

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  281. Former Delta Operator on “The Panetta Doctrine” or also known as “The Dumbest S*** I Ever Heard!”

    No link. It’s an old post that’s still available on Blackfive if you’re interested.

    I’m resurrecting it because while I hate to contradict a retired Delta operator, sadly what Panetta said last October may no longer be the dumbest s*** he’s ever heard.

    For that, we turn now to former SecDef Bob Gates who on CBS yesterday said he too wouldn’t have authorized an aircraft to fly over Benghazi because of all the MANPADs that have gone missing from Qaddafi’s arsenal. Then he spoke approvingly of the Panetta doctrine, i.e. you don’t send in forces unless you know the situation, confirmed that it would have taken “too long” considering we don’t have a ready force in the Middle East, and concluded by saying his decisions would have been the same as the people in the administration at the time.

    If you spent even six months in junior ROTC you know just how appallingly stupid what this guy Gates said yesterday.

    All you need to do is start with “Sorry, SEALs, we can’t send a warplane to your firefight because it sounds like it’s too dangerous.”

    Sure, we can send an ambassador to Benghazi knowing full well that a lot of ordnance went missing from Qaddafi’s arsenals. But an F-16? Hell no!

    It goes downhill from there. Point being you can’t defend this s*** without sounding like a complete idjit. Point being, you wouldn’t even try to defend this s*** unless you were a complete idjit. Which category apparently includes every Democrat in Congress.

    Even the writers at The New Yorker have noticed, which doesn’t bode well for the administration:

    http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/05/benghazi-cia-talking-point-edits-white-house.html

    …But the mere existence of the edits—whatever the motivation for them—seriously undermines the White House’s credibility on this issue. This past November (after Election Day), White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters that “The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility’ because ‘consulate’ was inaccurate.”

    Remarkably, Carney is sticking with that line even now. In his regular press briefing on Friday afternoon (a briefing that was delayed several times, presumably in part so the White House could get its spin in order, but also so that it could hold a secretive pre-briefing briefing with select members of the White House press corps),…

    …This is an incredible thing for Carney to be saying. He’s playing semantic games, telling a roomful of journalists that the definition of editing we’ve all been using is wrong, that the only thing that matters is who’s actually working the keyboard. It’s not quite re-defining the word “is,” or the phrase “sexual relations,” but it’s not all that far off, either.

    The gobsmacking stupidity of this administration and its apologists is, more than anything else, keeping this story alive. Which when you think about it is more than they bothered to do for Stevens, Smith, Doherty, and Woods.

    Something to keep in mind when they spew that “we couldn’t respond in time” crap. The Tripoli embassy had informed DC that it intended to evacuate their personnel at dawn. Which at the time was hours away. And keep in mind the administration was trying to get Marines to the embassy in Khartoum days later, until the Sudanese government denied that request (smart diplomacy!) on the 15th of September.

    In time? In time for what? They were told by the Tripoli embassy that things weren’t over in Libya which is why they were getting ready to bug out, and by its own actions the administration demonstrated they knew things weren’t over all across north Africa for days.

    But they want us to believe they knew they couldn’t react to the unfolding situation in Benghazi “in time?”

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  282. 278. Oh, I listened to his arguments, e.g., on why did they not interview Clinton? He says they interviewed every one with responsibilities in Libya and nothing further would have been gleaned.

    When, of course, the Secretary alone can sign off on a consulate or diplomatic mission with inadequate security.

    gary, one might think if someone had a mandate to look into security issues in Benghazi they would start by reading the DoS instructions regarding physical security. To determine who has what responsibilities.

    Such as, oh I dunno, who has to sign off on any waivers to station diplomatic personnel where security isn’t up to snuff.

    I’ve heard just enough of what Pickering had to say to know it’s complete garbage. What I’ve said about Gates applies in dump-truck size loads to Pickering. You can’t give this administration a pass on Benghazi without sounding like a complete idjit. One might think someone with a sensitive stomach who gets physically ill at the very thought of certain things would get ill at the thought of demonstrating he’s a drooling fool in front of the entire world.

    Apparently that doesn’t bother him.

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  283. Weekly Standard article:

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/benghazi-talking-points_720543.html?page=2

    (this page has the 3/4 versions of the talking printed in the magazine. Note that CIA started out with “the attacks in Bengazi were spontaneously inspired” (later on, the word attacks got changed to demoinstrations)

    Now Stephen Hayes writes:

    There is little information about what happened at that meeting of the Deputies Committee. But according to two officials with knowledge of the process, Mike Morrell, deputy director of the CIA, made broad changes to the draft afterwards. Morrell cut all or parts of four paragraphs of the six-paragraph talking points—148 of its 248 words (see Version 2 above). Gone were the reference to “Islamic extremists,” the reminders of agency warnings about al Qaeda in Libya, the reference to “jihadists” in Cairo, the mention of possible surveillance of the facility in Benghazi, and the report of five previous attacks on foreign interests.

    Not much is known about what happened at the meeting before which Morrell crossed out everything – including some language that was later restored (about “indications that…extremists participated”) but somehow this is all being blamed on the State Department, and in particular Victoria Nuland, who wasn’t even there at that last meeting.

    A good question is why did the State Department allow the first sentence to stand? Or did they?

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  284. Sammy, its truly bizarre to watch you filter every bit of news through your preconception that its all the CIA’s fault.

    SPQR (768505)

  285. 289. Sammy, its truly bizarre to watch you filter every bit of news through your preconception that its all the CIA’s fault.

    Comment by SPQR (768505) — 5/13/2013 @ 3:04 pm
    </blockquote

    It's fascinating in the same way that Russian dash cam videos are fascinating. I keep wondering how pieces of the car don't wind up hitting the innocent bystanders.

    Note that CIA started out with “the attacks in Bengazi were spontaneously inspired” (later on, the word attacks got changed to demoinstrations)

    I’m not really going to bother with this crap except to make one point. This was the administrations lie from the start. But for the sake of argument let’s pretend they actually believed their own happy horse****.

    A spontaneous demonstration has an integrated air defense system that made it too dangerous to send in fighters to the firefight that US forces were engaged in? Because that the level of BS Gates was spouting on CBS yesterday. Too many MANPADS went missing from the Desert Duck of Death’s arsenal to risk sending a jet over from Italy.

    There simply aren’t words to describe how nonsensical these absolute fools are when they’re attempting to cover Obama’s scrawny and Cankles overbroad pantsuited a**es. If anybody is tempted to defend this gibberish, I’ve got one word for you. Mogadishu.

    The whole freaking city blew up on us and we had helos flying all night through the gunfire.

    According to reports there were maybe up to 150 guys involved in the on again off again assaults on our facilities. One fighter going supersonic over the objective would have knocked them on their a**es. Not to mention blowing out all the windows in a quarter of the city.

    But no. Bill Gates says he would have worried it was too dangerous to risk it. Panetta and CJCS Dempsey would tell you there were no tankers.

    Hello! There’s an airport in Tripoli. I’d bet those SOCAFRICA guys they wouldn’t let go lend a hand in Benghazi could have secured a corner of of it and maybe rustled up some fuel. I bet the Libyan government would have even helped given that the Obama administration hadn’t embarked on their concerted effort to insult him yet.

    Ace once observed that a lot of people have adopted stupidity as a religion. How true. They also seem to have adopted Obama as their messiah.

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  286. 288. Yes, it would seem Morrell, in his second stint as Acting Director, an economics jock, took a hand at ‘editing’.

    Interesting how the minder is become CIA lo these 30 years. In his defense it wasn’t his version that was critiqued “useless” by Petreaus.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.8442 secs.