Patterico's Pontifications

5/21/2013

Report: More Benghazi Whistleblowers Coming

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:26 am



PJ Media:

More whistleblowers will emerge shortly in the escalating Benghazi scandal, according to two former U.S. diplomats who spoke with PJ Media Monday afternoon.

. . . .

The former diplomats inform PJM the new revelations concentrate in two areas — what Ambassador Chris Stevens was actually doing in Benghazi and the pressure put on General Carter Ham, then in command of U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) and therefore responsible for Libya, not to act to protect jeopardized U.S. personnel.

Stevens’ mission in Benghazi, they will say, was to buy back Stinger missiles from al-Qaeda groups issued to them by the State Department, not by the CIA. Such a mission would usually be a CIA effort, but the intelligence agency had opposed the idea because of the high risk involved in arming “insurgents” with powerful weapons that endanger civilian aircraft.

Hillary Clinton still wanted to proceed because, in part, as one of the diplomats said, she wanted “to overthrow Gaddafi on the cheap.”

Big Media is ready with its angle: When will these damned Republicans finally stop their partisan witch hunt?

129 Responses to “Report: More Benghazi Whistleblowers Coming”

  1. One thing to keep in mind that the whole “Carter Ham was about to get relieved of command” is a bit far fetched. Remember, no-one has been or will ever be prosecuted in the military for following orders, so the whole “whereupon the White House “called his deputy and had the deputy threaten to relieve Ham of his command.”” sounds like coming from a Cold War novel about KGB officers but definitely not how the U.S. military works.

    SelimT (b9e811)

  2. This is a non troversy by people that never once gave Obama the benefit of the doubt and called him a good patriotic man who only wants what he thinks is best for our country. No good patriotic man would ever be involved in covering up the reasons for the deaths of 4 Americans he left overseas in a brutal 7 hour firefight while denying them any support.

    I just can’t believe this.

    Mr Pink (b6add1)

  3. Troll is back.

    SPQR (768505)

  4. A revelation that the State Department was trafficking directly in MANPADS would be a really devastating revelation.

    That one will rock this administration and might indeed be a clue as to why the Obama administration has been so sensitive to the facts of this fiasco getting out, and why they reacted so incompetently to the attack – they were too paralyzed with fear of the resulting revelations.

    And the question remains – just where was Obama during all this?

    SPQR (768505)

  5. I would like to know why Stevens was dropped into that snakepit on 9/11 with rumblings of trouble and no effective security to speak of and no backup plan for rescue.

    SarahW (b0e533)

  6. The owner of this website trolled you when he wrote that crap. Look at what’s going on now and tell me who was right.

    Mr Pink (b6add1)

  7. Ban the troll, Patterico, so I don’t have to read his crap and feel compelled to respond to the BS.

    SPQR (768505)

  8. just where was Obama during all this?

    Dodging sniper fire while on an airport tarmac. Or watching something posted to Youtube and getting furious that such a video was inflaming terrorists. Or dropping by Jeremiah Wright’s church and nodding in agreement.

    Mark (dac375)

  9. Ban the troll

    Actually, I think Mr Pink is doing an impersonation of a loony liberal and, in reality, fully realizes just how screwed up modern-day liberalism and its biggest adherents have become.

    Mark (dac375)

  10. just where was Obama during all this?

    either out golfing or playing hide the putter with Reggie Love in the locker room.

    and i find Mr. Pink to be amusing, at least for now.

    redc1c4 (403dff)

  11. Is this the same Mr Pink that wrote this?

    Welcome to the fantasy world of love2008. A world where white people invented the AIDS virus to kill black people and governmental abuse of power is only bad in the hands of a Republican.
    Comment by Mr. Pink (eae12c) — 9/26/2008 @ 9:06 am

    Seems to me that some people around here are deliberately misleading themselves.

    Icy (0cb7b3)

  12. I thought it was ok to disagree, and we had the right to voice our opinions? I’m not cursing, I just keep pointing out what I think was an egregious error that has to this date never been corrected. If you want to consider it trolling to harp on the same point over and over again well you would have to ban half the commentators. A simple “I was wrong when I wrote that and facts have born that out” would have me never ever mention it again honestly.

    So far though I haven’t seen that, so I continue to operate under the same premise.

    Mr Pink (b6add1)

  13. Looking at the flood of scandals, Hitler is finally speechless.

    htom (412a17)

  14. The now proved manipulation and manufactured lies of the administration’s Benghazi talking points are known and accepted by sentient beings. The nefariousness of the creative writing involved in the talking points episode and the resulting furor over it has raised awareness of a few people in the traditional press and has primed them to be a little more skeptical and somewhat more interested in what actually happened (and may have led up to) 9/11/12.

    Now the larger story needs to stay in the news and be fleshed out. Both the WH and HC clearly are scared stiff of Benghazi truth being unearthed after so much effort was expended and so many lives have been lost/ruined to bury it. I pray there are still people out there both in the government and in the media who are brave and fearless enough to tell the American people what actually happened in Benghazi and why it all ended so badly for the Americans who served there.

    elissa (e0c19d)

  15. This is a non troversy by people that never once gave Obama the benefit of the doubt and called him a good patriotic man who only wants what he thinks is best for our country.

    I am assuming this was meant as tongue in cheek as nobody could possibly really believe it.

    No good patriotic man would ever be involved in covering up the reasons for the deaths of 4 Americans he left overseas in a brutal 7 hour firefight while denying them any support.

    Agreed. But we were talking about Obama. I still want to know what he was doing while this incident was happening and why he was denying support to those Americans deployed overseas who were dying.

    I just can’t believe this.

    Then you haven’t been paying attention for the past 5 years. Nobody who was watching his actions and the coverup of those actions by the mainstream media has any problems believing this.

    Easy Target (804124)

  16. The events of that night are a story on to themselves. I have a tentative timeline.

    I think the United States was being hornswaggled by people in the Libyan government and others, into doing nothing much all night, although not much beyond that is clear.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  17. Stevens’ mission in Benghazi, they will say, was to buy back Stinger missiles from al-Qaeda groups issued to them by the State Department, not by the CIA. </i?

    The State Department issued them the missiles? Something is wrong here. I aassume this would have bene on advice of Prince Bandar.

    And now the State Department wanted to get them back? Because they realized where those missiles were really going to – that they were jihadist groups, that that's whom Qatar and Saudi Arabia were arming?

    Obviously, the ambassador met with a Turkish official because he wanted to have those missiles intercepted in Turkey. A ship had already left Benghazi.

    Obviously, somebody conspired to kill the ambassador – and get all the ameriocans out of the Benghazi area – in order to derail this effort.

    Such a mission would usually be a CIA effort, but the intelligence agency had opposed the idea because of the high risk involved in arming “insurgents” with powerful weapons that endanger civilian aircraft.

    Hillary Clinton still wanted to proceed because, in part, as one of the diplomats said, she wanted “to overthrow Gaddafi on the cheap.”

    I think we’re getting a leak here from the CIA. The claim here is that the CIA was not involved itself in the initial decision to arm them. I’m sure there is a whole lot wrong with this story – half truths and worse.

    Such a mission would usually be a CIA effort, but the intelligence agency had opposed the idea because of the high risk involved in arming “insurgents” with powerful weapons that endanger civilian aircraft.

    Hillary Clinton still wanted to proceed because, in part, as one of the diplomats said, she wanted “to overthrow Gaddafi on the cheap.”

    Big Media is ready with its angle: When will these damned Republicans finally stop their partisan witch hunt?

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  18. Italics error, but I think it is clear what is mine and what is not.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  19. Mr. Pink–You make it only about you and your personal strange obsession instead of actually commenting intelligently and adding value to the subject of any given thread where you show up. Yes, it annoys people who wish to carry on a discussion of the issue at hand without having to wade through your obsessive and narcissistic garbage. Frankly it is starting to get creepy. Whoever and whatever you are, Patterico owes you nothing.

    elissa (e0c19d)

  20. 4. Comment by SPQR (768505) — 5/21/2013 @ 7:49 am

    A revelation that the State Department was trafficking directly in MANPADS would be a really devastating revelation.

    the story would seem to be that first, they agreed, and then they discovered/decided that the missiles were going to trh wrong people, or that misisles were being included among the weapons.

    That one will rock this administration

    Only if reporters don’t get scared off by fear of being investigated for espionage. Congress should take the lead.

    And the question remains – just where was Obama during all this?

    Did he overrule the original decision and demand that the State Department prevent those missiles from getting to (jihadists groups in) Syria?

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  21. Ban the troll.

    SPQR (768505)

  22. Sammy, just to send you off to a quiet corner for awhile, I’ll bite:
    WHAT evidence do you have that the Libyan government ‘hornswoggled’ the U.S. into making no effort to save our personnel on 9/11/12?

    Icy (0cb7b3)

  23. Comment by elissa (e0c19d) — 5/21/2013 @ 8:41 am

    So I guess when you see people make fun of Althouse, Powell, or some other “republican” for voting for Obama in 2008 you immediately think they have severe emotional issues.

    Mr Pink (b6add1)

  24. There are ;many rooms in the mansion’ as Angleton once said, in the Libyan Gvt, on the one hand you have Al Keib, Jibril, and Magarief who are relatively moderate. On the other is Bel Hadj whose Watan party is the Brotherhood’s he’s tied to the Syrian rebels, to Ansar Al Sharia and company.

    narciso (3fec35)

  25. I reserve my “making fun of people” for the president and those on the left who are actually damaging my country and my world right now. But that’s just me. In contrast, Mr. Pink, doing what you do–endlessly relitigate what some decent people may have hoped for, believed, or said in 2008 –and still 5 years on regularly insult them for it, seems kind of useless and small, especially when several of those you mention are quite critical of the administration now.

    elissa (e0c19d)

  26. powell is no republican.

    mg (31009b)

  27. Mr. pink #23,

    I think the people you mention have extremely poor judgment, which is why I don’t put much stock in anything they say.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  28. Fair enough.

    Mr Pink (b6add1)

  29. So, because General Petraeus and the CIA refused to provide shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles to al-Qaeda terrorists fighting in Libya, Hillary decided to circumvent the CIA and the Department of Defense and to use the State Department’s diplomatic immunity to cover for her secret war against Gaddafi?

    No wonder she wanted to blame it all on a video.

    ropelight (ae5242)

  30. To be clear, the people I think have poor judgment are Althouse, Powell and the like. Not people who criticize them.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  31. If the State Department is now arming rebels, this puts a new light on why DHS is stockpiling weapons and ammunition.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  32. DRJ– Mr. Pink obviously also includes Patterico on that list. That is how this all started and what all this is about.

    elissa (e0c19d)

  33. Patterico din’t vote for Obama.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  34. Didn’t, not din’t, although you get the idea.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  35. Comment by ropelight (ae5242) — 5/21/2013 @ 9:17 am

    No wonder she wanted to blame it all on a video.

    It was the CIA that wanted to blame it all on a video. How can you ignore the obvious?

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  36. I’m not as stupid as you are.

    ropelight (ae5242)

  37. ‘Management’ like Morrell, certainly, but Petraeus found it suspicious, and persons in the field at the Tripoli station, and with the GRF didn’t buy it,

    narciso (3fec35)

  38. 22. Comment by Icy (0cb7b3) — 5/21/2013 @ 8:44 a

    Sammy, just to send you off to a quiet corner for awhile, I’ll bite:

    WHAT evidence do you have that the Libyan government ‘hornswoggled’ the U.S. into making no effort to save our personnel on 9/11/12?

    The substance of most of the leaks about the details of that night.

    I have a long timeline, which omits most of the sources, but I have, in part:

    6:07/12:07 Bulletin system reports Ansar al Sharia claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and calls for attack also in Tripoli.

    6:00/12:00? After arriving back at annex, the annex itself comes under
    attack from small arms fire and RPG rounds. Local CIA security
    team returns fire. Annex calls for military support. (Or maybe
    this is later. There are no communications problems anytime
    during the night.)

    Attackers disperse about 1 AM, as….

    7:00/ 1:00 Security team (Quick Reaction Force) touches down at Benghazi
    Airport. They have to negotiate transportation into Benghazi.
    About 30 Libyans, drawn from various militias, go to meet
    them while they wait.

    1-2 AM Team at airport learns annex is no longer under attack and
    Ambassador is missing. Then get told he is at the hospital.

    Make plans to travel to hospital with armed Libyan escort.

    7:15/1:15 It is reported, probably falsely, that terrorists from Ansar
    al Sharia have surrounded the hospital. This delays any
    trip to the hospital. Security team also hears ambassador
    is almost certainly dead.

    1:30-1:45? With security situation at hospital unclear, and Ambassador
    likely dead, they decide to head instead to the annex, as
    originally intended.

    8:00/2:00 Ambassador pronounced dead at hospital.

    Meanwhile: British personnel present in Bengazi never get called.
    Various U.S. military assets brought closer, but in the
    end, they just spin their wheels. Also alerted are some
    some small units from all over. Among them are Marines
    known as FAST teams, who are deployed at U.S. Naval bases
    and a special operations team based in central Europe,
    which goes to Sigonella, Italy, and even people from
    Fort Bragg, North Carolina. Also: A second unarmed
    drone arrives at some point.

    Some people – a few Americans and some Libyans, including
    some who talked to Newsweek, go to the annex.

    10:00/ 4:00? About this time, says a Libyan militia officer who calls
    himself Ibn Febrayir, a shot rings out, followed within
    seconds by rocket propelled grenades raining down from
    men stationed in rooftops and behind trees. In a space
    of two minutes, 15 RPGs hit. Then it ends.

    Then a mortar goes off and hits the roof of one of the
    buildings. Ibn Febrayir says they must have known the
    co-ordinates. He and his force retreat down the road.
    Two Americans, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, are killed
    and David Ubben, Ambassador’s Steven’s personal security
    guard, who escaped from the burning huilding where the
    Ambassador and Sean Smith were, is severely wounded and
    nearly killed.

    11:15 /5:15 Security team “races” (?) to the annex using GPS locators
    to guide them. . (Just when?)

    11:30/5:30? Annex goes under attack again. Two security officers killed
    by mortar fire. Attack lasts 11 minutes.

    (an attack must have preceded the sending of reinforcements from
    the airport. The Friday November 2, 2012 Wall Street Journal
    article seems to mention only one attack at the annex
    during the wee hours – after the team rushes there – and
    seems to attribute the death of the two Americans to an
    11-minute attack some minutes after 5:15 am Libyan time.

    It could be an editing problem, where a paragraph explaining
    what caused the people at the airport to suddenly decide,
    after several hours, to go to the annex, is left out.

    Or it could be, partially because they talked to different
    people, the reporters have not gotten the story straight.

    Maybe both. It could be also that their sources assume
    that Libya uses Daily Savings Time, but it does not, and
    the 5:15 am attack takes place at 4:15 am Libyan time. Libya
    should be six time zones ahead of the East Coast of the
    United States, but it really is 7, because it is on
    Egyptian time. If it doesn’t use Daily Savings Time,
    that sets it back to six hours ahead during most of the
    year, where it actually belongs.

    Sometime in the
    wee hours:

    A drone watches this, but officials in Washington decide they
    can’t tell friend from foe, from spectator, and this is all
    in a residential neighborhood, so they decide to do nothing
    from the air and rely on ground troops (The Quick Reaction
    Force.) A possible consideration maybe that the range of
    destruction from air power is usually much greater than
    that of ground forces.

    [Of course, even not knowing what the true loyalties of
    various armed groups or their commanders are, and who
    will stay out of any fight, and who won’t, and where they
    are, you can at least respond to someone who fires at
    Americans, but this possibility is overlooked in any orders
    that are issued.]

    One member of local annex security on roof of annex was
    manning a heavy machine gun when mortars fired at the CIA
    compound. The security officer had a laser. He repeatedly
    requests back-up support from a Spectre gunship (commonly
    used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to
    Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense
    firefights) but gunship does not get involved, perhaps because
    of prior contradictory order not to shoot till ordered to,
    except in self-defense.

    Person with
    laser finally points it on target that is firing in hopes of
    forcing intervention, or in desperation, but man who pointed the
    laser gets killed. This is former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods.

    Glenn Doherty, who arrived on the airplane from Tripoli, is also killed during the attack, and others severely wounded.

    5:30 Ibn Febrayir gets a call from a Libyan official (is this the
    deputy minister of the Interior for eastern Libya who has
    four spellings of his name in the Latin alphabet, one of which
    which is Wanis al-Sharef?) telling him a “foreign force” would
    arrive by 6 a.m. and everyone near the “farm” would be treated
    as hostile and they must get out before they arrive. He doesn’t,
    and a mixed group of militia arrives. Ibn Febrayir isn’t sure he
    can trust them.

    ??? People from annex evacuated. Three captured Libyan attackers are
    handed over to one of the Libyan forces that arrives at the
    scene and apparently freed immediately or later.

    ???? Ambassador’s body delivered to airport, and Defense Department
    plane takes off from Benghazi Airport for Tripoli carrying
    with it all Americans government employees based in Benghazi
    (about 30 people, 7 of them on the State Department payroll,
    and the rest on the CIA payroll, most with diplomatic
    passports. All or most of those based in Benghazi fly on
    to Germany.)

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  39. OK maybe here is a source: (bit not a good one for being hornswaggled. At this time the American offivcials were saying this was about a video, but that was not the New York Times was finding out in Benghazi.

    After Attack in Libya, an Ambush Struck Rescuers – front page of the Thursday, September 21, 2012 issue of the New York Times

    The survivors of the assault on the American Mission in Benghazi, Libya, thought they were safe. They had retreated to a villa not far from the main building where the surprise attack had occurred, and a State Department team had arrived to evacuate them. The eruption of violence had ended, and now they were surrounded by friendly Libyan brigades in what seemed to be a dark, uneasy calm. ….Then, shortly after 2 a.m. on Sept. 12, just as they were assembling to be taken to the airport, gunfire erupted, followed by the thunderous blasts of falling mortar rounds. Two of the mission’s guards — Tyrone S. Woods and Glen A. Doherty, former members of the Navy SEALs — were killed just outside the villa’s front gate. A mortar round struck the roof of the building where the Americans had scrambled for cover.

    The attackers had lain in wait, silently observing as the rescuers, including eight State Department civilians who had just landed at the airport in Benghazi, arrived in large convoys. This second attack was shorter in duration than the first, but more complex and sophisticated. It was an ambush.

    “It was really accurate,” Fathi al-Obeidi, commander of special operations for a militia called Libyan Shield, who was there that night, said of the mortar fire. “The people who were shooting at us knew what they were doing.”

    They also escaped, apparently uninjured.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  40. Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 5/21/2013 @ 9:43 am

    ‘Management’ like Morrell, certainly, but Petraeus found it suspicious, and persons in the field at the Tripoli station, and with the GRF didn’t buy it,

    This is a bit too cryptic for me. What did Petraeus find suspicious, what did people in the field and with the GRF (?) not buy?

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  41. If one wants to play head games with the powers that be, the fact that the press and others are trying to make Benghazi a non-event suggests that maybe this is still the thing they fear most.

    Looking forward to it, especially any military info.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  42. 35. It was the CIA that wanted to blame it all on a video. How can you ignore the obvious?

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 5/21/2013 @ 9:37 am

    Sammy, the stupid “demonstration over a video” story came from the WH, and most likely National Security staffers Vietor and Rhodes. This is why the CIA inserted the line about reminding everyone about their warning on 10 September about what the Jihadists had planned. Demonstrations and an assault on the embassy in Cairo to force the release of the blind sheikh.

    They could see where this was going due to the word changes and the scrubbing of detail from the talking point. And those analysts don’t live in a vacuum. They knew those state department tweets were lies. Whether they were pushing back because they weren’t going to quietly take the fall for a non-existent intel failure or simply warning the WH with a gentle reminder that their fairy tales wouldn’t stand up to scrutiny because the cat was already out of the bag I don’t know.

    The CIA cited jihadi social media in the talking points, Sammy. That’s not SOOPER SEKRIT INTELLIGENCE, that’s open source. They undoubtedly had intelligence from other sources that confirmed that reporting, but citing open source means the warning can be disseminated to a wider audience. This means they were reminding the WH that lots of people knew the truth. Not just those people who received the cable but anyone who can get on line and read the jihadist sites.

    So despite the clear CIA warning not to use it the WH decided to go with the lie. And yet you claim CIA came up with the lie. That’s ridiculous.

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  43. He does tie himself into a Gordian knot, but they seem totally determined to obfuscate the matter, the scapegoat the likes of Raymond Maxwell who had no operational responsibility.

    narciso (3fec35)

  44. So they will say Stevens was there on behalf of the CIA, undoing what State had already done (sold stingers to AQ)? So then Hillary said no to security?

    It’s hard to follow covert operations, no?

    Patricia (be0117)

  45. 41. If one wants to play head games with the powers that be, the fact that the press and others are trying to make Benghazi a non-event suggests that maybe this is still the thing they fear most…

    Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 5/21/2013 @ 10:21 am

    It is. It’s going to become apparent that what happened on 9/11/2012 weren’t just a few isolated incidents but the predictable result of their policies in the region. That more than anything else may bring down the President. There are Democrats who won’t defend what he’s doing in the region.

    One of the reasons they had to deny the AQ links to both the Cairo embassy demonstration and assault (remember, they raised the AQ flag in the compound chanting “Obama, Obama, we are all Osama” so it was a breach and not just a demonstration) and the Benghazi attack is because this government is also working with AQ affiliated groups. Such as the February 17th Martyr’s Brigade, the militia Hillary! had guarding the Benghazi compound. There’s more to go on than just this, but let’s just say that when those rioters climbed the wall of our embassy in Cairo chanting “Obama, Obama, we are all Osama” they were speaking a wider truth that this administration just can’t have get out.

    And that’s just one aspect of their “smart power, leading from behind” foreign policy that blew up in their face in the region.

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  46. I am looking forward to hearing from the lieutenant colonel in charge of the security team who ordered him to stand down. follow the chain of that order. After General Ham retires and no longer has a commander-in-chief, he will be able to speak freely. That will be interesting.

    LTMG (9a1240)

  47. Comment by LTMG (9a1240) — 5/21/2013 @ 10:56 am

    Exactly.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  48. You don’t have to wait, there’s only one person who could give the stand down order and expect to have it obeyed: The Commander-in-Chief.

    ropelight (ae5242)

  49. This administration has been doing more spying on reporters than we know about?

    http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/05/21/Sharyl-Attkisson-s-Computer-Compromised

    SPQR (768505)

  50. It’s going to be end of mine day, but before ending I am reading this wonderful paragraph to improve my knowledge.

    My homepage: Trentsnowsports.com

    Trentsnowsports.com (01437f)

  51. While we are waiting:
    http://www.blackfive.net/main/2013/05/i-want-answers.html#more

    Re SPQR-
    Can you imagine how loud the mob would be howling for Bushitler’s head if he did 1/2 of the stuff that valerie jerrett this fellow has done.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  52. Things could get ugly for Hillary! and the two lapdogs she picked to head the ARB whitewash.

    Via HotAir The Hill reports that Greg Hicks wants to go back to some of his testimony and elaborate on it:

    http://hotair.com/archives/2013/05/21/new-whistleblowers-coming-forward-on-benghazi/

    “According to Stevens, Secretary Clinton wanted Benghazi converted into a permanent constituent post,” Hicks testified.

    “Timing for this decision [to visit the region on Sept. 11] was important. Chris needed to report before Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year, on the … political and security environment in Benghazi.”

    He said Pickering appeared “surprised.”

    “I did tell the Accountability Review Board that Secretary Clinton wanted the post made permanent,” Hicks testified.

    “Ambassador Pickering looked surprised. He looked both ways … to the members of the board, saying, ‘Does the seventh floor [the secretary of State’s office] know about this?’ ”

    The ARB appears to have ignored Hicks’s statement in its public report. Instead, the board appeared to place responsibility on Stevens.

    “The Ambassador chose to travel to Benghazi that week, independent of Washington, as per standard practice,” the ARB concluded in its three pages of findings.

    Recall how these congenital liars worked “we had nothing to do with it” when talking about the Benghazi attack and the murders? That’s got to piss off the survivors.

    Nobody is going to get prosecuted over the IRS or Press spying scandals as long as Holder is AG. Which I believe is why the WH wants to focus on those. But the Benghazi scandal is the one with real potential to bring down this administration.

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  53. “It was the CIA that wanted to blame it all on a video. How can you ignore the obvious?”

    Sammy – Where does the CIA advance that conclusion?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  54. Sammy, I agree with you, it is entirely Mitt Romney’s fault—after all, if Romney hadn’t been trying to displace Obama as President last November, then Obama would not have been forced to lie and stonewall in order to cover up the fact that an act of man-made destruction took place at our consulate in Benghazi.

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  55. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot is up with Sammy? Is he the left wing Alex Jones now? Has he gone full wackadoo now?

    Colonel Haiku (0dcd9c)

  56. #23… No, just extremely poor judgement, pink.

    Colonel Haiku (fb49f6)

  57. I mean Sammy was 73% of the way there… but what happened?

    Colonel Haiku (fb49f6)

  58. Colonel, I think Sammy remembered what his father told him as a young boy…”Son, never be a seventy-three percenter—always give a hundred percent !!”

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  59. Sammy – I am looking forward to hearing more about Hillary’s secret State Department arms to terrorists program in Libya, the one even the CIA recommended against. For an administration which obsesses over the need for gun control, it has an odd fondness for trafficking guns into inappropriate hands.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  60. I reserve my “making fun of people” for the president and those on the left who are actually damaging my country and my world right now. But that’s just me. In contrast, Mr. Pink, doing what you do–endlessly relitigate what some decent people may have hoped for, believed, or said in 2008 –and still 5 years on regularly insult them for it, seems kind of useless and small, especially when several of those you mention are quite critical of the administration now.

    Comment by elissa (e0c19d) — 5/21/2013 @ 9:10 am

    Very wise. I’ve been on both sides of this view. I’ve held little silly grudges at those who differed from me, and I’ve seen people hold similar grudges against my friends for not conforming sufficiently, or for perceived impurity.

    It doesn’t accomplish anything to be bent out of shape at those who largely want the same things we do right now. Except helping our political opponents keep us wedged apart.

    Some are on the internet to express their superiority and outrage at anyone they can. These people need prayer or a hug or something.

    Dustin (2da3a2)

  61. Well you can see how Hillary relied on Huma, who was well connected to the Brotherhood network where they found Bel Hadj who is tied to Bin Qumu, and another figure, Hasady, who sent jihadists into Iraq during the surge.

    narciso (3fec35)

  62. I should have seen tied to Naseef, who were connected to the other players.

    narciso (3fec35)

  63. “These people need prayer or a hug or something.”

    Dustin – Or to go fishing or spend 30 years in the wilderness or something.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  64. Comment by LTMG (9a1240) — 5/21/2013 @ 10:56 am

    Ham retired in March.

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  65. Over at Legal Insurrection Prof. Jacobsen has a post up that I think should give us caution about these new whistleblowers.

    http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/05/white-house-created-doctored-war-on-jon-karl-and-stephen-hayes-falls-apart/

    White House planted “doctored” email narrative in press, then used press reports to push the “doctored” narrative as a political talking point

    I saw this coming from a mile away.

    When the White House leaked a single email about Benghazi to Jake Tapper, it launched a war on Jon Karl and Stephen Hayes because the wording of the email varied slightly from the accounts in their reporting. Their reporting, however, was based on summaries because the originals had not been released by the White House, but both reporters stood by the substance of their reporting.

    …I smelled a rat in the release by the White House of this one email. It looked to me like Tapper, although a great and fair reporter, was being played, that someone in the White House found a difference in the wording, leaked only that email, then used it to generate a fairly massive counter-attack on the entirety of the reporting.

    …When White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer appeared on Sunday talk shows and repeated the “doctored” narrative, it had come full circle. A “senior aide” (Pfeiffer?) leaked a single email to Tapper, the media and other Obama supporters used that planted narrative to bash the entirety of the Benghazi talking points reporting, and then Pfeiffer went on talk shows and drove home the “doctored” narrative.

    But that “doctored” narrative has fallen apart substantively once the actual emails (100 of them selected by the White House) were released. Hayes and Karl wrote persuasive defenses of their reporting, as have others.

    This is how this WH operates. They plant false information to muddy the waters. To create a fog of war where none exists. They do it all the time.

    So I’d be worried about what these former diplomats are leaking to the press isn’t just another false trail the WH is laying down. I wouldn’t put it past the crowd in the administration to send double-agents to the congressional investigators. I read “former diplomat” and I think Ambassador Pickering, a dutiful Foggy Bottom leftist who can be counted on to shelter the right people from blame as long as they’re fellow travelers.

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  66. Understandable caution Steve, but I’ve been following this story on my own blog, among other places, and Tapper’s didn’t smell right, by contrast this scenario being described does fill in many places.

    narciso (3fec35)

  67. These people need prayer or a hug or something

    Umm, can you specify just exactly what kind of prayers you had in mind?

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  68. Anything that validates ‘the narrative’ is suspect,
    anything that furthers our understanding is valuable.

    narciso (3fec35)

  69. I’m hoping that any planted “whistle-blowers” simply aggravate people who really have something to say to come forward.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  70. Sammy, the stupid “demonstration over a video” story came from the WH, and most likely National Security staffers Vietor and Rhodes.

    That’s a given when Hillary, with a straight face, actually had the sickening gall to tell the mother of one of the murdered that she as Secretary of State would do everything possible to punish the maker of the hokey video posted to Youtube. For what? For bad artistry in filmmaking. For hiring crummy actors? For not using HD in his production? For not paying a service fee to Youtube? For exercising his 1st Amendment rights?

    That all by itself illustrates just how dishonest — and cruel and heartless — Hillary is. IOW, to say something so brazenly dishonest and stupid to a grieving woman. But it also illustrates the way that liberals like Hillary have characteristics that are exactly the opposite of what they fancy about themselves.

    As for Sammy, methinks he insists on rationalizing away the culpability of characters like Bill’s wife because, after all, he lives in two worlds where liberalism often goes berserk: New York City (uber-blue) and presumably the following:

    Huffingtonpost, November 2012: Election Day polls are out, and it looks like 70 percent of Jewish voters cast their ballots for Barack Obama. The remaining 30 percent supported Mitt Romney.

    ^ It must be difficult to remain sensible and level-headed when one is surrounded by spouses, parents, cousins, uncles, aunts, nieces, nephews, etc, who, based on such high percentages, are so overwhelmingly politically immature and foolish.

    Mark (99dd47)

  71. I probably shouldn’t stir the pot, but just for a lark I went back through the talking points emails.

    http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/interactive/2013/05/politics/white-house-benghazi-emails/white-house-benghazi-emails.pdf

    On page 95 of 100 of the data dump at 2:27 pm on the 15th there’s an email from David Petraeus. He said:

    No mention of the cable to Cairo either? Frankly, I’d just not as soon use this then… NSS’s call, to be sure; however, this is certainly not what Vice Chairman Ruppersberger was hoping to get for unclas use. Regardless, thx for the great work.

    Lest we forget, here’s the mention of the Cairo cable Petraeus was referring to which had been by then scrubbed out of the first bullet of the talking points:

    On 10 September we warned of social media reports calling for a demonstration in front of the Embassy Cairo and that jihadists were threatening to break into the Embassy.

    So Petraeus wanted that reference to the 10 September cable in the talking points. I’ve already pointed out that the stated purpose the jihadists had for organizing the demonstration (and planned assault) was the release of the blind Sheikh. That’s what was in the organizers’ press statements.

    But then the DCI was referring to social media. There may have been some reference to a video; I’ve pointed out that the jihadists like to plus-up the crowd by using all sorts of pretexts to inflame people. We see how these comment threads go all over the place. Imagine how many times these jihadists go off topic with their greivances. But the video was never mentioned as the overt reason for the demonstration by any of the leaders.

    This isn’t to say their publicly stated reason, getting detainees released, was their real purpose. But that is what they announced to the press, including the English language press.

    Whatever was in that 10 September cable is the key. If any reference to that was scrubbed he said he didn’t want to use the talking points. Note he says that it was “NSS’s call” if they wanted to use them. That’s clearly where the video lie came from.

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  72. narciso, that is just so beside the point

    let our people suffer military attack, then try later to arrest them after there is enough evidence.

    of course, this is only when for some reason the decision is made not to kill with a drone strike

    my goodness…

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  73. Well I’m reminded of a line from ‘the Departed’ when
    Frenchy, Costello’s aide de camp, tells Costigan,
    ‘there are people you can hit, and those you can’t hit,’ the latter category have sponsors far away from Libya.

    narciso (3fec35)

  74. The fookin social media that the CIA referenced had nothing at all to do with a anti-islamic video. It was chatter on social media sites where the terr’s were discussing and coordinating their attack plans.

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  75. Well you notice how they ignore social media, when it goes against their template,

    narciso (3fec35)

  76. “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,”

    Does anyone see where the CIA mentioned some fookin anti-islamic video in that statement? So stop pushing your idiotic meme that the CIA first mentioned it Sammy. Nowhere, nohow did they reference it.

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  77. 66. I’m praying they meet the end of Ahab and Jezebel, especially the central figgers.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  78. poa – Sammy got a fresh chicken is all.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  79. 76. Well you notice how they ignore social media, when it goes against their template,

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 5/21/2013 @ 8:10 pm

    My read is that Petraeus was insisting the reference remained in the talking points is because the template the WH was pushing didn’t fit the evidence. And Petraeus was reminding the WH that not all the evidence was classified.

    When it became clear the WH was married to its own template Petraeus washed his hands of it.

    Frankly, I’d just not as soon use this then… NSS’s call, to be sure

    NSS being Obama’s National Security Staff. As in Rhodes and Vietor. And ultimately Donilon. Petraeus said in plain English it was their story. It was their bed, let them lie in it.

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  80. …It was chatter on social media sites…

    I’ve never said there was no talk about the video, peedoffamerican. Just that in my estimation it wasn’t a central theme but to use the administration’s term a “sideshow.” But the WH grabbed onto it like a drowning man to a lifering because it offered them what they thought was a plausible alternative to admitting the truth.

    If you’ve seen Rice and Pfeiffer in action on the Sunday talk show circuit you’ll know just how ridiculous things the story can get and the Obama administration can still convince itself it’s a plausible alternative to admitting the truth.

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  81. I had this on the other thread;

    The information Petraeus ordered up when he returned to his Langley office that morning included far more than the minimalist version that Ruppersberger had requested. It included early classified intelligence assessments of who might be responsible for the attack and an account of prior CIA warnings — information that put Petraeus at odds with the State Department, the FBI and senior officials within his own agency.

    narciso (3fec35)

  82. Not so much FBI. On page 57 of 100 there’s an email from CIA that states:

    FBI says AQ (not AQIM) was involved and they are pursuing that theory.

    So we are not ahead of law enforcement.

    Basically Victoria Nuland was feigning concern about “prejudicing the investigation” when it was clear the FBI wasn’t nearly as concerned as she was about public statements. It’s clear she was really worried about political fallout, but she was building herself an alibi.

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  83. No AQIM, formerly GSFC, were small fry in the big scheme of things

    narciso (3fec35)

  84. Comment by Steve57 (9b1cdb) — 5/21/2013 @ 9:04 pm

    I’ve never said there was no talk about the video, peedoffamerican. Just that in my estimation it wasn’t a central theme but to use the administration’s term a “sideshow.” But the WH grabbed onto it like a drowning man to a lifering because it offered them what they thought was a plausible alternative to admitting the truth.

    You know, I don’t know how public a call and just where it was aimed there was to demonstrate in cairro about the video.

    Unbelieveable, if everyone here is right it had just about nothing to do wioth the actual demonstration, but Stephen F. Hayes in his third article in the Weekly Standard about the talking points

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/author/stephen-f.-hayes

    writes:

    An obscure YouTube video mocking the Prophet Muhammad that had aired on Egyptian television days earlier was the pretext for the demonstration.

    I think maybe they did both. The actual demonstration focused on released the Sheik Omara Abdul Rahman the leader of the original World Trade Center bombers.

    But before it took place the more public calls talked about the video, and that was what the U.S. was supposed to think it was going to be about.

    The video was indeed a pretext – that’s why it was made. The demonstration had more than one pretext.

    But the real purpose of the demonstration in Cairo may really have been to take attention away from Benghazi.

    If some signs of something brewing were seen – and something indeed was brewing, and signs could have bene detected as checkpoints were being put on streets in Benghazi by Ansar al Sharia, not that the Ambassador’s secruity people knew it.

    If that was detected, people would think a duplicate of demonstration in Cairo was in the works, but something much worse was intended.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  85. Stephen Hayes is kind of confused now. He doesn’t know who first put in the video. He seems to think the Obama Adminsitration did it. But it camne entirely from inside the CIA.

    It was clearly the CIA, and it was NOT David Petraeus, who wasn’t running the CIA that way.

    But Petraeus believed it, so much so that he asked why mention of the warning about the upcoming demonstration in Cairo was taken out of the talking points, along with (that was probably all the other supposed warning the CIA had given)

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  86. Wait, wait – do we know the FBI version of the story of how he got killed is true? Was the agent who interviewed him random?

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  87. Comment by Steve57 (9b1cdb) — 5/21/2013 @ 9:45 pm

    Quoting an e-mail. Who wrote that?

    FBI says AQ (not AQIM) was involved and they are pursuing that theory.

    AQIM is Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. (Mali)

    This was the wrong Al Qaeda. What this is saying is, that The FBI already had better information, connecting the planning to Egypt and Yemen, and not Mali. Perhaps this last point, that it’s Al Qaeda in general, not Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, is just being mentioned incidentally.

    The Mali story (which the CIA was using to indicate “ties to al Qaeda”) concerns one cherry picked phone conversation (AQIM was being bugged, not Ansar al Sharia) where one member of Ansar al Sharia says they attacked the Americans after hearing the news in Cairo.

    Some analysts in the CIA who were moles for terrorists tried to make that out to be BECAUSE of the attack in Cairo. (because otheres have l-eaked to teh NYT how wrong this was)

    If they were linked, and maybe they were, it was only because they were told to wait until after the demonstrattion in Cairo had happened.

    So we are not ahead of law enforcement.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  88. There was an argument that they should not mention Al Qaeda and someone gives a counterargument.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  89. No actually it’s the successor to the Salafist fighting Groups, which in turn comes from the Algerian GIA, BelMokhtar comes from Southern Algeria.

    narciso (3fec35)

  90. This is a link to teh emails very hard to read,

    http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Benghazi-Emails.pdf?mobile=nc

    The sentence:

    “On 10 September we warned of social media reports calling for a demonstration in front of the Embassy and that jihadists were threatened to break into the Embassy”

    first appears at 4:42 PM Sept 14 (For review before sending to teh white House)

    It is labeled HPSCI White Paper Talking Points for Use with the Media. By the Chief of Media relations branch Office of Public Affairs.

    By 6:21 PM that line gets changed to:

    “On 10 September we warned of social media reports calling for a demonstration in front of Embassy CAIRO and that jihadists were threatened to break into the Embassy.”

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  91. I suspect one of the five is Khattalah, he wasn’t actual Ansar, he was from one of the junior militia, Abu Obeidah

    narciso (3fec35)

  92. I remember a name was published on the fronmt page of the Wall Street Journal. somebody from Egypt who really set up Ansar al sharia.

    The Administration now seems to be talking about people who actually were presnet during the attacks in Benghazi.

    And saying there’s not enough evidnmece to arrest them (but maybe enough evidence to kill them?)

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  93. 94. Five what? Five people the Adm mentions? These are all people present at the scene.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  94. No, that was Abu Ahmed, aka Jashef, and he belonged to a whole other outfit, he ran training camps in Libya.

    narciso (3fec35)

  95. The five pics distributed by the FBI some two weeks ago.

    narciso (3fec35)

  96. 5. Comment by SarahW (b0e533) — 5/21/2013 @ 7:50 am

    “I would like to know why Stevens was dropped into that snakepit on 9/11 with rumblings of trouble and no effective security to speak of and no backup plan for rescue.

    Prince Bandar or somebody so maneuvered things to get him there on sept 11 so he could get killed.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  97. No, he was an Arabist like the late Captain Shakespear, who was one of the first to meet Ibn Saud, but was killed by the Rashid clan.

    narciso (3fec35)

  98. Sammy… do you like your chicken better roasted, broasted or raw?

    Colonel Haiku (455265)

  99. I’ve had a chance to read the file containing the released e-mails. There are afew interesting discoveries there. The reporting – everywhere – is all bad.

    everyone seems to have believed it was factial that there was no pre-planning, and the main purpose of the purpoose of the talking points was to disabuse members of Congress of the idea that the attack in Benghazi had been pre-planned.

    They don’t know who did it, but they somehow know it was not pre-planned.

    No indication where this idea that it was not came from. That nobody has said till now indicates it was SOOPER SEKRIT INTELLIGENCE.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  100. One fairly early e-mail at 4:20 PM Friday (from Stephen W. Preston, the General Counsel of the CIA) has in it:

    Folks, I know there is a hurry to get this out, but we need to hold it long enough to ascertain whether providing it conflicts with express instructions from NSS/DOJ/FBI that, in light of the criminal investigation, we are not to
    generate statements with assessments as to who did this, etc. – even internally, not to mention for public release. I am copying [CIA FO *] who may be more familiar with those instructions and the tasking arising from HPSCI coffee.

    * a piece of tape covers the actual words, which is probably somebody’s name. On the tape is written by hand the letters CIA FO]

    Not to generfate assessments as to who did this? Even internally!!?

    Who gave these instructions? It sounds like it really could only have come from the Department of Justice.

    Were these instructions specially for the case of Benghazi, or is this how the administration approaches terrorism investigations in general?

    Or maybe, on the other hand, could it be that this is not an accurate description of
    the instructions from whoever? (DOJ and NSS are not one place)

    Coffee?? Some kind of a meeting during which people drank, or were supposed to drink, coffee? A coffee break? Or is this a verbalization of some acronym?

    This was originally classified CONFIDENTIAl, but that’s crossed out.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  101. The emails erased all previous instances of insurgent attacks in Libya, that was meant to set the template of spontaneity

    narciso (3fec35)

  102. Another excerpt from the e-mails gives a clue as to why maybe attacks was Changed to demonstrations.

    Someone writes:

    Second tick says we know extremists with ties to AQ participated in the attack, which implies complicity in the deaths of American officers. Do we know this?

    There is what I think looks like an answer to that question, which goes:

    “Good point that it could be interpreted this way – perhaps better stated that we know they participated in the protests. We do not know who was responsible for the deaths.”

    They are considering the possibility that maybe somebody else, without links to Al Qaeda, did the killing.

    In later revisions, “participated in the attack” (it’s singular, not plural, as in that e-mail) is changed to “participated in the violent demonstrations” and “Islamic extremists with ties to Al Qa’ida” is changed to simply “Islamic extremists”, and then, finally, after the whole line is first crossed out by Mike Mullen, to just simply “extremists”, and “we do know” is changed to “there are indications.”

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  103. Because there were intercepts between AnShar and aQIM, probably Abu Khattalah who was the designated scapegoat and definitely Bel Mokhtar,

    narciso (3fec35)

  104. 104. Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 5/23/2013 @ 2:50 pm

    The emails erased all previous instances of insurgent attacks in Libya, that was meant to set the template of spontaneity

    You mean the emails show that all mention of porevious attacks in Libya got erased. That is true, but that’s not the most important change in the talking points.

    The State Department did not like that because it made it look like there had been a warning, and they didn’t consider there had been.

    At first the CIA editor(s)erased all of them, but they still left one note of warning in:

    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 how is that supposed to put people in Benghazi on guard? How is that even relevant? No way, unless you think the video did it.

    (It’s actually relevant because it was a gigantic plot, but that’s not wehy it’s in there)

    At the end CIA Director David Petraeus writes (paraphrasing) that after they took even that out (even that last bit of a warning he means) he doesn’t know if he wants to use it but thanks for the work.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  105. Good Allah, it was a coverup, to pretend that their policy was working perfectly, where in reality it was destabilizing events as far East as Syria and as far south as Mali;

    http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2013/05/23/report-holder-approved-search-warrant-for-james-rosens-e-mails/

    narciso (3fec35)

  106. Why doesn’t anybody read the document dump??

    At 8:43 someone named Tommy Vietor [I think a National Security Council spokesperson] writes to Jacob J Sullivan [Assistant to the Vice President for Foreign Affairs, or is that an old job of his?] and Benjamin J. Rhodes [deputy national security adviser for strategic communication, a formwer speechwriter who coined the term “kinetic military action”] as follows:

    Subject: RE: Revised HPSCI Talking Points for review [HSPCI = House Permanent select Committee on Intelligence]

    There is massive disinformation out there, particularly with Congress. They all think it was premeditated based on inaccurate assumptioons or briefings. So I think this is a response to not only a tasking from the house intel committee but also NSC guidance that we need to brief members/press and correct the record.

    This message was itself a reply to something Jacob J Sullivan had written at 8:40 PM

    Skinnying list. I do not understand the nature of this exercise. And some of the statements below are new by me. Can we have a conversation before this goes out:

    (The reply was that this was needed to correct the “disinformation” that the attack was planned and not spontaneous!)

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  107. So now we see that the White House “knows” that it was not premeditated and wants to correct the record.

    At 9:34 on Friday Sept 14, 2012 Benjamin J Rhodes writes, in part, in a similar vein:

    There is a ton of wrong information geting out into the public domain from Congress from people who are not particularly informed. Insofar as we have firmed up assessments that don’t compromise intel or the investigation, we need to have the capacity to correct the record, as there are significant policy and messaging ramifications that would flow from a hardened misimpression.

    Now what is it that people who ARE particularly informed HAVE OR KNOW that others do not? It can only be SOOPER SEKRIT INTELLIGENCE. That’s what told them the attack was not planned. If not, people in the White House are making an incredible bluff, and somebody should have complained about this since.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  108. Remember this other e-mail from Tommy Vietor at 8:43 PM Friday:

    Subject: RE: Revised HPSCI Talking Points for review

    There is massive disinformation out there, particularly with Congress. They all think it was premeditated based on inaccurate assumptioons or briefings. So I think this is a response to not only a tasking from the house intel committee but also NSC guidance that we need to brief members/press and correct the record.

    What? Were they trying to fool otehr persons inside the U.S. government? Or were they getting some disinformation themselves?

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  109. Note also – at first the briefings said it was premeditated. Now they think it is not, and want to “correct the record.”

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  110. At 8:58 Victoria Nuland gets a message saying that the FBI did not have major concerns with the points and offered only couple of minor suggestions.

    She later asks them to also talk to the DOJ.

    At 9:24 she says the revised talking points don’t resolve her issues, or those of the building leadership and they are consulting with
    NSS.

    The issues seem to be the fact that Congressmen are being encouraged to be more specific as to who did it than they are.

    And at 9:43 somebody writes that they are NOT ahead of law enforcement because the FBI says AQ was involved (not AQIM) and “we are pursuing that
    theory.”

    At 9:52 someone writes that Eric Schmitt of the New York Timnes had contacted them and let them know he had spoken with Rep. Ruppersberger
    (D-Maryland, Vice-Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee) Ruppersberger had “given him a readout of your session.” This is a reference to CIA Director David Petraeus’s testimony Sept 14>

    This e–mail is a draft of a note to the Director of the CIA.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  111. At 6:04 PM there’s an e-mail that says: I’m told Chairman Rogers intends to use these talking points on Sunday.

    He did not. Instead they were used by UN Ambassador Susan Rice.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  112. Here’s something interesting, a copy of a message sent to Heather Molino
    (a staff member for Congressman Rupperseberger (D-Md)

    The copy is sent at 10:51 AM Saturday September 15, 2012. It is not
    proportionately spaced as printed out:

    It’s very early, less than 72 hours since the attack. So there is a lot we
    don’t know.

    As time progresses, we are learning more, but we still don’t have a complete
    picture of what happened. Fortunately we have the FBI leading the
    investigation of the attack. Regrettably they have all too much experience in
    these matters.

    At this point, we are not aware of any actionable intelligence that this
    attacks was planned or imminent. The intelligence community is combing through
    reporting from before and after the attack to determine the full extent of who
    was involved.

    Libya is awash on weapons – unconventional weapons were stored in unsecured
    locations across the country. Following the revolution, there are still many
    well armed militia remaininb.

    Since the revolution, we have some indicators al Qa’ida and other groups are
    seeking to establish a presence in Libya. Remember some senior al-Qa’ida
    members such as Abu Yahya al-Libi came from Libya.

    We are very cautious about drawing any firm conclusions at this point with
    regard to the identificaiton and motivation of the attackers. The IC is
    working aggressively to this end, and the FBI will continue its
    investigation.

    Unrest in the Middle East creates a permissive environment for terrorists. In
    the days and weeks ahead, we need to be especially vigiland in protecting our
    people.

    [NCTC/OLA]
    Legislative Liason
    Office of the Director
    of National Intelligence.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  113. Yes, they were all lies, they knew exactly who was involved, within hours.

    narciso (3fec35)

  114. Wait a second. they are writing – to others in the U.S. government that the initial briefings were wrong.

    Tommy Vietor [I think a National Security Council spokesperson] writes at 8:43 PM Friday:

    There is massive disinformation out there, particularly with Congress. They all think it was premeditated based on inaccurate assumptioons or briefings. So I think this is a response to not only a tasking from the house intel committee but also NSC guidance that we need to brief members/press and correct the record.

    And at 9:34 on Friday Sept 14, 2012 Benjamin J Rhodes, deputy national security adviser for strategic communication, a forwer speechwriter who coined the term “kinetic military action” writes:

    There is a ton of wrong information getting out into the public domain from Congress from people who are not particularly informed….we need to have the capacity to correct the record, as there are significant policy and messaging ramifications that would flow from a hardened misimpression.

    If they are lyhing to other members of the U.S. gov, wouldn’t there be aleak explaining that?

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  115. Sammy, just stop. Quit pretending it’s complicated.

    Steve57 (e0237b)

  116. Sammy, it remains beyond belief how you will read something and pull out of it things that are plainly not in there.

    SPQR (768505)

  117. 118. Comment by Steve57 (e0237b) — 5/23/2013 @ 5:03 pm

    Sammy, just stop. Quit pretending it’s complicated.

    119. Comment by SPQR (768505) — 5/23/2013 @ 5:35 pm

    Sammy, it remains beyond belief how you will read something and pull out of it things that are plainly not in there.

    Here it is: http://i42.tinypic.com/2u8e98x.jpg

    Tommy Vietor, who is, I think a National Security Council spokesperson, writes at 8:43 PM Friday September 14, 2012, to Jacob J. Sullivan (copied to others) who is, I think, the Director of Policy Planning at the State Department’ Foreign Policy Planning Staff, as well as Deputy
    Chief of Staff, (who had written he didn’t understand the nature of this exercise), as follows:

    There is massive disinformation out there, particularly with Congress. They all think it was premeditated based on inaccurate assumptions or briefings. So I think this is a response to not only a tasking from the house intel committee but also NSC guidance that we need to brief members/press and correct the record.

    So we have here that the National Security Council says previous briefings to members of Congress that the attack was premeditated were wrong, and they need to correct the record, and so they should take advantage of this request from the House House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence to do so.

    Now there is the following simple syllogism:

    If the NSC just made up this idea out of whole cloth, there surely would be some leaks or complaints about that.

    We have not heard even a single leak that claimed that.

    Therefore it was not made up out of whole cloth.

    A second syllogism, goes:

    If this was not secret intelligence information, we would have heard where the idea that it is wrong to say it was premeditated came from.

    But we have not heard that.

    Therefore it must secret intelligence information which someone could in trouble for leaking.

    A third syllogism, goes:

    If secret intelligence information is so extremely obviously wrong it’s absurd, it should not be called secret intelligence, but it should be called SOOPER SEKRIT INTELLIGENCE.

    This information was extremely obviously wrong.

    Therefore the source of the NSC’s information was SOOPER SEKRIT INTELLIGENCE!

    QED

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  118. In addition, Benjamin J Rhodes, deputy national security adviser for strategic communication, a former speechwriter who coined the term “kinetic military action” writes at 9:34 on Friday Sept
    14, 2012 as follows: (I corrected oine error I mad ein transcription before)

    http://i42.tinypic.com/2u8e98x.jpg

    There is a ton of wrong information getting out into the public domain from Congress from people who are not particularly informed……we need to have the capability to correct the record, as there are significant policy and messaging ramifications that would flow from a hardened misimpression.

    Nobody questions that the porevious information was wrong. Obviously we are not getting something, and what we are not getting is the exact SOOPER SEKRIT INTELLIGENCE.

    Rhodes implies very strongly it is intelligence information, because he also writes where I kleft the ellipses,

    Insofar as we have firmed up assessments that don’t compromise intel or the investigation, we need to have the capability to correct the record…

    the source of this information is Intel.

    This is not just secret intelliogence. It is so bizarre intel that it is SEKRIT INTELLIGENCE.

    We haven’t heard any details till this day, so it is not just ordinary bizarre sekrit intelligence, but going after the Associated Press or Fox News for revealing some message the North Korean government probably itself passed on, SOOPER SEKRIT INTELLIGENCE.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  119. Now there is soemthing that somebody was pushing the CIA not to come to any conclusions:

    http://i42.tinypic.com/s2g09l.jpg

    Stephen W. Preston, the General Counsel of the CIA, writes at 4:20 PM Friday, September 14, 2012 that there are:

    express instructions from NSS/DOJ/FBI that, in light of the criminal investigation, we are not to
    generate statements with assessments as to who did this, etc. – even internally, not to mention for public release.

    Like I said, Not to generate assessments as to who did this? Even internally!!?

    Who gave these instructions? NSS I think stands for National Security System which could mean a lot of people.

    I guess they can’t generate any assessments, because that might give away the SOOPER SEKRIT INTELLIGENCE. They have to keep it secret even within the government.

    I did have a question:

    Were these instructions specially for the case of Benghazi, or is this how the administration approaches terrorism investigations in general?
    Or maybe, could it be, on the other hand, that this is not an accurate description of the instructions from whoever?

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  120. This is, I think, an explanation to Susan Rice of what is going on:

    http://i41.tinypic.com/n5g09d.jpg

    After Petraeus gave a briefing (which was not same a sthe eventual talking points) House members asked for unclassified talking points they could use. The State Department objected to teh first draft because it seemed to imply the CIA had given sopecific warning about the attack on the embassy (probably a mistake for Benghazi) Morell agreed they weren’t good and had edited them heavily. It was agree that Jake (at the State Dept) would work to finalize them so they coiuld be given to the committee.

    In the meantime, the writer spoke to Jake and told him that Susan Rice would be doing the Sunday morning talk shows so he/she would need to know what the final version of the talking points were and Jake agreed to let them know in advance of the talk shows. And he wanted USUN kept in the loop.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  121. National Review’s review on the PJ Media allegation:
    (based on published reports)

    The Stingers of Benghazi Public reports corroborate some, but not all, of a stunning accusation about Benghazi.

    To save Eric Holder and the Department of Justice the trouble of reading my e-mail or collecting my phone records, all of the information in this report is gathered from public and open sources, both in the U.S. and overseas, and none of it can be considered classified or sensitive….

    But his final act as ambassador, on the early evening of September 11, 2012, was a meeting with Ali Sait Akin, the Turkish consul general in Benghazi.

    For what it’s worth, the Turkish diplomat denies that he discussed arms transfers with Stevens. He told syndicated columnist Diana West that they didn’t talk about weaponry from the [Qaddafi] stockpiles and where they might be going; the Libyan flagged vessel al-Entisaar which was received in the port of Iskenderun on September 6, 2012; the conflict in Syria and how the opposition to President Assad could be supported by the US and Turkey.

    During former secretary of state Hillary Clinton’s testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Rand Paul asked her if the U.S. was involved in any way in the transfer of weapons from Libya to Turkey.

    “To Turkey? Nobody’s ever raised that with me,” Clinton responded. When Paul asked whether the annex, the installation to which Americans fled on the night of the Benghazi attack, was involved, she said, “Senator, you’ll have to direct that question to the agency that ran the annex. I do not know.”

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  122. I guess they can’t generate any assessments, because that might give away the SOOPER SEKRIT INTELLIGENCE. They have to keep it secret even within the government.

    Another delusion of yours, Sammy. They did not want assessments for political reasons, not to protect intelligence.

    Your habit of inventing stuff from whole cloth and then pointing to your invention as though it were fact is truly bizarre.

    SPQR (768505)

  123. That 4:20 e-mail struck me as a possible cover story. It made no sense to talk of not analyzing who did it because of the crimninal investigation (unless maybe the criminal inv was going to come up with teh wrong conclusion)

    So I thought – maybe theye have intel or supposed intel that tells them who did it but it is SOOPER SEKRIT.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  124. Sammy, your comments get more weird, with even more convoluted “logic”, by the day.

    SPQR (768505)

  125. Turkey operates in countries like Libya and Syria, through quasi governmental orgs like the IHIH, that was running the Hamas flotilla.

    narciso (3fec35)

  126. We’re a group of volunteers and starting a new scheme in our community. Your site provided us with valuable info to work on. You’ve
    done an impressive job and our whole community will be
    thankful to you.

    Conrad (20da68)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.5248 secs.