Patterico's Pontifications

6/12/2014

C-17 Pilot: We Could Have Gotten Americans Out of Benghazi

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:55 am

The pilot of the C-17 that picked up the bodies of the Americans killed in the terrorist attack in Benghazi says they could have gotten to the consulate:

[Ret. Major Eric] Stahl also contended that given his crew’s alert status and location, they could have reached Benghazi in time to have played a role in rescuing the victims of the assault, and ferrying them to safety in Germany, had they been asked to do so. “We were on a 45-day deployment to Ramstein air base,” he told Fox News. “And we were there basically to pick up priority missions, last-minute missions that needed to be accomplished.”

“You would’ve thought that we would have had a little bit more of an alert posture on 9/11,” Stahl added. “A hurried-up timeline probably would take us [an] hour-and-a-half to get off the ground and three hours and fifteen minutes to get down there. So we could’ve gone down there and gotten them easily.”

Stahl also says that he talked to intelligence agents who heard the terrorists using seized cell phones to report the success of the attacks to their leaders:

The terrorists who attacked the U.S. consulate and CIA annex in Benghazi on September 11, 2012 used cell phones, seized from State Department personnel during the attacks, and U.S. spy agencies overheard them contacting more senior terrorist leaders to report on the success of the operation, multiple sources confirmed to Fox News.

The disclosure is important because it adds to the body of evidence establishing that senior U.S. officials in the Obama administration knew early on that Benghazi was a terrorist attack, and not a spontaneous protest over an anti-Islam video that had gone awry, as the administration claimed for several weeks after the attacks.

. . . .

In an exclusive interview on Fox News’ “Special Report,” Stahl said members of a CIA-trained Global Response Staff who raced to the scene of the attacks were “confused” by the administration’s repeated implication of the video as a trigger for the attacks, because “they knew during the attack…who was doing the attacking.” Asked how, Stahl told anchor Bret Baier: “Right after they left the consulate in Benghazi and went to the [CIA] safehouse, they were getting reports that cell phones, consulate cell phones, were being used to make calls to the attackers’ higher ups.”

What difference, at this point, does it make?


88 Responses to “C-17 Pilot: We Could Have Gotten Americans Out of Benghazi”

  1. When you add this to the fact that there was a DSS officer in the Benghazi TOC in communications with Tripoli and their HQ in DC, of course the administration knew in real time what they were dealing with.

    Steve57 (5f0260)

  2. I saw the interview: stunning. I have to admire the people coming forward to talk. Even though this man is retired, he is subject to the thuggery of this administration.

    Patricia (5fc097)

  3. More news from the ME:
    HotAir is reporting that the Iraqi army has deserted Kirkuk, and left it for the Kurds.

    askeptic (8ecc78)

  4. Greetings:

    Call me old-fashioned, but the Benghazi folks waking up to a couple of newly defunct oil refineries on the 13th of September seems a worthwhile counter-investment to me.

    Several months ago, I channel surfed into a documentary film about the Islamist takeover of an oil refinery in souther Algeria on the local PBS station. Instead of moaning and groaning, the government called out their anti-terrorism troops and off they went. The film made a point of informing its audience that the “nom de guerre” of the anti-terrorism general was “The Eradicator”.

    Good nickname for a general that.

    11B40 (844d04)

  5. They did know it was a terrorist attack.

    But they later unlearned it, due to SOOPER SEKRIT INTELLIGENCE. (We know it is sopper sekrit because little of it has become public)

    And they wanted to “correct the record.”

    A Tommy Vietor e-mail, Friday, September 14, 2012 8:43 pm EST:

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

    There is massive disinformation out there said Tommy Vietor.

    They all think it was premeditated based on inaccurate assumptions or briefings, said Tomy Vietor.

    There is NSC guidance that we need to brief members/press and correct the record said Tommy Vietor.

    A Benjamin Rhodes e-mail, Friday, September 14, 2012 9:34 pm:

    http://i42.tinypic.com/2wflqn8.jpg

    There is a ton of wrong information getting out into the public domain from Congress and people who are not particularly informed said Benjamin Rhodes.

    We need to have the capability to correct the record said Benjamin Rhodes.

    There are sigificant policy and messaging ramifications that would flow from a hardened mis-impression.

    So they encouraged with the “Talking points” and sent out Susan Rice to say:

    Maybe some members of terrorist groups were involved, they said, but it wasn’t organized by them, but was spontaneous, that is, unplanned, caused by news of the Cairo demonstration about a video. (which actually wasn’t about a video in Cairo)

    This SOOPER SEKRIT INTELLIGENCE did not originate in the White House. The CIA might have complained by now, if it did and it wass honest. (The CIA has been claiming they never said a video caused it; they only said it was spontaneous.)

    Sammy Finkelman (2d4607)

  6. Are we perhaps seeing a breakthrough? Are people becoming emboldened to counter the endless train of deceptions, even knowing they’ll possibly become targets for doing so?

    I truly hope so.

    AZ_Langer (f08ff6)

  7. The lack of a high alert posture was something I (and many others, I’m sure) thought and wrote about. Absolutely no excuse for not having all embassies/consulates on high alert around that time EVERY year, especially in the Middle East!

    Colonel Haiku (017a27)

  8. http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2012/10/198791.htm

    …About 7:30 in the evening, he has his last meeting. It is with a Turkish diplomat. And at – when the meeting is over, at 8:30 – he has all these meetings, by the way, in what I call Building C – when the meeting is over, he escorts the Turkish diplomat to the main gate. There is an agent there with them. They say goodbye. They’re out in a street in front of the compound. Everything is calm at 8:30 p.m. There’s nothing unusual. There has been nothing unusual during the day at all outside.

    After he sees the Turkish diplomat off, the Ambassador returns to Building C, where the information management officer – his name is Sean Smith, and who is one of the victims – the information management officer – I’ll just call him Sean from now on, on this call – and four other – four Diplomatic Security agents are all at Building C. One Diplomatic Security agent is in the TOC, the Tactical Operations Center. All of these agents have their side arms.

    A few minutes later – we’re talking about 9 o’clock at night – the Ambassador retires to his room, the others are still at Building C, and the one agent in the TOC. At 9:40 p.m., the agent in the TOC and the agents in Building C hear loud noises coming from the front gate. They also hear gunfire and an explosion…

    One might try to argue that the DoS was operating in a “fog of war” and they hadn’t sorted the wheat from the chaff until October 2012 when they briefed this timeline.

    One would be wrong. They would have known in real time from the agent in the TOC what was going on. That’s why the agent would have been communicating, to make things crystal clear. I’m being redundant, I know, but that’s why reporting requirements exist. When I was in the Navy we had strict time limits to meet when dealing with a suspected terrorist attack. I’d have to look at the pubs to refresh my memory as to exactly what those limits were, but we had X amount of time to make the initial voice report, and Y amount of time to follow it up with an initial OPREP (that means OPerational REPort; this is not intelligence reporting).

    But there was plenty of other reporting.

    http://www.massgeneral.org/doctors/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=3729

    Mass General Physician Reports from Benghazi, Libya

    13/Sep/2012

    Thomas F. Burke, MD, is chief of the Division of Global Health and Human Rights in the Department of Emergency Medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital. He was in Benghazi, Libya, working to improve health care training and infrastructure when the tragic attacks on the U.S. Embassy occurred. He shares his perspective below.

    September 12, 2012 4:29 p.m. EDT

    Perspective from Benghazi

    Today is a tragic day for Americans and Libyans alike. All over the world our hearts ache for the loss of our U.S. ambassador, Christopher Stevens, and those who died at his side last evening…

    Dr. Burke was an earwitness to the attack. He practically live-blogged it.

    Just a few minutes ago I sat with Dr. Naseralla Elsaadi, a gentle and endlessly patient 42-year old surgeon. Tears quietly ran down his cheeks. Ambassador Stevens was supposed to have been sitting with us. Naseralla is chief of the patchwork ER and has been up all night caring for the sick and injured and has 25 patients to still round on. He said, “It is fine to write about me and use my name because I am from the most powerful tribe in Eastern Libya. They will protect me.” He handed me four pages stapled together, the first being the medical note on the attempt to save the ambassador’s life, and the latter three sheets, copies of the ambassador’s flat line heart rhythm. I put my hand on Naseralla’s shoulder and he reached up, taking my hand in his.

    Hmm. That note would probably reveal what injuries Stevens had suffered and how he died. And we knew, or had the ability to know, that such information was available the day after the attack. No such information has been released, has it, as if it’s a complete mystery.

    But I digress. Burke posted a personal account of where he was and what he heard when the attack started, but he also told the press shortly after he blogged about it.

    http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2012/09/13/massachusetts-general-hospital-doctor-was-benghazi-time-attack/QpETpdeAUmgRNQaCloZscI/story.html

    Massachusetts General Hospital doctor was in Benghazi at time of attack
    By Billy Baker | Globe Staff September 14, 2012

    …Just hours before Burke was scheduled to meet with John Christopher Stevens, the US ambassador to Libya, the US consulate was attacked. Stevens and three other Americans were killed, including Glen Doherty, a Winchester native and former Navy SEAL working for a private security company.

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

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

    Stevens wouldn’t have been on the phone with Burke’s colleagues 45 minutes before the attack had there been a protest. An embassy staffer wouldn’t have been on the phone with Burke at the time of the attack had there been a protest. They wouldn’t have waited for “Muslim film critics” to morph from a protest into an assault before either trying to leave or secure themselves had there been a protest. Not given what I know of DoS procedures, the history of security threats to the US facility and other westerners in Benghazi, and Stevens’ own knowledge of how inadequate the security was at that place.

    There were plenty of other witnesses, too, all talking to the press within a day or two after the attack.

    No protest before Benghazi attack, wounded Libyan guard says

    By Nancy A. Youssef and Suliman Ali Zway

    McClatchy Newspapers September 13, 2012

    Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/09/13/168415/no-protest-before-benghazi-attack.html#storylink=cpy

    Suffice to say that within days there was a wealth of information available in open sources to know, with certainty, there was never any protest preceding this well coordinated attack. We also could know with certainty that there were surviving USG employee eyewitnesses who would have been debriefed the day after the attack. This news from MAJ Stahl just confirms what anybody who’s been in the military would know.

    The mere fact that Susan Rice referred to the “best available intelligence” when she did the rounds of five Sunday talk shows to spin the “anti-Muslim video” meme was all anyone really needed to hear to know she was lying. All you needed to hear were the three words “best available intelligence” and you could stop listening, knowing everything that followed was a lie. Because the best available information would not have come from intel but from operations.

    In any case based upon what was available in open sources, we had multiple witnesses who were independently giving a consistent story (Burke and the security guard could not possibly have coordinated their accounts, for instance) about what actually did happen days before Rice went on TV.

    Stahl does provide an important detail, however. The FBI weren’t the first to interview any USG eyewitnesses.

    “They were taken away from the airplane,” Stahl said. “The U.S. ambassador to Germany [Philip D. Murphy] met us when we landed and he took them away because he wanted to debrief them that night.”

    This is higly unusual. So that’s the first evidence of Hillary!’s direct involvement in the cover-up. Sure, Murphy debriefed them, and Hillary! got the information via Murphy. But Hillary! sent her top in Germany to make sure these guys and their story was buried. So that nothing would get out that would conflict with the administration spin.

    And these were members of a CIA global response team, remember. So along with Hillary!, CIA Deputy Director Mike Morrell would have known on 12 September 2012 not only that there were eyewitnesses, but at least some of the eyewitness accounts.

    Yet what did Mike Morrell testify to on April 2nd of this year.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0P4q6GRtCM&feature=player_embedded

    He chose to believe an analyst who was unaware of the eyewitness accounts. Eyewitness accounts of which Mike Morrell was perfectly aware.

    You can’t get a clearer admission that this was a lie from the start than that.

    Steve57 (5f0260)

  9. 2. I saw the interview: stunning. I have to admire the people coming forward to talk. Even though this man is retired, he is subject to the thuggery of this administration.

    Patricia (5fc097) — 6/12/2014 @ 8:49 am

    No doubt. I’m nearly certain Dr. Burke got the scare of his life when he either went to the authorities or was visited by the authorities, who took possession of the medical information on Stevens and then threatened him to shut him up.

    There’s a small chance I could be wrong; he may have slipped through the cracks like the C-17 crew. But I somehow doubt it as he had a higher media profile immediately after the attack. I can’t find any indication he spoke out or talked to the press about Libya after 18 September 2012.

    http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2012/09/18/boston-doctor-libya

    Steve57 (5f0260)

  10. Let the character assassination and IRS audits begin – followed by his re-activation into the USAF and UCMJ charges for using government pens for personal purposes.

    in_awe (7c859a)

  11. “There is massive disinformation out there said Tommy Vietor.”

    Sammy – The massive disinformation out there was that the attack on the consulate was not a spontaneous protest against an internet video which turned violent, the narrative spun by Hillary and Obama, so it had to be stomped on.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  12. I think one has to admire not only the courage of the individuals, but also their families. I can see easily how some people who know things are chomping at the bit to speak up, but who don’t believe they can make their families put up with the grief and fallout.

    That by itself is condemnation of our current state of government.
    Quite a bit of:
    “Something happenin’ here,
    and what it is gets increasingly clear
    there’s a man who doesn’t need a gun over there,
    telling you, you better beware..”

    And it is not the person who they thought it would be.
    But most of them haven’t figured that out yet.

    While the beliefs of “social conservatives” may be a reason why many vote for the Dems,
    all that means is that people prefer there to be no moral compass to govern their behavior
    rather than freedom of conscience in relation to the government.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  13. “While the beliefs of “social conservatives” may be a reason why many vote for the Dems,
    all that means is that people prefer there to be no moral compass to govern their behavior”

    MD in Philly – When these people openly lie, cover up, obfuscate, stonewall, illegally retaliate and intimidate subordinates into silence when people are looking and there is a chance of being caught, just think of what they do when they don’t think they will be caught. Yeah, those conservatives and their moral compasses are just horrible people.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  14. SH*t just hit the ceiling fan…

    The Emperor (7dd451)

  15. 7. The lack of a high alert posture was something I (and many others, I’m sure) thought and wrote about. Absolutely no excuse for not having all embassies/consulates on high alert around that time EVERY year, especially in the Middle East!

    Colonel Haiku (017a27) — 6/12/2014 @ 9:58 am

    It’s inexcusable. Especially since the WH was bragging about how ready they were the day before the anniversary of 9/11.

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/10/readout-president-s-meeting-senior-administration-officials-our-prepared

    …the President and the Principals discussed specific measures we are taking in the Homeland to prevent 9/11 related attacks as well as the steps taken to protect U.S. persons and facilities abroad, as well as force protection. The President reiterated that Departments and agencies must do everything possible to protect the American people, both at home and abroad.

    It would be interesting to know what those steps were, and if they’re in writing. Just as it would be interesting to know if the President ever issued any orders in writing. When Hillary takes non-responsibility responsibility for the lapses in security at Benghazi she claims to have issued very specific instructions about security. In writing?

    If it’s not in writing, it didn’t happen.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfLGDxnRH-Q

    Lebanon and Grenada: President Reagans Address on Events in Lebanon and Grenada 10/27/83

    Funny how in 1983 Ronald Reagan knew exactly what happened at the Marine barracks in Beirut four days after the bombing.

    Yet we are supposed to believe in 2012, 30 years later, with all the improvements in communications and intelligence capabilities the Obama administration wants us to believe things have gotten “foggier.”

    Also inexcusable.

    Steve57 (5f0260)

  16. In keeping with the theme that those who don’t learn from history are bound to repeat it,
    a very sad lesson to the world is hereby proposed for consideration:

    Do not rely on the US as an ally when it comes to armed confrontation.

    Whether or not it is done with good intentions and adequate justification, any prolonged US military intervention since the Korean War has become weakened by domestic claims that the US involvement is doing more harm than good, leading not only to US withdrawal but also failure to maintain any sense of responsibility to former allies, even at the expense of ignoring treaty obligations,
    and that leads to a horrific blood bath, generally not acknowledged by those who said our presence was what was making things worse.*

    At least that is what seems to be the case in the eyes of this amateur observer of world events during my lifetime.

    *I guess this even holds true for Gulf War I, when we did not adequately help the anti-Saddam contingent after our role, and in Afghanistan after we helped them kick out the Russians.
    So even when “We win”, they lose.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  17. I guess I left out a key point in my last post, but one that many of you already know.
    Apparently the blood bath in Iraq is well underway, with heads literally rolling,
    as seems to be the custom with the extreme jihadist types.

    Maybe John Kerry should make a statement about behavior reminiscent of Genghis Khan.
    Yes, that was a bit sarcastic, cynical, and snarky, but I think deserved and is worthwhile in clarifying the absurdities present.
    Back to work.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  18. Maliki is probably asking himself why he listened to people who did not want him to sign a SFA with the US – people like BHO.

    askeptic (8ecc78)

  19. daley @11, let Sammy live out his fantasies. You’ll never get through. I already explained to Sammy over a month ago how to read Obama admin-speak over a month ago using in particular this Rhodes email.

    http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2013/05/politics/white-house-benghazi-email/index.html

    Sorry to be late to this discussion.

    “I’ve been monitoring you big mouths and I’ve got to step in and put a stop to this cuz you’re scaring me.’

    We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities,…”

    “We have a lot of arses to cover.”

    …particularly the investigation.

    ‘These emails are official records, so shut up because you’re on the verge of blowing our cover-up.”

    There is a ton of wrong information getting out into public domain…

    “The truth is getting out despite our best efforts and it’s killing us.”

    …from Congress and people who are not particularly informed.

    “Those people are not on our team.”

    Insofar as we have firmed up assessments that don’t compromise intel or the investigation…

    “Now that we think we have our stories straight that we can spin to the public as well as cover our arses, and shut up the eyewitnesses who could blow it apart…”

    …we need to have the capability to correct the record,…

    “…it’s time to go on the attack and discredit our enemies and the facts that have escaped so far,…”

    …as there are significant policy and messaging ramifications that would flow from a hardened mis-impression.

    “…because we have an election to win.”

    We can take this up tomorrow morning at Deputies.

    “So for Chrissakes quit putting things in writing. No more emailing, we’ll talk off the record in the morning.”

    Steve57 (5f0260)

  20. “daley @11, let Sammy live out his fantasies. You’ll never get through.”

    Steve57 – I know. He’s a broken record. You debunk one of his talking points on Benghazi then it’s back a week later.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  21. The thing that’s always puzzled me is Team Obama’s insistence that
    “we couldn’t have gotten there in time”. Did someone give them a script
    announcing how long the attacks were supposed to last?

    When a firefight starts, you don’t know if it’s going to last 17 minutes
    or 17 hours. It’s only in HINDSIGHT that you know how long it was before
    the shooting stopped.

    So, WHY WOULD THEY *NOT* RUSH REINFORCEMENTS TO THE “COMPOUND”, even
    if some senior adviser feared they might be too late? After all, “we
    don’t abandon our people”. ( <— snark attack.)

    A_Nonny_Mouse (a5610b)

  22. Steve57 – It’s about a protest over an internet video over which we had nothing to do with and not about a broader policy failure. Everybody repeat after me.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  23. A_Nonny_Mouse @21, literally nothing about the Obama administration’s story adds up. Something was going on in Libya that they had to cover-up.

    I always thought the theory that Stevens was supposed to be kidnapped, so the Obama would have to trade the blind sheikh to get him back, was loony tunes. But after the Bergdahl swap I hate to say it but it seems plausible now. If he will release the worst of the worst, why not the blind sheikh?

    For everyone’s sake I’ll spare the point-by-point explanation why as we look at the details of this voluntary prisoner release (those taliban Mullahs were not necessary to a deal with the Haqqani network that was holding Bergdahl) it is entirely believable now that Obama would negotiate with terrorists to engineer a hostage situation to give him an excuse to do something he wanted to do all along.

    They may have had a script. Everything makes sense in that light. But Woods and Doherty threw everything off script. But the Obama administration stuck to it anyway because as per usual they never have a plan b.

    Steve57 (5f0260)

  24. Well I thought it was a straight revenge ploy, one high value target for another (Al libi)

    narciso (3fec35)

  25. 22. Steve57 – It’s about a protest over an internet video over which we had nothing to do with and not about a broader policy failure. Everybody repeat after me.
    daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/12/2014 @ 11:56 am

    Yes, of course. Why, it isn’t like we have any evidence it was about something else.

    Whoops! We do.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPszLCEyu-I

    CNN’s Nic Robertson Interviews Brother of Blind Sheik

    interesting. Muhammad al-Zawahiri says he could act as an intermediary and contact his brother, al Qaeda emir Ayman al-Zawahiri, if the US allows it. of course, the Obama administration would never allow that.

    Except. What did Hagel testify to before Congress? That the US did not directly negotiate with the Haqqani network. Apparently we used intermediaries.

    And on the day before they anniversary what did Muhammad as-Zawahiri and his compadres say they wanted to accomplish in Cairo on 9/11/2012?

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

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

    I always wondered why the Obama administration had to lie about what the Cairo demonstration was about and eliminate any and all references to the blind sheikh. Why they had to insist it was all about a video. The Bergdahl caper provides me some answers.

    Can you see the Rose Garden ceremony, daley? Amb. Chris Stevens and his family standing beside Obama, as the Preezy drones on about our sacred duty to do everything possible to leave no one behind.

    Is it crazy? Everything falls into place. Why we still had a facility in Benghazi at all, why the security guards weren’t armed, why Hillary! sent Stevens to Benghazi on the anniversary of 9/11, why despite WH press releases saying otherwise nothing was on alert to respond to the easiest country in the AFRICOM AOR to reach as it lies directly south of and only a short hop from bases on Sicily, why a Muslim Brotherhood associate Mehdi K. Alhassani was on the distro list for the talking points, etc.

    That list isn’t exhaustive. And look at what BHO is doing now.

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/06/11/white-house-energetically-working-on-transferring-gitmo-detainees/

    He’s hard at work meeting Muhammad al-Zawahiri’s demands.

    Steve57 (5f0260)

  26. 24. Well I thought it was a straight revenge ploy, one high value target for another (Al libi)

    narciso (3fec35) — 6/12/2014 @ 12:44 pm

    But why did they have to work overtime to airbursh the blind sheikh entirely out of the picture in Cairo? Why did they have to lie so hard about that? They could have let that enter into the picture along with the video and still claimed the (fictional) Benghazi protest was just about the video.

    That never made sense to me until now. Until the Bergdahl swap.

    Steve57 (5f0260)

  27. “But they later unlearned it, due to SOOPER SEKRIT INTELLIGENCE. (We know it is sopper sekrit because little of it has become public)”

    Sammy… dude… you said that two weeks ago and probably two months ago.

    Colonel Haiku (5eaa1e)

  28. “There is massive disinformation out there said Tommy Vietor.”

    daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/12/2014 @ 10:42 am

    Sammy – The massive disinformation out there was that the attack on the consulate was not a spontaneous protest against an internet video which turned violent,

    I know that.

    Tommy Vietor has, as far as I know, never been asked who was the one who had the disinformation?? All these people whom he is talking about, or the White House?

    This was included in the 100 pages of e-mails about the “talking points” released in May 2013, but nobody except me maybe seems to have noticed.

    Now you culd say maybe Vietor this version of events was a lie. But then he’d have to have been lying in internal emails to Jacob J. Sullivan of the State Department, and Benjamin F. Rhodes. If he expected this maybe somehow to be subpoened, then he’d have to expect the whole story to fall apart, too. Was he intending to fool many people on his email list, too?

    If you say that is possible, then maybe it is also possible that he was one of the ones fooled, and the circle of people who knew the old information was NOT disinformation didn’t include him either!

    I don’t think anybody who knew this was wrong would have sent Susan Rice out to the public saying the attack wasn’t planned.

    That was a lie that was NOT intended to circulate to the public, but to remain highly classified and believed only by people at high levels in the government, but this was such good political news to some people in the White House that they decided to make it as public as possible.

    That’s the way I see it.

    Sammy Finkelman (2d4607)

  29. the narrative spun by Hillary and Obama, so it had to be stomped on.

    If the narrative was spun by Hillary or Obama (as opposed to being tolerated and not challenged by Hillary, and Obama being misled) and the CIA was honest, how come no one has leaked any story that resembles anything like that??

    Where are the complaints about political influence on the CIA? The defense the CIA gave was that everything they said was reasonable and they never attributed the demonstration/attack in Benghazi to a video.

    No, the narrative was spun by the perpetrators, by Ansar al Sharia, and every Islamist group in the world that they – or their sponsers – could get to make a demonstration about the video later in the week, including the government of Iran.

    And it was aided and abetted by highly placed moles in the CIA, and also supported by the man who planned the planned the assassination of the Ambassador, the head of Saudi intelligence, Prince Bandar bin Sultan.

    And Hillary knew or suspected this rather soon, but could not expose him, because if he fell too badly, she could fall too, because then it might come out that Prince Bandar had killed Vincent Foster, and she was part of the cover-up.

    (at least anyway, the cover-up of something) In 1993, she had had to make it look like Bernard Nussbaum knew all the secrets Foster did, when the purpose of appointing Bernard Nussbaum White House counsel

    [NB: an appointment he was told about already in 1974 - that's how far in advance Bill Clinton planned the details or the mechanics of his coverups - he knew he had to plan the coverup well before the crime, not afterwards, like most people.]

    The purpose of appointing Bernard Nussbaum White House counsel, and Vincent Foster, deputy White House counsel, was so that the person nominally in charge didn’t actually know any political, legal, or criminal secrets of the Clintons!

    She had to ge Foster’s files before Bernard Nussbaum looked at them, because now that he was dead he would, and then made it look like it was Nussbaum protecting the files from the prying eyes of the Park Police.

    Two days after she actually had removed all the dangerous files. Which were not about Whitewater, like they tried to make people think later, even going to the extent of having those and other files mixed up and then complying with a subpeona for Whitewater files.

    Sammy Finkelman (2d4607)

  30. In retrospect another piece of the puzzle falls into place.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sources-key-task-force-not-convened-during-benghazi-consulate-attack/

    …”The CSG is the one group that’s supposed to know what resources every agency has. They know of multiple options and have the ability to coordinate counterterrorism assets across all the agencies,” a high-ranking government official told CBS News. “They were not allowed to do their job. They were not called upon.”

    Information shared with CBS News from top counterterrorism sources in the government and military reveal keen frustration over the U.S. response on Sept. 11, the night Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed in a coordinated attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya.

    And another piece.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iC7ezp53EY&feature=youtu.be

    The DoS refused to deploy the Foreign Emergency Support Team. Like the CSG, they kept the FEST members out of the loop.

    Vietor said that the highest officials in government worked on this. And then per the YouTube video he rattles of a list of Obama’s inner circle. Political appointees and in the case of Dempsey Obama’s hand-picked flunky. Really, only political hacks were trusted. Career professionals were kept out of the loop.

    Why would they do that?

    Steve57 (5f0260)

  31. “But they later unlearned it, due to SOOPER SEKRIT INTELLIGENCE. (We know it is sopper sekrit because little of it has become public)”

    27. Colonel Haiku (5eaa1e) — 6/12/2014 @ 1:14 pm

    Sammy… dude… you said that two weeks ago and probably two months ago.

    A year ago or more.

    But nobody seems to remember.

    My point is that this narrative didn’t originate in the White House, and couldn’t have.

    It is a fact, at least according to the New York Times, that this narrative about a demonstration about a video was already being told by Ansar al Sharia the night of the attack.

    That does not mean taht the video had anything to do with causing the attack.

    It means that Islamists had something to do with causing the video, and, especially, uploading it to You Tube in July.

    Sammy Finkelman (2d4607)

  32. 28. …Now you culd say maybe Vietor this version of events was a lie. But then he’d have to have been lying in internal emails to Jacob J. Sullivan of the State Department, and Benjamin F. Rhodes. If he expected this maybe somehow to be subpoened, then he’d have to expect the whole story to fall apart, too. Was he intending to fool many people on his email list, too?

    Sammy Finkelman (2d4607) — 6/12/2014 @ 1:24 pm

    Oh, yeah, Sammy. Like Holder’s DoJ would have issued a subpoena in order to pick this story apart. As opposed to sticking to their modus operandi and using phony investigations to stonewall Congress.

    And as if everybody on Vietor’s distro list like Sullivan and Rhodes wouldn’t have understood exactly what they all were up to.

    You’re a hoot, Sammy.

    Steve57 (5f0260)

  33. 24. narciso (3fec35) — 6/12/2014 @ 12:44 pm

    Well I thought it was a straight revenge ploy, one high value target for another (Al libi)

    The Islamists created a bunch of false reasons for the attack (including revenge for al-Libi, ad the anniversary of September 11th) depending on how much they could hide. The video was only if they completely succeeded in divorcing themselves from responsibility, and they probablky initially had not staked much hope on it.

    The real reason for the attack? To chase/panic the Americans out of Benghazi and probably to kill the Ambassador.

    Sammy Finkelman (2d4607)

  34. 31. “But they later unlearned it, due to SOOPER SEKRIT INTELLIGENCE. (We know it is sopper sekrit because little of it has become public)”

    27. Colonel Haiku (5eaa1e) — 6/12/2014 @ 1:14 pm

    Sammy… dude… you said that two weeks ago and probably two months ago.

    A year ago or more.

    But nobody seems to remember…

    Sammy Finkelman (2d4607) — 6/12/2014 @ 1:44 pm

    Yes, Sammy. It has completely slipped our minds. Thanks for the reminder.

    Steve57 (5f0260)

  35. Steve57 (5f0260) — 6/12/2014 @ 1:46 pm

    Like Holder’s DoJ would have issued a subpoena in order to pick this story apart.

    No, Republicans in Congress. As in fact actually eventually happened.

    I’m saying that actually fear of the email coming out – as in fact it did – was NOT a motivation for Vietor writing:

    There is massive disinformation out there, particularly with Congress. They all think it was premeditated based on inaccurate assumptions or briefings.

    But, rather, Vietor either:

    A) had to believe this himself

    OR

    B) Had to intend to fool some people on the distro list who would be forwarded this e-mail.

    But if B is true, and some people on the distro list didn’t know it was a lie, then it is also very possible, that Vietor himself was one of the people who did not know that he was the one circulating the disinformation.

    And not just posisble but likely, because anyone who knew the facts would know that this version could not stand up to scrutiny and having Susan Rice go on 5 Sunday network interview shows was a way to guarantee it would get some scrutiny!!

    So who was this lie intended for?

    Chiefly Obama, so he wouldn’t ask the CIA to find out who was behind it.

    Sammy Finkelman (2d4607)

  36. And as if everybody on Vietor’s distro list like Sullivan and Rhodes wouldn’t have understood exactly what they all were up to.

    If that was the case, there was no need to pretend on the distro list, because like you said, it would not be subpoenaed. But it was subpoenaed and made public.

    But only because it became clear that the “talking points” were wrong.

    But if somebody had anticipated the public getting the perception the talking points were wrong, they wouldn’t have gone public with them in the first place!!

    So he had to believe it.

    Unless he was guarding AGAINST ALL EVENTUALITIES.

    You’re a hoot, Sammy.

    No, you misunderstood me.

    Sammy Finkelman (2d4607)

  37. It’s true though that the Nazis rarely wrote about killing Jews, but rather the “Final Solution” so you do have an argument that people can lie in internal communications that they don’t expect anyone else to see.

    But I think the odds are that Vietor didn’t know this was a lie. Clapper, I am not so sure.

    Sammy Finkelman (2d4607)

  38. 21 A_Nonny_Mouse (a5610b) — 6/12/2014 @ 11:54 am

    The thing that’s always puzzled me is Team Obama’s insistence that
    “we couldn’t have gotten there in time”. Did someone give them a script
    announcing how long the attacks were supposed to last?

    Two or three times they were told it was all over. It was not one continuous attack.

    Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta did in fact order some people to get moving between 12 midnight and 2 am Libyan time, according to the Senate report.

    When a firefight starts, you don’t know if it’s going to last 17 minutes
    or 17 hours. It’s only in HINDSIGHT that you know how long it was before
    the shooting stopped.

    The shooting stopped several times. What we have here is blunders.

    Sammy Finkelman (2d4607)

  39. But if somebody had anticipated the public getting the perception the talking points were wrong, they wouldn’t have gone public with them in the first place!!

    You’re kidding, right? Nearly every scandal, Fast & Furious, IRS, etc., ∅ says that it is unacceptable, his administration withholds evidence, and then claims there’s not a smidgeon of evidence, aka, while sticking to his talking points. How many different talking points were used for the Bergdahl swap? I think it’s up to four. And that’s not counting his Coast Guard discharge!

    Hadoop (f7d5ba)

  40. The shooting stopped several times. What we have here is blunders.

    ROLFLMAO! Yeah, to reload!

    Hadoop (f7d5ba)

  41. Sorry, Sammy, that hamster running on the wheel in your head may make sense to you, but only you.

    I’m dealing with the facts.

    For instance, if you go back to my comment #25 and read the jihadi press release from 10 September 2012, what did they threaten to do?

    1. Burn the Cairo embassy with those in it.

    2. Take survivors hostage.

    3. Demand the release of the blind sheikh in exchange for the hostages.

    As far as I know they never even attempted to do any of those things. But what happened in Benghazi?

    http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2012/10/198791.htm

    …I should have mentioned from the top that the attackers, when they came through the gate, immediately torched the barracks.

    …Okay. So we have agents in Building C – or an agent in Building C with the Ambassador and Sean, we have two agents in Building B, and we have two agents in the TOC. All – Building C is – attackers penetrate in Building C.

    …They have jerry cans. They have jerry cans full of diesel fuel that they’ve picked up at the entrance when they torched the barracks. They have sprinkled the diesel fuel around. They light the furniture in the living room – this big, puffy, Middle Eastern furniture. They light it all on fire, and they have also lit part of the exterior of the building on fire.

    Well, they start with step one. They burn the consulate with those inside it.

    And the press release didn’t just threaten the Obama administration. They:

    called [especially] for the quick release of the jihadi [mujahid] sheikh, Omar Abdul Rahman [the "Blind Sheikh"], … who was ignored by the Mubarak regime, and [President] Morsi is refusing to intervene on his behalf and release him, despite promising that he would.

    They directly challenged Morsi, as well, from his extremist fringe. They wanted to replace him. This is no secret.

    And then the next morning Muhammad al-Zawahiri that he could act as an intermediary with AQ, if the Americans allowed it. So Obama didn’t really need the MB to act as his intermediaries. Others were willing to work with him, too.

    Basically, Muhammad al-Zawahiri and pals were putting Morsi and Obama on notice that they knew exactly what they were up to.

    Steve57 (5f0260)

  42. I have read an account or two of that night. There was quite a period of time between attacks, and each time it was a surprise.

    The first news that came to Obama around 5:00 pm EST was that it was all over, except for tha fact they were out of contact with the Ambassador, but he’s probably safe and in hiding. Obama says do everything you can to find the ambassador and get them all oput safely. Later, sometime after 6:07 pm, EST, he would have been told Ansar al Sharia had claimed responsibility and said another attack would be coming in Tripoli.

    And then he went to call Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, thinking Benghazi was finished, except for evacuation, and the continuing problem was in Tripoli and in Cairo.

    He was probably trying to head off some Israeli action, or assure Israel their people in Cairo were safe, and they were interceding with Morsi etc., but Netanyahu was not concerned about Cairo, and seized the opportunity to talk to Obama about the Iranian nuclear program, even though it was way past midnight in Israel, and Obama spent twice as much time on that telephone call as he expected to.

    Sammy Finkelman (2d4607)

  43. Steve57 @41. As far as I know they never even attempted to do any of those things

    Because everything that happened in Cairo was a decoy – a diversion.

    The “Blind sheikh” was a purely Egyptian issue, it could seem, so the jihadis focused on that. It would then never dawn on anyone to expect anything to happen that day in Benghazi, and that’s what they wanted. They wanted the attention of Washington focused on Cairo.

    They didn’t actually want to do anything in Cairo – just keep Washington busy. And if any reinforcements were sent anywhere, they’d go to Cairo. Or later, Tripoli. So the attack on the annex in Benghazi was unprepared for.

    Sammy Finkelman (2d4607)

  44. 25. Steve57 (5f0260) — 6/12/2014 @ 1:05 pm

    I always wondered why the Obama administration had to lie about what the Cairo demonstration was about and eliminate any and all references to the blind sheikh. Why they had to insist it was all about a video.

    Because that’s probably what the CIA cable to the Cairo embassy said it would be about.

    Remember the tweets?

    They weren’t done to fool the American public.

    This was an attempt to head off the demonstration.

    The Bergdahl caper provides me some answers.

    Can you see the Rose Garden ceremony, daley? Amb. Chris Stevens and his family standing beside Obama, as the Preezy drones on about our sacred duty to do everything possible to leave no one behind.

    I don’t think there was any attempt to capture the ambassador, and trade him, and asuccessful trade is not something jihadis could have expected. Obama only did this Bergdahl thing because he wanted to close the book on Afghanistan, as he thought maybe he’d done with Iraq.

    Why we still had a facility in Benghazi at all, why the security guards weren’t armed,

    Something is wrong there – not with a facility in Benghazi, but with bad protection.

    why Hillary! sent Stevens to Benghazi on the anniversary of 9/11,

    Prince Bandar could have created a reason.

    You see, there are many things that are still secret. I agree Stevens’ injuries could probably tell us something too – like who was lying that night.

    why a Muslim Brotherhood associate Mehdi K. Alhassani was on the distro list for the talking points, etc.

    This is new to me. I see this is not the frafting of the “talking points” e-mail list involving the CIA and the State Department but a e-mail list conerned with Susan Rice’s forthcoming apperances.

    Highly placed moles would be the simplest explanation. I see he’s being accused of being a mole himself. He was a political appointee in the White House.

    He’s hard at work meeting Muhammad al-Zawahiri’s demands.

    No, because the big demand was for the release of the leader of the 1993 World Trade Center bobers, who is not at Guantanamo.

    Sammy Finkelman (2d4607)

  45. What I don’t think is that the only place there was a mole was in the White House.

    Sammy Finkelman (2d4607)

  46. “It is a fact, at least according to the New York Times, that this narrative about a demonstration about a video was already being told by Ansar al Sharia the night of the attack.”

    Sammy – It was also being told by Hillary the night of the attack. Remember, I showed you her State Department Press Release. Please don’t forget about that again.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  47. Sammy – It was also being told by Hillary the night of the attack. Remember, I showed you her State Department Press Release. Please don’t forget about that again.

    Thanks for the laughs.

    Hadoop (f7d5ba)

  48. the blind sheik came from Gamaa Islamiya, he directed the cell in the first WTC bombing,

    http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/06/12/Report-DoD-Suspected-Benghazi-Was-Terrorism-Before-WH-Blamed-YouTube-Vid

    narciso (3fec35)

  49. 37. …The shooting stopped several times. What we have here is blunders.

    Sammy Finkelman (2d4607) — 6/12/2014 @ 2:14 pm

    Sammy, a reading from the book of obvious. If the shooting stopped several times, it also means it started several times. Which means you don’t know if Ansar al-Sharia has stopped for the last time, or they will start shooting again. Like it had several times before.

    You don’t need have been to Army Ranger School or the USMC Infantry Officer Course to figure this out.

    What we have here is enemy action. And I mean the goings on in the Obama administration. These were not blunders.

    Steve57 (5f0260)

  50. Yes, narciso, Al Gamaa Al Islamiyya was one of the groups that issued the 10 September Cairo press statement.

    Steve57 (5f0260)

  51. You know I had forgotten about that, but Gamaa, prior to Abu Sayyaf or the Algeria GIA were the first Salafi insurgency against secular government

    Even Homeland didn’t have this screwed up an antihero;

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/12/exclusive-bergdahl-explains-in-prison-letters-why-he-vanished.html

    narciso (3fec35)

  52. Not biased, just on the other side.

    htom (412a17)

  53. there isn’t a lie so big that Sam the Sham won’t repeat it with a straight face…

    even after he’s shown it’s a lie.

    you have to have a certain level of grudging appreciation for that level of personal and intellectual dishonesty…

    makes me wonder what Demonrat politician he was press secretary for. it also makes me wonder what’s in it for him.

    redc1c4 (abd49e)

  54. If there’s a hole in my reasoning, that we switched sides when this country elected Obama, I’d appreciate if somebody would point it out. I’m not Michael Mann, or the East Anglia University CRU. I’m prepared to show my work. And unlike Sammy I’m not trying to alter reality to fit my theory, but as we get facts I tweak my theory.

    If the assault on the DipFac in Benghazi was supposed to result in Chris Stevens being traded for the blind sheikh, and the Obama administration was in on the operation along with the MB (snd Erdogan), then everything fits together.

    From beginning to end. From MB operatives being on Hillary!’s staff and the NSC/WH distro list to the fact that the press can find the “suspects” but the DoJ just can’t bring anyone to justice. Because why would you bring your accomplices to justice?

    I thought this was crazy, too. Tin foil hat stuff. Until the Bergdahl dealio, in which Bergdahl was just a pretext to implement a plan that was clearly on the to-do list all along.

    Somebody besides the hamster running on the exercise wheel inside Sammy’s head, that is.

    Steve57 (5f0260)

  55. Well the ‘Kevin Bacon’ element seems to be Doha, is somewhat like Casablanca, nominally on our side,
    the home of CentCom, but also Al Jazeera, the other sheikh Quradawi, the head of the UMS, a sanctuary for Hamas and the Taliban, supporting all other factions from Syria to Libya, their duplicitousness,
    is seen in the new Bourne offering,

    narciso (3fec35)

  56. Steve57 (5f0260) — 6/12/2014 @ 5:37 pm

    Look at it this way, if that scenario is not the truth, the truth is supposed to be stranger…
    Occam’s Razor not withstanding.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  57. Interesting you bring that up, narciso, because that is another Obama admin head fake. As if as long as these guys don’t return to A-stan they’re out of the fight. As if the only thing we’re supposed to be concerned that they’re not planting IEDs personally.

    But the important thing is they’re not in our custody or in Karzai’s, as far as the Taliban is concerned. Their value is that they direct the fight, not that they fight the fight.

    This is what PO’d Kabul. I don’t blame them.

    If Doha is only nominally on our side, so is DC. They’re two peas in a pod.

    Steve57 (5f0260)

  58. Doc, but am I wrong? That the scenario does comport with the facts.

    I would actually like it if somebody could prove this theory wrong. And when I say I’d like it, I really would like it. I’d much prefer to ascribe this to weapons grade stupidity on the part of a freshman dorm WH, rather then go where the evidence I’ve accounted for so far leads me.

    And, no, calling me a racist doesn’t constitute proof. Nor impugning my motives in any other fashion, nor some lofty rhetoric on the part of BHO. Bringing up some action that can be proven to have taken place, that demonstrates this administration wasn’t setting Chris Stevens up for the jihadis, might.

    Steve57 (5f0260)

  59. “If Doha is only nominally on our side, so is DC. They’re two peas in a pod.”

    AZ_Langer (f08ff6)

  60. Sorry, I got ahead of myself on your quote, Steve57.

    A recent story is telling: How the Taliban got their hands on modern US missiles.

    AZ_Langer (f08ff6)

  61. 56. MD in Philly (f9371b) — 6/12/2014 @ 6:02 pm

    if that scenario is not the truth, the truth is supposed to be stranger…
    Occam’s Razor not withstanding.

    Steve57′s scenario is not the truth and is illogical. There is no reason to suspect that al Qaeda wanted to kidnap the ambassador rather than kill him, but I can understand why the perpetrators would float that, (because I heard that before. It seems sort of popular with some people.)

    That scenario would have been floated as disinformation – to disguise the fact that they had a special reason to kill that Ambassador.

    Two reasons, in fact. He was very familiar with Libya and thus would be more effective than anybody else in countering their efforts to gain control there.

    And he was interfering with efforts to ship missiles to Islamcists sponsered by Qatar and/.or Saudi Arabia in Syria. I know everybody is saying the opposite – that U.S. policy was to facilitate it – but all the other indications, and logic is that Obama was trying to stop that. And in fact the weapons were impounded in Turkey. Probably because of U.S. dipolomatic efforts and threats including the meeting Stevens had that night with the Turkish counsel/intelligence station chief or whatever he was.

    The United States did agree to send Stingers to Libya in 2011, but it looks like QATAR SENT THEM INSTEAD TO THE TALIBAN IN AFGHANISTAN. the United States was sending Stingers any where else at that time.

    The CIA people were there to buy up the Chinese made missiles and other weapons stockpiled by Quaddafi around Benghazi and keep them away from Syria, not send them to Syria!

    If U.S. policy was to send them to Syria, you’d think they would have arrived and not have been stuck in Turkey. And other weapons bought by Qatar and/or Saudi Arabia were stuck in Jordan.

    Another thing: Obama did have some reasons not to feel so uncomfortable releasing the jihadists in Guantanamo, but things would not be the same for those held in a U.S. prison after conviction. You have to beleive he was really anxious to do such a deal. Why? He made no promise to close the prison in Florence, Colorado, or Marion, Illinois.

    And you think somebody would trust the Islamists so much they would attempt some kind of a deal like this? The Islamists always claim they want prisoners released – this is not because there is a realistic chance of that.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  62. errata: The United states wa snot sending Stingers any where else – agreeing to send them to the Libyan rebels would have been an exception.

    Steve57 (5f0260) — 6/12/2014 @ 6:27 pm

    I’d much prefer to ascribe this to weapons grade stupidity on the part of a freshman dorm WH, rather then go where the evidence I’ve accounted for so far leads me.

    Which event are you talking about?

    I think it is very possible Stevens was set up, but I would suspect foreign intelligence moles, or maybe Hillary Clinton for some reason.

    If he was set up, nobody would have been under any illusion that the purpose was merely to kidnap him, rather than kill him. I don’t believe the kidnap and exchange scenario; I don’t even believe that anybody in the U.S. government could have thought that is what the Islamists intended.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  63. SF: …The shooting stopped several times. What we have here is blunders.

    Steve57 (5f0260) — 6/12/2014 @ 4:46 pm

    Sammy, a reading from the book of obvious. If the shooting stopped several times, it also means it started several times. Which means you don’t know if Ansar al-Sharia has stopped for the last time, or they will start shooting again. Like it had several times before.

    You are not thinking this through. The first time it stopped was at the villa where Amnbassador Stevens was staying. In fact they never came back, in force anyway.

    They were operating under the assumption that the existence and location of the annex was not known.

    They had also decided to evacuate.

    Now when you decide to evacuate a position, do you send reinforcements??

    Not if it seems you can take advantage of the lull to retreat.

    The only reason they were sending anybody to Benghazi, aside from those needed to evacuate people, was to retrieve the ambassador or his body.

    They were also it seems constantly changing their decisions.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  64. “It is a fact, at least according to the New York Times, that this narrative about a demonstration about a video was already being told by Ansar al Sharia the night of the attack.”

    daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/12/2014 @ 3:32 pm

    Sammy – It was also being told by Hillary the night of the attack. Remember, I showed you her State Department Press Release. Please don’t forget about that again.

    The link http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2012/09/197628.htm seems to be dead, but

    I found it quoted in full here:

    http://www.redstate.com/2014/04/30/hillary-clinton-source-benghazi-video-lie/

    And excerpted here:

    http://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/

    Now, that statements was after the Ansar al Sharia Facebook post which nobody seems to have the full text of, but which is reported to claimed responsibility.

    At 6:07 pm, September 11, 2012 ,the State Department’s Operations Center sent an email to the White House, Pentagon, FBI and other government agencies said flat out that it was Ansar al-Sharia that had posted that – that it had claimed credit for the attack on its Facebook and Twitter accounts.
    I don’t know whether the video was mentioned in the 6:07 email.

    I don’t know if anybody has the text of that Facebook post.

    Hillary Clinton’s exact words, a couple of hours later, after 10 pm, are very interesting.

    Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.

    What’s very interesting are the words:

    Some have sought to justify…

    This was probably a reference either to the Facebook post, or to something else that was publicly known. This would not have been the very first mention of the video as cause in any source available to the general public.

    In using this wording, Hillary Clinton was being very careful not to link the Facebook post, or whatever she was alluding to, to the actual perpetrators of the attack. She uses the word justify. which does not imply a link. She used only the words: some.. justify which does not endorse the linkage between anything else and the attack.

    This is being very smart, or knowledgeable. Maybe much too knowledgeable.

    There was probably more than this. The CIA in its cable to the Cairo embassy before the Egyptian protest may have mentioned the video. There may have bene SOOPER SEKRIT INTELLIGENCE pointing to the video as well. And it is also true, although may not have been known to many so early, that the attackers posted guards, and attracted a crowd by claiming peaceful demonstrations had bene killed or shot who harrangued onlookers about the video. One of those onlookers was a stringer for the New York Times, and it was the first time he heard about the video.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  65. I found this:

    http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/07/rice-right-about-benghazi-video.html

    Ansar al-Sharia appears to have maintained no less than three Facebook pages before the attack occurred. Unfortunately, all three disappeared from the Web shortly thereafter. But a kindred Facebook page, that of the Libyan Ansar Minbar, or “supporters platform,” remains online and provides an important window into the agitation embroiling the local Islamist scene around the time of the attack….

    ….The February 17 Martyrs Brigade is one of the most important government-sponsored militias in eastern Libya. Members of the brigade were employed as a guard unit at the US mission in Benghazi on Sep. 11, 2012. The brigade is openly sympathetic to Ansar al-Sharia.

    In an “urgent” statement posted on a brigade Facebook page at 11:31 p.m. on the very night of the attack, the brigade, in effect, confirmed reports that its men stood down during the attack.

    The statement explicitly refers to an “insult” to the Prophet Muhammad. It reads in part: “The February 17 Martyrs Brigade denies categorically the occurrence of any confrontation between it and the young men who overran the embassy jealously protecting our noble Prophet and protesting against the insult to him.”

    11:31 pm is 5:31 EST and by that time already the attack is being linked to the video.

    I also found this, but this is later, and is dated the next day, September 12, 2012 3:52 PM. This is about the statement the next day by Ansar al Sharia. It mentioned the video, and was probably intended to partially retract the Facebook post:

    http://www.longwarjournal.org/threat-matrix/archives/2012/09/ansar_al_shariah_issues_statem.php

    Ansar al Shariah, an Islamist group in Libya that has been accused of executing last night’s attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi, issued a statement on the assault. The statement, which has been translated by the SITE Intelligence Group, is neither a full denial nor a full claim of responsibility. The group stated that it “didn’t participate as a sole entity,” leaving open the possibility that its members were involved. Ansar al Shariah then claimed that the attack “was a spontaneous popular uprising” to a video released on YouTube that denigrated the Prophet Mohammed.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  66. “In using this wording, Hillary Clinton was being very careful not to link the Facebook post, or whatever she was alluding to, to the actual perpetrators of the attack. She uses the word justify. which does not imply a link.”

    Sammy – You are a nut. You imply the New York Time is the White House. That the word “justify” does not create a link. What does the word mean then? “Some” people are citing the video as the reason for the protest which did not exist that was an attack by terrorists.

    Remember that people in Washington talked directly to U.S. people in Libya and heard there was no protest, only an attack. Cheryl Lamb, one of Hillary’s minions at the State Department testified that she watched the attack unfold live via video. The probability that Hillary did not clear the content of her evening press release with the White House blaming the video is zero.

    Two days ago you claimed Hillary probably got confused by talking to Libyan government officials on 9/11 but could not elaborate. The problem is, apart from talking to Obama and Hicks, we really don’t know what the heck Hillary did the evening of 9/11 and we still don’t have a complete picture of what Obama did.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  67. Sammy’s problem is that his primary intell is from the NYT/CNN/PMSNBC cabal.

    askeptic (8ecc78)

  68. “Sammy’s problem is that his primary intell is from the NYT/CNN/PMSNBC cabal.”

    askeptic – Or that he selectively ignores known information in preference for bizarre pretzel logic.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  69. Pretzels are at least circular, and you get back to the same point eventually.
    That is not something in Sammy’s repertoire.

    askeptic (8ecc78)

  70. “In using this wording, Hillary Clinton was being very careful not to link the Facebook post, or whatever she was alluding to, to the actual perpetrators of the attack. She uses the word justify. which does not imply a link.”

    daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/13/2014 @ 10:20 am

    Sammy – You are a nut. You imply the New York Time is the White House.

    No, no, no. The New York Times later reported that they had heard about the video that night from the attackers. They were trying to tell everyone. So the same kind of message, that the attackers (or people speaking for them) were claiming a video had inspired their actions, might have come to her and the State Department by other means.

    The important point is that it was not invented by her.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  71. That the word “justify” does not create a link. What does the word mean then? “Some” people are citing the video as the reason for the protest which did not exist that was an attack by terrorists.

    The use of the word “justify” implies that the people saying that are not connected with the attack, but only justifying it.

    Here she is surely not alluding to what the attackers on the grounds said, but probably some kind of Facebook or Twitter message.

    The persons behind that message could easily not in fact be connected – therefore it becomes “justify the attack”

    She’s alluding to something she doesn’t say, but she is alluding to something. She doesn’t even mention the video – we have to know about it.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  72. For teh Sammah… http://youtu.be/Xaw0oDqDFlY

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  73. Sammy,

    I feel like I’m watching the Don Siegel 1956 classic “Invasion of the Body Snatchers,” and the pods have already gotten to you.

    Elephant Stone (5c2aa0)

  74. Remember that people in Washington talked directly to U.S. people in Libya and heard there was no protest, only an attack.

    And what’s diffeernt about what Hillary Clinton said on September, 11, 2012? She didn’t talk about a demonstration in Benghazi.

    But only an “attack” and “vicious behavior”

    Excerpted from : http://www.redstate.com/2014/04/30/hillary-clinton-source-benghazi-video-lie/

    I condemn in the strongest terms the attack on our mission in Benghazi today. As we work to secure our personnel and facilities, we have confirmed that one of our State Department officers was killed. We are heartbroken by this terrible loss. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family and those who have suffered in this attack.

    This evening, I called Libyan President Magariaf to coordinate additional support to protect Americans in Libya. President Magariaf expressed his condemnation and condolences and pledged his government’s full cooperation.

    Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet [my emphasis]. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.

    In light of the events of today, the United States government is working with partner countries around the world to protect our personnel, our missions, and American citizens worldwide.

    Now an important point: later that week, when given an opportunity to comment on the CIAs “talking points” the State Department never objects to a report about a “demonstration.”

    Cheryl Lamb, one of Hillary’s minions at the State Department testified that she watched the attack unfold live via video. The probability that Hillary did not clear the content of her evening press release with the White House blaming the video is zero.

    At that point probably nobody was saying there had bene a demonstration in Benghazi. the business of a video must have surfaced somewhere.

    Two days ago you claimed Hillary probably got confused by talking to Libyan government officials on 9/11 but could not elaborate.

    I didn’t say that. I said the reason for not sending help during the night of Sept 11/12 was because the people responsible – which would be Panetta mainly – were lied to by Libyans.

    No, Hilalry knew there had been no demonstration – and did not interfere with the talking points that said there had. She only wanted the talking points not to say they had been warned and not to refer to the mission as a “consulate” – maybe because a consultate would require greater security.

    The problem is, apart from talking to Obama and Hicks, we really don’t know what the heck Hillary did the evening of 9/11 and we still don’t have a complete picture of what Obama did.

    Hillary also talked to the CIA Director David Petraeus at about 5:41 EST/11:41 Libyan time.
    Subject: Need for co-operation of some kind. (The CIA controlled the annex, and could help)

    Obama probably did nothing after about 6:30 pm. He had given instructions to evacuate everybody. He may have been updated once by Hillary that the Ambassador had not been found. He probably went to sleep because he had to catch a flight early the next day for Las Vegas for a political fundraiser.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  75. “The important point is that it was not invented by her.”

    Sammy – Where did Hillary gather the information to conclude the Benghazi nonexistent protest was due to a video?

    Here she is surely not alluding to what the attackers on the grounds said, but probably some kind of Facebook or Twitter message.

    Sammy – We have no clue what she is alluding to because we have no idea what she did the evening of 9/11, but we do know both the White House and State Department stuck to the video was responsible for the protest/attack narrative the Hillary began on 9/11 which she surely cleared with Obama. That is factual. It does not matter if there moles. That is what actually publicly happened.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  76. Sammy – The publicly known timeline does not change to fit your theories. Your theories have to fit the publicly known timeline.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  77. Hillary Clinton let Susan Rice go ahead and say things that were manifestedly not true, but her own statements were much more careful, and neither did she or Obama originate the claim that the video inspired it. That claim came, ultimately, from the perpetrators. It was only one of the cover stories to “explain” the attack. Only one of the red herrings.

    She didn’t fight the White House because she didn’t care about the truth.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  78. Sammy,

    The reason Lois Lerner took the Fifth, is because she knows she can’t answer questions without revealing her own criminal conduct.

    Likewise, the reason Barack and Hilary want to stop discussing their actions on that fateful nite in Benghazi is because their explanations will reveal that they didn’t provide the leadership that America needed.

    Elephant Stone (5c2aa0)

  79. “The important point is that it was not invented by her.”

    Daleyrocks:

    Sammy – Where did Hillary gather the information to conclude the Benghazi nonexistent protest was due to a video?

    First of all, she never spoke about a protest in Benghazi. Not even later in the week. If you check her language for later in teh week she speaks about protests at embassies. Was there an embassy in Benghazi? Of course she was trying to seem to endorse the line that wsas being said by others without actually doing so.

    I don’t know where she got the claim that somebody was attributing it to the video – the word “justify” looks to me like she might have been alluding to Facebook or Twitter posts on accounts supposed to belong to Ansar al Sharia – some kind of thing on the Internet where somebody was saying it was right to do the attack because of the video.

    Her mention of the video was even cryptic. I don’t think she would have alluded to it at all had it not been in some people’s minds already. That 10 pm statewment Sept 11, 2012 is not the locus classicus for the video story.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  80. 78. Elephant Stone (5c2aa0) — 6/13/2014 @ 12:30 pm

    Likewise, the reason Barack and Hilary want to stop discussing their actions on that fateful nite in Benghazi is because their explanations will reveal that they didn’t provide the leadership that America needed.

    And after.

    How is it that the CIA is not shaken up? How is it that everywhere it is business as usual?

    Like House Speaker John Boehner said, the truth isn’t pretty.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  81. 76. daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/13/2014 @ 12:23 pm

    The publicly known timeline does not change to fit your theories. Your theories have to fit the publicly known timeline.

    I made a timeline something over a year ago. It is very hard to get the facts.

    This is some of what I have:

    4:29 EST/ 10:29 Libyan time: 5 or 6 man CIA security team, with 16 Libyans, arrives at
    consulate. They come under fire when they arrive, but attackers appear to retreat, leaving behind burning building(s)

    4:30 /10:30 Pentagon’s command center alerts Sect Def Panetta to attack

    4:45/10:45? Unarmed drone diverted to Benghazi.

    4:54/ 10:54 State Dep’t bulletin system says Embassy in Tripoli reports
    that firing has stopped and compound has been cleared of attackers. Response team is at mission attempting to locate missing personnel, all of whom, presumably, went into hiding, and are out of communication.

    Before 5:00/11:00 – President Obama meets with National Security Council
    in previously scheduled meeting (probably about the danger to
    the Cairo embassy.) Among those present are National Security
    Adviser Tom Donilon, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, amd
    Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey.
    Subject of danger to Benghazi, Libya mission and personnel is added to agenda.

    Before the meeting starts, President gets told of attack,
    and that it appears to be over, but they are out of contact
    with the Ambassador and some others, and some people are
    on the scene looking for them. Ambassador was last reported
    safe, but some time ago, and danger remains in the streets
    of Benghazi, and it may be difficult to leave safely.

    Because things seems to be taking too long, President Obama
    directs that they make sure that everybody is doing what they
    need to in order to find the Ambassador and others and take
    them all to safety.

    Crazily contradictory information comes from the Libyan government (details unspecified by Newsweek/Daily Beast)

    Also: They are told, first, that a Libyan force of 40 men made
    it to the consulate, but were forced to retreat, and, later,
    that a second force sent out to the consulate couldn’t get
    there because roads were being blocked by attackers, and that
    they also had come under sniper fire.

    Decision made to move U.S military assets for possible use
    later. (In subsequent days some go to Egypt, Yemen, and
    embassy in Libya, and many drones fly over Benghazi.)

    President also orders there be an investigation to determine
    who was responsible for the attack, and that we try to ensure that proceedings are brought against them.

    The meeting lasts about 30 minutes, about 20 minutes of which
    were devoted to the situation in Cairo and Benghazi.

    That ends high level/White House involvement. President Obama
    then has a (catch-up) 1-hour conversation with Israeli Prime
    Minister Benjamin Netanyahu about other matters. At some point
    later, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton calls him on the
    phone to update him. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and
    General Dempsey have no further contact with him or with the
    White House National Security staff or with the Secretary of
    State, Hillary Clinton. President goes to bed so he can be
    up early the next day for scheduled trip.

    5:11 /11:11 Unarmed drone, redirected from surveillance mission over
    Al Qaeda-like training camps, arrives in Benghazi. Officials
    in Washington see which buildings are burning. This drone is
    of no use to CIA team on the ground. The drone offers only
    a “soda-straw” view and is of low resolution. Further processing normally creates a more intelligible panoramic picture, but that cannot be done in real time..

    till 11:30 Security team looks for people. They find one person dead in
    burning building. Cannot find ambassador. At insistence of
    Libyans with them, leave without the Ambassador. They come
    under fire as they leave. (possibly closer to 11:20 than 11:30)

    5:41/ 11:41 Secretary of State Hillary Clinton telephones CIA Director
    David Petraeus. Subject: Need for co-operation of some kind.

    (She may not know at that time that some people from the
    annex actually went there. Or this possibly is over the
    fact that they left without finding the Ambassador.)

    ??? In Tripoli, Libya, 22-man security team (which really is made up
    of people who, at the moment, are working under the auspices
    of the CIA) sets out to fly to Benghazi, 480 miles east of
    Tripoli, but they encounter difficulties. They take cash to
    hire a plane, but Libyan authorities insist response be
    co-ordinated with Libyan force on the ground in Benghazi, and
    delay the flight. Eventually, Libyan force is assembled.

    Nobody asks the miitary to do anything. Forces in Italy are
    about the same distance from Benghazi as Tripoli is. Getting
    them involved might require a special presidential order. As
    of this point, General Ham doesn’t think there seems to be any
    need for them, so no such order is sought, but some forces are
    activated and moved closer to Benghazi just in case the
    situation deteriorates further.

    11:30-11:45 Team returning from consulate to annex/safe house with
    several rescued Americans and dead body, is in constant
    radio contact with their headquarters. On their way back
    to annex from consulate, team gets lost or misdirected and
    so takes a long time to get back also. Tires were hit by gunfire.

    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 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.)

    ??? State Department announces one American is dead. No public
    statement of any kind is issued about anything till past
    10:30 prompted by news that Mitt Romney is releasing a
    statement, complaining about nothing being said.

    Sep 12 day State Department and White House announce that Ambassador
    Stevens and three others are dead.

    President Obama goes to Las Vegas for a planned campaign event.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  82. “First of all, she never spoke about a protest in Benghazi. Not even later in the week. If you check her language for later in teh week she speaks about protests at embassies.”

    Sammy – You are just getting sillier with your word parsing.

    As an official explanation for the violence directed against the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, the video explanation was invented by Hillary. She was the first official U.S. spokesperson to issue a statement. The New York Times and terrorists are not official government sources. They have no responsibility for overseeing the safety of the personnel on the ground in Benghazi. Where she got the information is a mystery at this point upon which perhaps additional hearings could shed some light.

    Check Hillary’s language at the end of the Eid celebration at the White House later that week where she talks about how people should not get upset over religion.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  83. Two days ago you claimed Hillary probably got confused by talking to Libyan government officials on 9/11 but could not elaborate.

    I didn’t say that. I said the reason for not sending help during the night of Sept 11/12 was because the people responsible – which would be Panetta mainly – were lied to by Libyans.”

    Sammy – My apologies. You did not specifically say Hillary as I claimed. Your comment is below. You said some people in Washington, which could have included Hillary, but you did not elaborate what you meant.

    “The not helping that night was probably the result of people in Washington being lied to repeatedly
    by some Libyan officials.”

    Sammy – WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT????????
    daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/11/2014 @ 9:47 am

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  84. “First of all, she never spoke about a protest in Benghazi. Not even later in the week. If you eheck her language for later in the week she speaks about protests at embassies.”

    daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/13/2014 @ 12:50 pm

    Sammy – You are just getting sillier with your word parsing.

    I’m not doing the parsing. Hillary Clinton was doing the parsing.

    As an official explanation for the violence directed against the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, the video explanation was invented by Hillary.

    Definitely not. It was invented by the perpetrators. It was invented by the perpetrators before because they had to prepare their lines. They posted guards outside and lectured people about the video.

    Just because you don’t know what she was alluding to, doesn’t mean she was alluding to nothing

    She was the first official U.S. spokesperson to issue a statement.

    Which would extremely cryptic if that was the first anybody heard about a video supposedly being responsible.

    The New York Times and terrorists are not official government sources.

    No, but the New York says that guards posted by the attackers said it was about a video that night. (and don’t say they picked up the idea from Hillary Clinton)

    It is not that this was really about a video – it is that this was one of the terrorists’ cover stories because if it was about a video, it could not have been pre-planned, because nobody knew about the video the day before!!

    And if was not pre-planned, no need to look for anyone not at the scene of the crime who responsible.

    They have no responsibility for overseeing the safety of the personnel on the ground in Benghazi. Where she got the information is a mystery at this point upon which perhaps additional hearings could shed some light.

    Well, that could be a good question, since it is so unclear to many people.

    The bigger question is how did this terrorist cover story ever become the official U.S. government evalulation for awhile?

    Check Hillary’s language at the end of the Eid celebration at the White House later that week where she talks about how people should not get upset over religion.

    Link?

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  85. 83. It’s actually my fault for not answering the question, which was difficult . But i thought it was clear this concerned the lack of military action on the night of Sept 11/12 2012.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  86. “Check Hillary’s language at the end of the Eid celebration at the White House later that week where she talks about how people should not get upset over religion.”

    Sammy – The same place you can get her press releases from that week. The State Department archives.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  87. the curious thing is Eid ends Ramadan, they were in another month altogether, Shawwal.

    narciso (3fec35)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4373 secs.