Patterico's Pontifications

6/28/2016

Select Committee On Benghazi Report Released

Filed under: General — Dana @ 9:46 am

[guest post by Dana]

The Benghazi Select Committee released its report this morning. While the New York Times is in full Hillary-defense mode on the front page: “2-Year Panel On Benghazi Ends, Finding No New Fault By Clinton,” Chairman Trey Gowdy gives Americans far more credit for their intelligence:

Now, I simply ask the American people to read this report for themselves, look at the evidence we have collected, and reach their own conclusions. You can read this report in less time than our fellow citizens were taking fire and fighting for their lives on the rooftops and in the streets of Benghazi.

The Weekly Standard provides a look at the supplemental “additional views” report, which lays out the devastating timeline confirming that the “Obama administration knowingly provided the American people a false story about the Benghazi attack, its causes and its consequences”. Who’s surprised? Lies, lies, and more lies:

9/11—Public Statements

Secretary Clinton’s 10:08 p.m. Statement on the Attack in Benghazi:

“I condemn in the strongest terms the attack on our mission in Benghazi today. * * * Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet.”

Secretary Clinton’s E-mail to daughter at 11:23 p.m.:

“Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an Al Quedalike [sic] group[.]”

9/12—Public Statements

Secretary Clinton’s Remarks on the Deaths of American Personnel in Benghazi, Libya morning of September 12, 2012:

“We are working to determine the precise motivations and methods of those who carried out this assault. Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior, along with the protest that took place at our Embassy in Cairo yesterday, as a response to inflammatory material posted on the internet.”

9/12—Private Statements

Summary of Discussion between Acting Assistant Secretary Beth Jones and Libyan Ambassador Aujali at 9:45 a.m.:

“I told him that the group that conducted the attacks—Ansar Al Sharia—is affiliated with Islamic extremists.”

Jacob Sullivan in e-mail to embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan:

“There was not really violence in Egypt [and] “we are not saying that the violence in Libya erupted ‘over inflammatory videos.'”

Secretary Clinton’s Statements to Egyptian Prime Minister Kandil at 3:04 p.m.:

“We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack – not a protest. . . . Based on the information we saw today we believe the group that claimed responsibility for this was affiliated with al Qaeda.”

Under Secretary Patrick Kennedy to congressional staff briefing:

When asked whether “this [was] an attack under the cover of a protest” Kennedy said, “No the attack was a direct breaching attack.” More to the point, he was then asked whether “we believe [this was] coordinated with [the] Cairo [protests] to which Kennedy responded, “Attack in Cairo was a demonstration. There were no weapons shown or used. A few cans of spray paint.”

9/13—Public Statements

Secretary Clinton’s Morocco Remarks:

“I also want to take a moment to address the video circulating on the Internet that has led to these protests in a number of countries. * * *

To us, to me personally, this video is disgusting and reprehensible. It appears to have a deeply cynical purpose: to denigrate a great religion and to provoke rage. But as I said yesterday, there is no justification, none at all, for responding to this video with violence. * * *

Violence, we believe, has no place in religion and is no way to honor religion. Islam, like other religions, respects the fundamental dignity of human beings, and it is a violation of that fundamental dignity to wage attacks on innocents. As long as there are those who are willing to shed blood and take innocent life in the name of God, the world will never know a true and lasting peace. It is especially wrong for violence to be directed against diplomatic missions. . . .

Stephen Hayes makes two solid points in light of the report:

What makes #Benghazi report so damaging to WH/Clinton, it’s not Gowdy/GOP opinions, it’s WH/State/CIA own documents/emails/testimony.

and,

Key unanswered question in #Benghazi report: Why were assets not deployed even after Obama/Panetta gave orders to send them?

Could it have been the result of yet another moment of fretful indecision?

The report also found that a State official brought up a question about whether Marines should wear civilian clothing instead of their uniforms. Under secretary of State for management Patrick Kennedy told investigators he wanted to ensure that security was enhanced, not hurt by flags on the uniforms of any U.S. military presence.

But, one commander told the committee that as they were readying themselves to deploy they kept having to change in and out of their uniforms four times.

No rescue. Four dead Americans. No big deal.

–Dana

67 Responses to “Select Committee On Benghazi Report Released”

  1. What difference does it make now? It should make an enormous difference in the election, but it won’t. Too few know. Too few believe. And far too few care.

    They worked furiously to protect Obama’s and Clinton’s legacy. On the dead bodies of four Americans.

    Dana (995455)

  2. Dana,

    AP follows the NYT lead Benghazi report faults security; no new Clinton allegations

    Just a little Vaseline on the lens, a gauze filter, some low lighting and she’s ready for her closeup. She’s not fooling anyone though. Her disapproval numbers are still sky high with only one candidate scoring substantially worse.

    Rick Ballard (0e6252)

  3. Rick Ballard,

    Yep, they’re circling the wagons. And how about this: the Democrats’ Benghazi report mentions Donald Trump 23 times!

    That total is more than the combined number of references to Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, two of the former Navy SEALs killed in the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks.

    Because Trump had what to do with Benghazi? Nothing, but, bright shiny object!

    Dana (995455)

  4. The Dog Trainer reported yesterday that the Democrats released their own report and embarrassingly included the fact that the nasty Clinton family shill Sidney Blumenthal pulls down $200,000 per year from Uncle George Soros by way of the rabid little ankle-biter David Brock of Media Matters for — ahem, ahem — “consulting fees,” even though his testimony pretty clearly showed that he does very little on their behalf. This information was apparently supposed to be redacted, but the incompetent* Dems accidentally made it transparent.

    (* I am still open-minded to the idea that some Democrat congresspeople and staffers hope to purposely sabotage Hillary! so that they can nominate Bernard Sanders or Elizabeth Warren instead.)

    JVW (eabb2a)

  5. Protect their legacy, yes. But more important was the need to protect Obama’s reelection chances. This is the real scandal.

    And, alas, Romney … The counterbalance provided for by the 1st Amendment, free political speech, was self-censored. Romney has been rightly cast into oblivion.

    BobStewartatHome (a52abe)

  6. After reading the report I am motivated to vote Trump because Hillary is scum and positively unfit for command.

    I am not voting for, nor do I support, nor will I defend trump. I am voting for the four dead Americans who died in service to their country during the time in which President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton spent all their energy fretting over hurt feelings of Islamic Supremacists.

    Hillary Clinton left Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods for dead on behalf of serving my country, the least I can do is to suffer through Trump if this means keeping Clinton out of power.

    Susan (f0e3b3)

  7. Sorry. More than five or ten seconds of Secretary Clinton, my eyes roll back in my head. I lose track of her words for horror at the sight of working in my skull.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  8. When the hourly radio news update said that it had been released, true to form, the first voice I heard was CNN’s Dana Bash saying “There seems to be no smoking gun…”

    L.N. Smithee (b84cf6)

  9. Dana Bash is a reporter who’s had her brain bash-ed… er, surgically removed.

    Colonel Haiku (dd820b)

  10. the Democrats’ Benghazi report mentions Donald Trump 23 times!

    They’re doing the meow game on Trump. (YouTube)

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  11. Just highlights the corrupt collusion of the decayed Democrats with bylines, aka the Paleomedia.

    Colonel Haiku (dd820b)

  12. i wonder if stinkypig’s ever actually watched the video her and food stamp sent that guy to jail for

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  13. it’s rather substandard, like that film shatner did entirely in esperanto, but they did see the footage from the diplomatic security office, and the tape, al queda released to start the shindig over in cairo,

    narciso (732bc0)

  14. alas, Romney … The counterbalance provided for by the 1st Amendment, free political speech, was self-censored. Romney has been rightly cast into oblivion.

    BobStewartatHome (a52abe) — 6/28/2016 @ 10:29 am
    ===========================================

    And if only the same fate awaited those miscreants who sat the last election out…

    Colonel Haiku (dd820b)

  15. I can’t fault the headlines and reporting of the propaganda organs of the Democrat Party. They achieved their initial goal in early May but they certainly aren’t going to rest on their laurels until Clinton’s inauguration. She’s a terrible candidate as well as a corrupt and worthless human being and successfully promoting the only opponent she has a hope of beating just isn’t enough to guarantee her victory.

    Rick Ballard (0e6252)

  16. I continue to be underwhelmed by the Benghazi select committee’s kabuki theater. Anybody with a brain could have figured out this administration was lying within days of the attack. Hell, keep in mind they were lying about Cairo, too. That wasn’t about an “anti-Muslim video.”

    If you’re going to hold a concert, you have to advertise to draw a crowd. Same thing if you’re going to host a riot. To get the mob together, they have to know about it.

    https://pjmedia.com/blog/jihadis-threaten-to-burn-u-s-embassy-in-cairo

    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.”

    Not once did these riot organizers mention a video as a means to assemble and incite the mob. In Cairo, too, the video story was a lie.

    And sure enough, here’s CNN’s Nic Robertson paling around with the bro of blind sheikh and the bro of Ayman al-Zawahiri, emir of AQ if you’ve forgotten the name, in front of the Cairo embassy on 10 Sep 2012:

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

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

    Note the banners with Abdul Rahman’s smiling visage on them. And note how public it is. Diplomatic facilities are always accessible to the public or else they couldn’t fulfill the role of a diplomatic facility. You don’t need the CIA to know what the Cairo riot was about. Open source is all you need to figure it out, just like with the Boston Marathon bombing.

    So, shifting focus to Benghazi. The diplomatic facility there was in a very public place. A residential are. Full of residents. Which means eyewitnesses. There were also American witnesses, believe it or not. There’s also something called a foreign press, which isn’t in the tank for the Obama administration.

    There was never a protests. What made it obvious was the fact this administration tried to hide behind the CIA as if this was an intel issue. It never was an intel issue. Hillary! is right about one thing; this government has a problem with overclassification. Not with all the intel found on her server; none of that was overclassified. The problem is this administration classifying information for partisan political purposes.

    Such as the events in Benghazi. An assault that was launched from a public street, in front of residents, passers by, God and everybody. Such as classifying the identities of the new national security/law enforcement trainers and training materials reviewers who replaced the old “Islamophobic” personnel the Muslim Brotherhood front groups demanded be purged. Those MB front groups knew who those “Islamophobes” were because this information has never been classified before (although the content of training would be). This administration has classified what was never classified before. So the public doesn’t know Obama has given the training contract to the Muslim Brotherhood.

    But I digress. Here’s a report of the execrable Michael Morrell, former Deputy Director of the CIA, defending his obvious in Congressional testimony.

    …Morell deleted references to extremist threats linked to al-Qaeda in versions of the talking points and said he did so because he believed the information provided by intelligence community analysts and the Defense Department over the CIA’s own station chief in Libya.

    “I shared the e-mail with the analysts, they stuck by their judgment,” Morell testified. “I believed what the analysts said. I also believed it was a terrorist attack.”

    Questioners on the House panel asked how he could believe it was both a protest gone awry and a planned terror attack. He said they were not “mutually exclusive.”

    Morell did not name the analysts or detail what specific information the analysts used to base the faulty conclusion over the accurate report of the CIA’s station chief in Libya. He said the first version of the talking points were produced Sept. 12, a day after the attack, by the agency’s top terrorism analyst. The analyst had seen about a dozen press and intelligence reports that a protest preceded the attack, he said.

    On Sept. 13, the CIA’s station chief sent an e-mail saying the analyst was wrong, but Morell said he dismissed the station chief’s objections because it too was based in part on press reports. It was also based on reporting by a rescue team that arrived at the diplomatic post about an hour after the attack.

    Morell said the analyst thought any protest would have broken up that long after the attack began. “It’s not an unreasonable thing to think,” Morell said…

    I recall this weasel’s testimony. What leaped out at me was Morrell said the analyst, whose analysis he says he trusted, was not aware there were survivors who had been debriefed. I don’t believe him unless the CIA is now using high school interns as analysts. Because that’s basically an intel pre-school question; where are the debriefs.

    But what makes it more unbelievable is, this is the former deputy director of the CIA. Theoretically an intel professional in a position to know everything that happened that night. He would have known that there were surivors, they had been debriefed, they would have been debriefed the morning the plane arrived at Benghazi to evacuate the survivors and he would have known what those debriefs contained that day. But here he is, pretending all this is just some understandable difference of opinion between the station chief who wasn’t in Benghazi and an analyst who wasn’t in Benghazi. And he’s concealing everything the CIA personnel who were in Benghazi reported.

    There’s only one glaringly obvious conclusion; he was in on the cover-up.

    That’s the thing. All this is so glaringly obvious, and everything you needed to know was available in open sources, there’s another conclusion that you just can’t avoid. The Republicans had to be in on it too. If you recall, I figured this out within days. It’s just not that hard. These congresscritters have national security/intel advisers, whether on their own staffs or committee staffs, who are far better than I am at this. And no one called this administration on its lies.

    All this has been one big show. The Republicans helped drag this out so that, like Dana said, at this point, really, what does it matter?

    Steve57 (ecac13)

  17. No one has lost more sleep over this than Hillary.

    AZ Bob (7d2a2c)

  18. I, for one, am eternally grateful that it was not I who fingered the Demoness Dowager Hillary! Clinton.

    Colonel Haiku (dd820b)

  19. i watched the film it was unwatchable

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  20. link to the article I excerpted.

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/04/02/cia-deputy-benghazi-talking-points/7206921/

    Just another thing.

    …but Morell said he dismissed the station chief’s objections because it too was based in part on press reports. It was also based on reporting by a rescue team that arrived at the diplomatic post about an hour after the attack…

    That’s what struck me about the testimony. This lying sack of sh*t kept dancing around the the fact that the CIA had personnel who were there during the attack, who had survived.

    And he knew it. And the congresscritters knew it. They had to. So all this has been a four-years long dog and pony show. Are you not entertained.

    What I’m saying isn’t in the article because I agree with Ben Rhodes on one thing and one thing only. Reporters are gullible idiots. I’m not surprised the reporter didn’t pick up on what should have been there but isn’t.

    Steve57 (ecac13)

  21. Romney … The counterbalance provided for by the 1st Amendment, free political speech, was self-censored. Romney has been rightly cast into oblivion.

    Romney took these clowns to task that very night in clear and uncertain terms. The PRESS, operating as if they were working from an arranged script, read his remarks as being beyond the pale. If only the Administration and been as quick to respond to Benghazi as they were to what Romney dared to say.

    Later, during a debate where the moderator had colluded with Obama to dredge up an obscure (and it turns out mendacious) “fact”, Romney paused, uncertain of the meaning of the obvious trap, and knowing only that the press would spin any misstep without mercy.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  22. *…had been as quick

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  23. The report also found that a State official brought up a question about whether Marines should wear civilian clothing instead of their uniforms

    Gee, one follows the requirements of the Geneva Conventions, one does not. Sending in troops disguised as civilians is actually a war crime.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  24. i watched the film it was unwatchable

    You refute yourself.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  25. you are

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  26. If only Trey had worn a beret at his presser.

    What next?

    Shout “Reagan” every day until November. That’ll stop her!

    DCSCA (a343d5)

  27. This is maybe a better link to the Weekly Standard article because here it is all on one
    page.

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-benghazi-lie-in-black-and-white/article/2003058

    It’s from some hours ago, and on another computer I didn’t get any link to seeing the whole thing on a single page, not when I tried clicking on it from here, and not when I tried Realclearpolitics, and I am not sure if maybe this depends on the computer, or they changed it, but that’s probably not the answer.

    Sammy Finkelman (c41e9f)

  28. yes, the treehouse, which I admit is a little dodgy sometimes, did a long analysis, including
    gowdy’s part in the original operation in support of the rebels,

    narciso (732bc0)

  29. Our next President!

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  30. I don’t know why Trump supporters are freaking out about Hillary. She was adequate at the State Department, as exemplified by the way she handled Benghazi, Syria, and Russia with expertise.
    You guys are just overreacting, probably at the behest of AIPAC.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  31. I’m getting tired of reminding people of the First Law of Clinton.
    If the Clintons did it, there’s nothing wrong with it..and…delighted giggle, they got away with this one, too.

    Richard Aubrey (472a6f)

  32. 9/13—Private Statements

    E-mail from White House Advisor Benjamin Rhodes:

    Under heading “Goals” he wrote “To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy[.]”

    That’s a PRIVATE statement, and there he says it’s a video!

    Can’t people read?? What happened to their reading comprehension? Did they fail their SAT or GRE tests?

    Here’s the point:

    Ben Rhodes is not telling people to lie. He’s saying it is the truth!

    And if you say, no, he is telling people to lie, I have something even better, from the next day, Friday, September 14, 2012:

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

    Click on the link. You’ll see it.

    This is from the the “talking points” emails released around May, 2013. I took some pictures ofa computer screen because it couldn’t easily be saved.

    How stupid can this committee be?

    Benjamin Rhodes says the information that went out previously is wrong.

    Actually, he was the one who was wrong, but he was wrong, and not intentionally lying.

    I think the Democrats aren’t helping anybody understand what really went on here, but couldn’t anyone else figure out what went wrong here? The lie was not invented in the White House. Is the narrative about the Administration inventing the video lie so powerful?

    Rhodes implies very strongly the source is intelligence information, because he also writes where I eft 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…

    And there’s this also, from Tommy Vietor, now a top aide to Hillary Clinton:

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

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

    I don’t know why this committee doesn’t write what they told, in briefings, not the public, but members of Congress. (Maybe because it is classified, but still, some of it was not or no longer is. Or maybe it is becaue the CIA was honest but was later told to lie. Only there’s not a shred of evidence, or a hint, to back up that idea.)

    They told them it was terrorism. CIA Director David Petraeus said in testimony it was terrorism. Dianne Feinstein was all interested in why it changed.

    The narrative that they knew it was terrorism but told a different story to people outside the administration is totally, totally false.

    They knew, or assumed, it was a planned act of terrorism, and told that to most people, including the members of House Select Committee on Intelligence and other members of Congress and then they unlearned it – and this was such good news to the Administration – that they were very anxious to get this out, and then it exploded in their faces.

    Now the Democrats are not going to clear this up, because they don’t want people to understand, that initially, the Administration understood it was planned, and then they unlearned it, thanks to the CIA, which relied on SOOPER SEKRIT INTELLIGENCE that was more reliable than what the CIA station chief in Tripoli told them.

    Hillary Clinton is at real fault for not fighting this conclusion that Obama was reaching. She didn’t fight it even when it was only beginning, but tried to say things in public that were consistent woth both views. (She does seem to have outright blamed the video when speaking to some family members of the deceased in private.)

    Sammy Finkelman (c41e9f)

  33. Kevin M (25bbee) — 6/28/2016 @ 11:44 am

    Later, during a debate where the moderator had colluded with Obama to dredge up an obscure (and it turns out mendacious) “fact”, Romney paused, uncertain of the meaning of the obvious trap, and knowing only that the press would spin any misstep without mercy. </blockquote. Romney didn't understand that the public statements had started out close to the truth, and gotworse with time as the week went on, and more and more SOOPER SEKRIT INTELLIGENCE poured in, from people in the Libyan government and some Arab intelligence agencies, probably Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

    Sammy Finkelman (c41e9f)

  34. Issa and Gowdy could screw up a wet dream.

    mg (31009b)

  35. We need to stop Trump. So let’s elect Hillary. She has a successful track record of handling foreign policy issues.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  36. Secretary Clinton’s Remarks on the Deaths of American Personnel in Benghazi, Libya morning of September 12, 2012:

    “We are working to determine the precise motivations and methods of those who carried out this assault. Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior, along with the protest that took place at our Embassy in Cairo yesterday, as a response to inflammatory material posted on the internet

    Notice how she’s finessing this. She doesn’t say anyone is trying to say that the assault in Benghazi, or even the protest in Cairo was a reponse to the video. She’s says that’s being used as a justification. Sooper Sekrit intelligence was already coming in, and that’s what the attackers in Benghazi said themselves.

    There seem to be some interesting findings in the report, like the 2 hour meeting in the White House at 7:30 (which I suspect, focused not just on the video, but on Cairo. They were worried about Cairo, not Benghazi)

    Sammy Finkelman (c41e9f)

  37. •Despite President Obama and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s clear orders to deploy military assets, nothing was sent to Benghazi, and nothing was en route to Libya at the time the last two Americans were killed almost 8 hours after the attacks began. [pg. 141]

    Really? President Obama or Secretary of Defemne leon Panetta gave clear orders like that? Didn’t he maybe authorize it, but not order it? And didn’t he need to authorize it again if they were going to go into Libya without Libyan government permission? And didn’t they, anyway, keep on thinking no military help was necessary because it was all over for the night and they were getting everybody out? I mean why do they think the Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team in Rota, Spain, kept on changing into and out of their uniforms four times? They kept hearing: It’s over. They retreated. No, it’s not over. Yes it’s over now. No, it’s not over.

    Sammy Finkelman (c41e9f)

  38. Kevin, thank you for your details filling out my example of self-censorship. That fact that Romney did this because he may have been fearful of the media’s response doesn’t excuse him at all. All we know is he cowered and silenced his criticism at the very moment it might have achieved something.

    BobStewartatHome (a52abe)

  39. Romney was confused. He got an answer he didn’t expect. What’s worse, he stayed confused even afterwards.

    Sammy Finkelman (643dcd)

  40. Key unanswered question in #Benghazi report: Why were assets not deployed even after Obama/Panetta gave orders to send them?

    Iknowthe answer to that,in a general way. I don’t know why the committee doesn’t. Partially the problem might be tehy weren;t able to resolve that, but still.

    Wrong information wasn’t coming in all through the night in Libya. They kept on thinking the attack was over, and people could be safely evacuated before another attack took place. What’s the big mystery there?

    Now the Democrats don’t want to help clarify it, because it would show all kinds of mistakes or malfeasance. Like for instance, why was nobody fired?

    Sammy Finkelman (643dcd)

  41. The guy who made the video tape was incarcerated, isn’t that a crime? And, can’t that be laid at Hillary’s feet?

    ropelight (596f46)

  42. Steve57-

    Do you sometimes wonder when you/we will wake up and find out it was all a bad dream?
    Are we all in the ending of “3 Days of the Condor”?

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  43. A month later, there was a hearing involving four people, two from security and two from state including one having to do with such issues. She said they were on the phone with the guys as it happened. Panetta’s later dodge that they had no intel was a lie. Eisehnower would have sold his mother for intel like that during Ww II.

    Richard Aubrey (472a6f)

  44. He was incarcerated because he had violated his parole terms by using a false name on a computer. He’s not a good guy, anyway. He was most probably, part of the attack plan. I mean, there aren’t any more people who mock mohammed, so the Islamicists have to do it themselves.

    He told everybody he was Jewish – this was a sort of two-fer, and really ties Islamicists to this.

    He told some people the movie was supposed to tell of the suffering of the Copts in Egypt, while the title of the movie “Innocence of Muslims” made it sound like it was a defense of Muslims, and he hired actors under false pretences telling them it was some fictional story, and dubbed in other lines so it would be about Mohammed, and then made a highlights video which was very anti-Mohammed. There almost certainly never was a full movie.

    It was uploaded to You Tube (I think) on July 2, 2012, and Islamicists in Egyot started to make abig thing of it in early September 2012. He lied about the money he spent saying he spent more than did and saying he spent less.

    The FBI decided that the money came from his family in Egypt (he had told people it came from Jews, presumably in California) but the money probably came from the Moslem Brotherhood or other Islamicists.

    The terrorists in Benghazi spread a lie about Americans, opor american hired guards, shooting at a peaceful demonstration, attraced a crowd, psoted guards and harrangued people about the video.

    Sammy Finkelman (c41e9f)

  45. If all of the Rs in committees in Congress either knew this stuff or could put 2 and 2 together, why didn’t they tell us?
    Why has Tom Cotton never come out and told us?
    Do they think that we can’t handle the truth?
    Do they all hold MAD blackmail against each other??

    Is it like the wind in the door with a big evil brain controlling everything???

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  46. “Wrinkle in Time”, sorry.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  47. well one theory goes it was a bypartisan scandal, recall how maverick and lindsay were so gungho re the arab winter, which is why I detect a certain in their protestations over benghazi, same for ayotte,

    narciso (732bc0)

  48. Well, so what if bipartisan,
    Clean house in an orderly manner while we can/could

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  49. Hypothesis
    Obama and Clinton, knowing they had allowed four Americans to be killed through their gross mismanagement/ incompetence/ reckless disregard of security, concocted the video story and subsequent talking points as an obvious lie, which would distract the GOP from investigating their malfeasance and let them escape the blame for their actions or lack of action.

    If they did it worked pretty good. The GOP has been chewing at the wrong end of the stick for almost four years.

    kishnevi (410e69)

  50. but the question is why, because they believe that any regime that cooperates with us, is illigitimate, they are encouraged by huma’s friends at the muslim world affairs journal

    narciso (732bc0)

  51. 9/13—Private Statements

    E-mail from White House Advisor Benjamin Rhodes:

    Under heading “Goals” he wrote “To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy[.]”

    That’s a PRIVATE statement, and there he says it’s a video!

    Can’t people read?? What happened to their reading comprehension? Did they fail their SAT or GRE tests?

    Here’s the point:

    Ben Rhodes is not telling people to lie. He’s saying it is the truth!

    And if you say, no, he is telling people to lie, I have something even better…

    Sammy Finkelman (c41e9f) — 6/28/2016 @ 1:43 pm

    I have something even better for you, Sammy. I have a bridge to sell you.

    How do I say this. Well, Ill just come right out an say it. There is NO SUCH THING AS A PRIVATE STATEMENT in an email sent on official WH systems that will be archived per the Presidential Records Act. He’s alibiing himself and the administration knowing full well that this email is a public record. It doesn’t matter what the hell he types as a header. He’s creating a public record. He knows it, I know it, you don’t know it, yet here it is, a public record made public.

    Fooled you, didn’t he, Sammy.

    They’re getting their story straight. The way to read it is “These protests are rooted in a broader failure of policy, so let’s distract people and blame these protests on an obscure internet video.”

    I am fluent in Washington CYAese.

    Steve57 (ecac13)

  52. sammeh’s still searching for the pony, the reasons why this are happening I posted at the beginning of the thread,

    the administration covered up the assasination of the lead diplomat in the region, by an al queda cell, they left his team to die, like the alpha team in ‘present danger’ somehow some of the truth leaked out in samizdat form, that zampolit blumenthal, did his best to misdirect, yes, soviet terminology fits this regime like a glove,

    narciso (732bc0)

  53. If there were people in DC who loved truth enough, I would think it would come out,
    If everyone in DC is simply fueled by selfish ambition, why doesn’t someone exercise their ambition in a grand take-down of the liars at the top?

    Do all of the ambitious people think they are better off playing the game?
    Are there people who love truth who are weighing the circumstances to speak up?

    Idk
    I do know I am enjoying a mockingbird going nuts with all kinds of sounds about 15 yes from me.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  54. The guy who made the video tape was incarcerated, isn’t that a crime? And, can’t that be laid at Hillary’s feet?

    ropelight (596f46) — 6/28/2016 @ 4:40 pm

    No, that can’t be. The guy did violate conditions of his parole. I forget what exactly he had been convicted of, but it was some sort of fraud involving the use of computers, and as a condition of parole he wasn’t supposed to use computers or be on the internet. He had a hearing, and it was a judge who sent him to prison for the violation.

    Sending him back to prison was legit. In that sense he was the perfect fall guy, because the administration could make it look like he was going to prison for something he wasn’t; insulting the prophet of Islam.

    What can and should be laid at Hillary!’s feet was how she poured gasoline on the fire. Remember, the government bought air time on Pakistani TV, and she went on and apologized for the video. Which of course just incited further violence. That was predictable. But she and Obama had a lie to advance, and they didn’t care how many people would get killed in he process. More Americans may have been killed because of that stunt.

    Steve57 (ecac13)

  55. well it’s not quite diogenes but the numbers are few and far between, logan, atkinson, herridge, the folks at judicial watch, peter schweitzer, a few others,

    narciso (732bc0)

  56. Why did no one call them on it?
    Do the people in a position to do so think the public just won’t care?

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  57. But what if Atkinson and judicial watch could cover people who were speaking out?
    Are there no “Esthers” in places of power for such a time as this?

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  58. kishnevi @51, I don’t think they had to distract the GOP. I think some people in the GOP wanted to cover it up just as much as the Obama administration did. That’s why @17 I said it appears to me the GOP was in on it.

    I’m just not entirely sure what “it” is.

    Steve57 (ecac13)

  59. Why did no one call them on it?
    Do the people in a position to do so think the public just won’t care?

    MD in Philly (f9371b) — 6/28/2016 @ 6:08 pm

    I don’t think the public will care now. Some will, especially military and ex military, and some intel and national security types. But most people will be lulled back to sleep by the LHMFM which already had their stories written; GOP just out to get Hillary!, no smoking gun, nothing new in report, nobody to blame says report, etc.

    And of course the left is giddy over the fact Hillary! outsmarted the GOP.

    I don’t know what’s in it for the GOP to keep playing the Washington Generals to the Dem’s Harlem Globetrotters, but they seem to enjoy it.

    Steve57 (ecac13)

  60. The GOP establishment didn’t raise a stink because they knew the CIA Annex in Benghazi was a collection point for accumulating Gaddafi’s weapons and shipping them to the rebels fighting against Syria’s Assad. (Those rebels once armed by Clinton and Obama became ISIS.

    ropelight (596f46)

  61. , I don’t think they had to distract the GOP. I think some people in the GOP wanted to cover it up just as much as the Obama administration did. That’s why @17 I said it appears to me the GOP was in on it

    That has a bleakly high probability of being true.
    Or perhaps certain people were happy to be distracted.

    kishnevi (f594bb)

  62. The GOPe leadership has no internal guidance system. For them, the “right” thing to do is the one that causes the least commotion in the media. Their focus groups and nightly polls determine the path of least resistance, and so it has been since Gingrich. They believed that perseverance was the only thing that mattered.

    Clinton managed to do his own polling in such a way that he was a day or two ahead of the media, and so he became the Modern Major General, the wise leader. Obama is all about the “narrative”, and the so-called journalists, who are largely completely inept as writers or analysts, are totally dependent upon what ever the administration decides to spew this evening.

    We are spiraling inward.

    BobStewartatHome (a52abe)

  63. no ‘clinton is an unusually good liar’ I didn’t think he was that good, but I’m clearly from ceti alpha 6, obama is terrible, but he’s got a full peanut gallery to cover for him,

    narciso (732bc0)

  64. I, for one, am eternally grateful that it was not I who fingered the Demoness Dowager Hillary! Clinton.
    Colonel Haiku (dd820b) — 6/28/2016 @ 11:27 am

    Ewwwwwwwwwwww!

    Yoda (feee21)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.5723 secs.