C-17 Pilot: We Could Have Gotten Americans Out of Benghazi
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?
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) — 6/12/2014 @ 8:30 amI 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 amMore news from the ME:
askeptic (8ecc78) — 6/12/2014 @ 9:10 amHotAir is reporting that the Iraqi army has deserted Kirkuk, and left it for the Kurds.
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) — 6/12/2014 @ 9:15 amThey 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) — 6/12/2014 @ 9:18 amAre 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) — 6/12/2014 @ 9:50 amThe 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 amhttp://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2012/10/198791.htm
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
Dr. Burke was an earwitness to the attack. He practically live-blogged it.
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
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.
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.
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) — 6/12/2014 @ 10:04 amNo 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) — 6/12/2014 @ 10:19 amLet 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) — 6/12/2014 @ 10:30 am“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) — 6/12/2014 @ 10:42 amI 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,
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 6/12/2014 @ 10:43 amall 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.
“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) — 6/12/2014 @ 10:57 amSH*t just hit the ceiling fan…
The Emperor (7dd451) — 6/12/2014 @ 10:59 amIt’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
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
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) — 6/12/2014 @ 10:59 amIn 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.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 6/12/2014 @ 11:06 amSo even when “We win”, they lose.
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.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 6/12/2014 @ 11:12 amYes, that was a bit sarcastic, cynical, and snarky, but I think deserved and is worthwhile in clarifying the absurdities present.
Back to work.
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) — 6/12/2014 @ 11:26 amdaley @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
“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 have a lot of arses to cover.”
…particularly the investigation.
There is a ton of wrong information getting out into public domain…
…from Congress and people who are not particularly informed.
Insofar as we have firmed up assessments that don’t compromise intel or the investigation…
…we need to have the capability to correct the record,…
…as there are significant policy and messaging ramifications that would flow from a hardened mis-impression.
We can take this up tomorrow morning at Deputies.
Steve57 (5f0260) — 6/12/2014 @ 11:34 am“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) — 6/12/2014 @ 11:51 amThe 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
A_Nonny_Mouse (a5610b) — 6/12/2014 @ 11:54 amif some senior adviser feared they might be too late? After all, “we
don’t abandon our people”. ( <— snark attack.)
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 amA_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) — 6/12/2014 @ 12:26 pmWell I thought it was a straight revenge ploy, one high value target for another (Al libi)
narciso (3fec35) — 6/12/2014 @ 12:44 pmYes, 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
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/
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) — 6/12/2014 @ 1:05 pmBut 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) — 6/12/2014 @ 1:10 pm“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) — 6/12/2014 @ 1:14 pm“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) — 6/12/2014 @ 1:24 pmthe 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) — 6/12/2014 @ 1:39 pmIn retrospect another piece of the puzzle falls into place.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sources-key-task-force-not-convened-during-benghazi-consulate-attack/
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) — 6/12/2014 @ 1:39 pm“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) — 6/12/2014 @ 1:44 pmOh, 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) — 6/12/2014 @ 1:46 pm24. 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) — 6/12/2014 @ 1:49 pmYes, Sammy. It has completely slipped our minds. Thanks for the reminder.
Steve57 (5f0260) — 6/12/2014 @ 1:49 pmSteve57 (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:
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) — 6/12/2014 @ 2:04 pmAnd 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) — 6/12/2014 @ 2:06 pmIt’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) — 6/12/2014 @ 2:10 pm21 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) — 6/12/2014 @ 2:14 pmYou’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) — 6/12/2014 @ 2:20 pmROLFLMAO! Yeah, to reload!
Hadoop (f7d5ba) — 6/12/2014 @ 2:22 pmSorry, 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
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:
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) — 6/12/2014 @ 2:23 pmI 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) — 6/12/2014 @ 2:36 pmSteve57 @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) — 6/12/2014 @ 2:43 pm25. 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) — 6/12/2014 @ 3:01 pmWhat I don’t think is that the only place there was a mole was in the White House.
Sammy Finkelman (2d4607) — 6/12/2014 @ 3:02 pm“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) — 6/12/2014 @ 3:32 pmThanks for the laughs.
Hadoop (f7d5ba) — 6/12/2014 @ 3:45 pmthe 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) — 6/12/2014 @ 3:52 pmSammy, 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) — 6/12/2014 @ 4:46 pmYes, narciso, Al Gamaa Al Islamiyya was one of the groups that issued the 10 September Cairo press statement.
Steve57 (5f0260) — 6/12/2014 @ 4:49 pmYou 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) — 6/12/2014 @ 5:15 pm
htom (412a17) — 6/12/2014 @ 5:17 pmNot biased,just on the other side.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) — 6/12/2014 @ 5:29 pmIf 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) — 6/12/2014 @ 5:37 pmWell the ‘Kevin Bacon’ element seems to be Doha, is somewhat like Casablanca, nominally on our side,
narciso (3fec35) — 6/12/2014 @ 5:53 pmthe 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,
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…
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 6/12/2014 @ 6:02 pmOccam’s Razor not withstanding.
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) — 6/12/2014 @ 6:13 pmDoc, 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) — 6/12/2014 @ 6:27 pm“If Doha is only nominally on our side, so is DC. They’re two peas in a pod.”
AZ_Langer (f08ff6) — 6/12/2014 @ 6:28 pmSorry, 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) — 6/12/2014 @ 6:34 pm56. 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) — 6/13/2014 @ 8:49 amerrata: 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) — 6/13/2014 @ 8:54 amSF: …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) — 6/13/2014 @ 9:02 am“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.
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) — 6/13/2014 @ 9:50 amI found this:
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/07/rice-right-about-benghazi-video.html
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
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/13/2014 @ 9:52 am“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) — 6/13/2014 @ 10:20 amSammy’s problem is that his primary intell is from the NYT/CNN/PMSNBC cabal.
askeptic (8ecc78) — 6/13/2014 @ 10:44 am“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) — 6/13/2014 @ 10:52 amPretzels are at least circular, and you get back to the same point eventually.
askeptic (8ecc78) — 6/13/2014 @ 11:15 amThat is not something in Sammy’s repertoire.
“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) — 6/13/2014 @ 11:53 amThat 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) — 6/13/2014 @ 11:55 amFor teh Sammah… http://youtu.be/Xaw0oDqDFlY
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 6/13/2014 @ 12:00 pmSammy,
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) — 6/13/2014 @ 12:13 pmRemember 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/
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) — 6/13/2014 @ 12:15 pm“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) — 6/13/2014 @ 12:20 pmSammy – The publicly known timeline does not change to fit your theories. Your theories have to fit the publicly known timeline.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/13/2014 @ 12:23 pmHillary 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) — 6/13/2014 @ 12:26 pmSammy,
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) — 6/13/2014 @ 12:30 pm“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) — 6/13/2014 @ 12:39 pm78. 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) — 6/13/2014 @ 12:40 pm76. 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:
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/13/2014 @ 12:49 pm“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) — 6/13/2014 @ 12:50 pm“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.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/13/2014 @ 12:58 pm“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) — 6/13/2014 @ 1:05 pm83. 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) — 6/13/2014 @ 1:06 pmhttp://online.wsj.com/articles/best-of-the-web-today-obama-keeps-a-promise-1402688528?tesla=y&mg=reno64-wsj&url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303373004579622360300173126.html
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/13/2014 @ 2:44 pm“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) — 6/13/2014 @ 7:20 pmthe curious thing is Eid ends Ramadan, they were in another month altogether, Shawwal.
narciso (3fec35) — 6/13/2014 @ 7:22 pm