CSPAN: Live testimony by Clinton on Benghazi

Normally, what I am about to suggest would be worthy of a tin foil chapeau and a hat tip from Alex Jones, but with this administration, anything is possible.

What are the odds (admittedly miniscule) that the discredited source was a plant? CBS News, and especially Sharyl Atkisson (sp?) have worked damned hard on this story, which would put massive amounts of rotten egg on the already tarnished faces of the administration. Who's to say someone who was sympatico didn't elect to fall on a sword and destroy his credibility by putting out bad info. that the opposition could later be maligned for using.

Occam's Razor applies very seldom to this administration.
 
This report was released last month, and I'm surprised it hasn't been posted on here yet. It's a really comprehensive report done by the NYT about the events surrounding Benghazi, and does a lot to refute a lot of claims made by both Republicans and Democrats.

A Deadly Mix in Benghazi
http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2013/benghazi/#/?chapt=0

Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault. The attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO’s extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.

A fuller accounting of the attacks suggests lessons for the United States that go well beyond Libya. It shows the risks of expecting American aid in a time of desperation to buy durable loyalty, and the difficulty of discerning friends from allies of convenience in a culture shaped by decades of anti-Western sentiment. Both are challenges now hanging over the American involvement in Syria’s civil conflict.

The attack also suggests that, as the threats from local militants around the region have multiplied, an intensive focus on combating Al Qaeda may distract from safeguarding American interests.

There's quite a bit more to it, and it's definitely worth the read.
 
The whole "the attack could have been prevented" makes for catchy headlines but what attack couldn't have been prevented in hindsight? I looked beyond the headline and was concerned about the substance.

It seems like the NYT article is meshing with the Senate report and Mike Rodgers said he hasn't read the whole Senate report but he said it sounds pretty much the same as House Intelligence report but we will have to wait and see.

Something that doesn't get reported on much, according the Long War Journal, after the attack Ansar al-Sharia (Libya) released a statement saying,
According to longwarjournal.org, the group issued a statement asserting that it "didn't participate as a sole entity," and that the attack "was a spontaneous popular uprising" to an anti-Islam film.[16]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansar_al-Sharia_(Benghazi)
 
The whole "the attack could have been prevented" makes for catchy headlines but what attack couldn't have been prevented in hindsight? I looked beyond the headline and was concerned about the substance.

It seems like the NYT article is meshing with the Senate report and Mike Rodgers said he hasn't read the whole Senate report but he said it sounds pretty much the same as House Intelligence report but we will have to wait and see.

Something that doesn't get reported on much, according the Long War Journal, after the attack Ansar al-Sharia (Libya) released a statement saying,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansar_al-Sharia_(Benghazi)
Islamic groups never make false claims, so it's all good.:thumbsup:

Forget about the attack, maybe not having the Ambassador in town might have been wise (UK seemed content to have their folks take a vacation)
Maybe having Military Forces available "just in case" might have mitigated the attack.
Maybe having a US Security Force, as opposed to local contractors who didn't have a vested interest in keeping the Ambassador Safe.
 
I dont understand why we felt the need to have a bloody embassy there in the first place! Seems like a stupid decision to me.
I have no idea if there's an embassy in Egypt but if there is I would withdraw it immediately.
 
The whole "the attack could have been prevented" makes for catchy headlines but what attack couldn't have been prevented in hindsight? I looked beyond the headline and was concerned about the substance.

It seems like the NYT article is meshing with the Senate report and Mike Rodgers said he hasn't read the whole Senate report but he said it sounds pretty much the same as House Intelligence report but we will have to wait and see.

Something that doesn't get reported on much, according the Long War Journal, after the attack Ansar al-Sharia (Libya) released a statement saying,

According to longwarjournal.org, the group issued a statement asserting that it "didn't participate as a sole entity," and that the attack "was a spontaneous popular uprising" to an anti-Islam film.[16]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansar_al-Sharia_(Benghazi)


Of course they didn't Scott. Between them and wikipedia, I believe them both.

Again, I ask you jut how was it this was released within 24 hrs of the attack, with all of our allied intel sources knowing the truth, and this administration, can sit there, with a straight face, look at the American people in the eye and engage in the denials, story lines and cover ups since?

It was about November 6th and the fact this president had said as a nation, Al Q was no longer a serious threat was on the ropes and on the run. Remember how he repeatedly reminded us that he had killed Osama Bin Laden and in doing so Al Qaeda was weakened to the point they were no longer considered a viable threat?

He then went on after the attacks to reiterate that very same talking point, time and again, until after his election and continued to hang his hat on the "Video" story line. After all, to admit he was wrong at the point, might have cost him the election. And now, in an effort to protect hillary's future, first, Rice gets promoted to a position where she can no longer be called to testify (Absolute coincidence, and how convenient, right?) The investigation committee is continually stonewalled by the state department either producing witnesses or documents this entire time.

Transparency my ass. It's now about 2016 and covering it in an effort to give that mealy mouthed liar a shot at the WH and this presidents rep. :rolleyes:

Again, this from September 12, 2012. (ONE DAY AFTER) And yet, here we are still, over a year later.....

The US Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and three staff members at the US consulate in Benghazi were deliberately murdered Tuesday night Sept 11 just after memorial ceremonies were held in America for the victims of the 9/11 outrage. debkafile's counter-terror sources report exclusively that far from being a spontaneous raid by angry Islamists, it was a professionally executed terrorist operation by a professional Al Qaeda assassination team, whose 20 members acted under the orders of their leader Ayman al Zawahri after special training. They were all Libyans, freed last year from prisons where they were serving sentences for terrorism passed during the late Muammar Qaddafi's rule

In a video tape released a few hours before the attack, Zawahri called on the faithful to take revenge on the United States for liquidating one of the organization's top operatives, Libyan-born Abu Yahya al-Libi in June by a US drone in northwestern Pakistan. Its release was the "go" signal for the hit team to attack the US diplomats in Benghazi.

To mask their mission, they stormed the consulate on the back of a violent protest by hundreds of Islamists against a film said to insult Prophet Muhammed produced by a Florida real estate agent called Sam Bacile, who has been described as of Israeli origin.

The operation is rated by terror experts as the most ambitious outrage al Qaeda has pulled off in the last decade. According to our sources, the gunmen split into two groups of 10 each and struck in two stages:

1. They first fired rockets at the consulate building on the assumption that the ambassador's bodyguards would grab him, race him out of the building and drive him to a safe place under the protection of the US secret service;

2. The second group was able to identify the getaway vehicle and the ambassador's armed escort and lay in wait to ambush them. The gunmen then closed in and killed the ambassador and his bodyguards at point blank range.

The underlined is the bottom line for the motive behind the attack in Benghazi. Not Egypt or anywhere else, but BENGHAZI.
 
Posted today by Jake Tapper.

http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2014/0...rce-white-house-push-that-video-was-to-blame/

New documents obtained by conservative watchdog Judicial Watch reinforce that the White House strongly argued that an anti-Muslim video was the reason for the deadly 2012 terror attacks on U.S. compounds in Benghazi.

This was done even though intelligence and diplomatic sources on the ground were more convinced the attacks that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans in eastern Libya were carried out by terrorists and not the spontaneous work of an angry mob.

The new documents can be seenhere.

The documents were not included in the initial set ofe-mails the White House released last Maywhich show the interagency debate over talking points to go to lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

These newly released documents clearly outline that the talking points for Rice emphasize blaming the video. An email from Ben Rhodes, the deputy national security adviser for strategic communication, from 8:09 p.m. ET, September 14, 2012, states that among the “Goals” for the prep session with Rice: “To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.”

The context of Rhodes’ emails is, of course, that President Barack Obama was in the midst of a heated re-election campaign where one of his talking points was that he had brought a steady hand in fighting terrorists, indeed that “al Qaeda is on the run.”

The White House has long faced accusations that politics infected its response to the September 11 attacks in Benghazi, and officials’ initial insistence that they were not terrorism, but the result of a spontaneous demonstration.
 
Not sure there is any news in those emails. Reading the email they confirmed the administrations public statements reflected what they were saying behind closed doors.
 
Perhaps the emails show that the Administration's sales pitch of leadership via AQ is defeated before the Nov 2012 election was akin to a young Kevin Bacon saying it too.

 
Not sure there is any news in those emails. Reading the email they confirmed the administrations public statements reflected what they were saying behind closed doors.
That's a lot of words just to say, "What difference does it make!?"
 
Back
Top