Gay Patriot Header Image

If CIA knew Benghazi attack was terrorism “almost immediately” . . .

. . . who provided the talking points to Ambassador Susan Rice.

Just caught this on Breitbart:

Just a few minutes ago on CNN, Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr reported that a high-placed source informed her that former CIA Chief David Petraeus will use his upcoming testimony to amend his previous testimony. According to this source, Petraeus will tell the closed door congressional hearing that he knew “almost immediately” that the September 11 anniversary attack on our Libyan consulate was a terrorist attack committed by the al-Qaeda-linked militia Ansar Al Sharia.

Read the whole thing.  I have lots of thoughts on this, but am beat and regret I can’t express them as well as I’d like. This goes right to the administration’s credibility — and begs the question:  why did they peddle the story that Ambassador Rice was instructed to peddle on the various Sunday shows?

POSSIBLY RELATED: SHOULD THE SECRETARY OF STATE BE A DUPE?

Share

68 Comments

  1. NDT –
    Since I answered your question, I’m curious to hear your response. Do you consider this worse than Watergate? If so, why?

    Comment by Alan — November 16, 2012 @ 4:29 pm - November 16, 2012

  2. Since I answered your question, I’m curious to hear your response. Do you consider this worse than Watergate? If so, why?

    Comment by Alan — November 16, 2012 @ 4:29 pm – November 16, 2012

    Of course, Alan.

    After all, no one died during Watergate.

    Meanwhile, Nixon resigned over Watergate. Do you also agree that Obama and his administration should be held to a similar standard and asked to resign when it is clear that they lied to the American public, deliberately tried to obstruct justice, and conspired to keep information from being made public?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 16, 2012 @ 4:43 pm - November 16, 2012

  3. NDT –
    So part of my commenting on this thread and trying to get additional information is to get proof of the accusations. You make some pretty hefty accusations that don’t seem to be backed up by the facts on the ground. The statement about the video was signed off by multiple agencies. Unless you’re willing to assume a massive conspiracy implicating all those agencies, that accusation that he lied doesn’t stand up.

    Like I said, we definitely need to investigate what happened to see how the intelligence broke down, how we can provide assistance quicker in the future, and how to better handle these situations going forward. I’m absolutely willing to acknowledge tactical and strategic mismanagement. But I still have yet to be sold on some massive conspiracy that is somehow rises to the level of (or surpasses) Watergate. But if you truly believe that “he is inherently inferior and incompetent” and totally hates America and despises capitalism and all that stuff you like to throw around, I don’t really expect you to make the distinction between the two events. At this point, we’ll have to agree to disagree. Cheers!

    Comment by Alan — November 16, 2012 @ 5:16 pm - November 16, 2012

  4. Of course it’s worse than Watergate. People died.

    Of course, Fast and Furious was even worse because a lot more people died. Liberals don’t care because most of them were Mexicans.

    It seems the president’s apologists are determined to create an insurmountable standard of evidence in order to defend him: Until the President confesses, there is no case against him.

    Comment by V the K — November 16, 2012 @ 5:18 pm - November 16, 2012

  5. Levi, I don’t have access to the same intelligence the White House does. And the only reason I thought there were protests outside the embassy is because that is why I read–as is indicated from the selection you quote. You quote me quoting someone else.

    I thought it was terrorism and expressed as much.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — November 16, 2012 @ 5:19 pm - November 16, 2012

  6. It’s interesting to me. Clinton got away with Monica Lewinsky because the economy was good. Obama gets away with Benghazi and Fast and Furious because the economy is so awful.

    Comment by V the K — November 16, 2012 @ 5:20 pm - November 16, 2012

  7. Alan,

    I take your point. Watergate was planned out and the break in was accomplished.

    Benghazi was a screw up. I am not sure many leads point that the screw up was planned in advanced and carried out. I am not hearing that from any sources I check.

    When Watergate reached the Oval Office, Nixon cooperated in covering up and denying any White House connection to Watergate. The whole cover-up worked until Alexander Butterfield quite innocently revealed the LBJ installed taping system in the Oval Office. At that point, the Senate Watergate Committee subpoenaed tapes from key dates and listened to them and caught Nixon and Halderman and Erlichman plotting to cover up all ties to the fiasco and to obstruct justice. From there, things went downhill until Nixon resigned. Nobody died.

    In Benghazi, we have an assault murdered ambassador (extremely rare in history) and the “official” story is that irritated rascals murdered him in reprisal for hurt feelings over a You Tube video.

    Apparently, you are in the school that says mistakes happen, nothing to see here, let’s move on.

    One of the investigators for the Watergate Committee was a youthful Hillary Clinton. Here is some very disturbing history of that era:

    Now comes this bombshell from Jerry Zeifman, who supervised a much younger Hillary Clinton when she worked as a staffer for the Watergate committee:

    ‘A lifelong Democrat, Mr. Zeifman supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career.’

    Why?

    “Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview last week. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.’ (….)

    ‘My own reaction was of regret that, when I terminated her employment on the Nixon impeachment staff, I had not reported her unethical practices to the appropriate bar associations.’

    This is no small potatoes, like the cattle futures dustoff. From Mr.Zeifman’s account, Hillary and others on the Committee, including former senior associate special counsel (and future Clinton White House Counsel) Bernard Nussbaum – engaged in a seemingly implausible scheme to deny Richard Nixon the right to counsel during the investigation by stealing Judiciary Committee files on the only precedent case that could have stonewalled their plot and drafting a legal brief that, according to Mr. Ziefman, “was so fraudulent and ridiculous Hillary would have been disbarred if she had submitted it to a judge.”

    Read more: http://digitaljournal.com/article/252624#ixzz2CQJVhSCz

    Now I throw this stinkbomb over the transom, because this is politics and politics usually boils down to the exercise of power.

    Acting director of the FBI Patrick Gray passed FBI investigation information on to White House lawyer John Dean III. Dean and Erlichman ordered Gray to destroy some papers, which he did. Meanwhile, Gray’s deputy director, W. Mark Felt, turned out (we learned 35+ years later) to be the Deep Throat who brought Nixon down through the writing of Woodward and Berntstein.

    I bring this up, because this is the type of snakes that crawl out when you shine a light on a cover-up. Once the simple lie stumbles, the rush to compound the problem becomes Keystone Kops material.

    You may recall that during the 9/11 Committee hearing that former National Security Director Sandy Berger stole Clinton terrorism policy records from the National Archives by stuffing them in his pants. To this day, Archives officials can not determine how many records he stole and destroyed.

    Benghazigate is not strictly payback. An Ambassador and three bodyguards are as dead as dead gets. Hence the “nobody died in Watergate.” Dead people tell no tales, so now we have only the living to investigate to determine whether there was misfeasance and or malfeasance.

    If there is no problem, fine, we move on. But to be a Levi type and insist that all the players are innocent and the entire suspicion of cover-up is malevolent politics is, in itself, fairly hysterical.

    Obama is a skilled and bald-faced liar. Hillary Clinton is no better. Now Petraeus is being bounced around like a he is a target in dodgeball. The left named him General Betrayus and they are scared crazy that he will up and tell the truth. At this point, it might be time to Google Vince Foster and Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broderick and the world of characters who turn up in these “innuendo” dramas.

    There are certainly long knives out on both sides. Best we sit back and watch the chips fall where they may.

    You are wrong about the potential of the severity of this whole affair. I would judge from your political stance that you are not emotionally prepared to discover how vile things can get playing winners and losers in government.

    Comment by heliotrope — November 16, 2012 @ 5:21 pm - November 16, 2012

  8. The statement about the video was signed off by multiple agencies. Unless you’re willing to assume a massive conspiracy implicating all those agencies, that accusation that he lied doesn’t stand up.

    Comment by Alan — November 16, 2012 @ 5:16 pm – November 16, 2012

    Oh, you mean the statement that these multiple agencies are insisting that someone other than them changed along the way?

    Yeah, that excuse kind of imploded.

    The hilarity of this to me is that Obama could presumably have gotten away with it had he not been so desperate to throw other people under the bus to make himself look good. Petraeus and the CIA were apparently quite willing to go along until Obama started blaming them. When that backfired, Obama ordered that Rice’s talking points be leaked; that then backfired because Petraeus and the other agencies involved were then able to state that they had been changed and that they weren’t what those agencies had given them.

    But if you truly believe that “he is inherently inferior and incompetent” and totally hates America and despises capitalism and all that stuff you like to throw around, I don’t really expect you to make the distinction between the two events.

    Comment by Alan — November 16, 2012 @ 5:16 pm – November 16, 2012

    Well, of course he is, Alan.

    Otherwise, you and your fellow Obama supporters wouldn’t be screaming and shrieking that holding him to the same level of presumption of guilt that you held Bush is racism.

    I’m making your statements coherent. Clearly, you don’t believe in holding Obama to the same standards that you did Bush, or using the same presumptions of guilt that you did for Bush; therefore, either Obama is inferior and it’s unfair to hold him to the same standards, or you’re exhibiting double standards based on political affiliation.

    I’m being kind and saying that you’re acting out of affirmative action for a mentally- and morally-disadvantaged individual instead of your acting out of hypocrisy. I just want you to confirm that Obama is disadvantaged and is not capable of living up to the same standards or presumption of guilt as were demanded of Bush.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 16, 2012 @ 5:33 pm - November 16, 2012

  9. What amazes me is the deliberate ignorance of some people with regards to what happened in Benghazi and what has been reported since.

    The standard liberal talking point is that “maybe things went wrong, but it isn’t a big deal.”

    The evidence right now tells me that somebody in this administration decided to downplay/eliminate the terrorist angle and play up the movie angle to the point that they scapegoated the man who made the movie (and to some degree the pastor in Florida who didn’t make that good a scapegoat since he wasn’t involved or aware of the movie until the protests in Cairo).

    There are several reasons why-but those who support Obama don’t want to see those reasons.

    It was basically about the election and campaign talking points. Obama and Biden just before the attacks were in the habit of talking about Osama being dead and Al Quada on the run.

    I still want a time line for what the president was doing during those 9 hours and what decisions he did or didn’t make and why.

    I also want to know why AFRICOM had no military assets available to send as help.

    I want to know why pleas for more security were rejected and the pleas for help were ignored.

    I want to know why it took 24 days for the FBI to arrive in Libya and begin its investigation and why they only spent 3 hours in the building but various media organizations went in before and after the FBI and found documents left behind.

    There is so much that went wrong here-some things were just poor planning but other things scream incompetence or indifference.

    The movie cover screams lie-and most likely a lie to try to reduce pre election heat.

    Comment by Just Me — November 16, 2012 @ 5:36 pm - November 16, 2012

  10. Heliotrope – Thank you! You very succinctly put into words my thoughts. And you totally nailed it. Watergate was a planned conspiracy. Benghazi was a screw up. That’s exactly how I see it.

    I’m in the school that says this was a terrible situation. Let’s figure out where the breakdown in intelligence was, and lets work to do our best to ensure that something like this doesn’t happen again.

    I’m definitely not in the school that says “uh-oh. something bad happened. Obama must be personally responsible for it, and I’m going to dig until I can find some evidence that proves that”. Much like you accuse Levi of automatically assuming all players are innocent, seems to me that many (but not all) people here are automatically assuming that all players are guilty and desperately trying to prove it.

    Just seems to me that a little balance (on both sides) would go a long way.

    Thanks again.

    Comment by Alan — November 16, 2012 @ 5:47 pm - November 16, 2012

  11. The statement about the video was signed off by multiple agencies. Unless you’re willing to assume a massive conspiracy implicating all those agencies, that accusation that he lied doesn’t stand up.

    Alan you do realize that Petraeus testified today that there was a reference to terrorism in those initial talking points but that somebody along the way removed them and it wasn’t him.

    Apparently right now the testimony from our acting CIA director and Clapper says that this statement was in the initial talking points but remove by somebody other than themselves.

    Somebody somewhere in this administration decided to remove that statement and go with the “movie” excuse. Once this decision was made, for two weeks it was all about the movie and when Obama was on the view and asked if it could be terrorism he went with the movie excuse.

    At this point in time we have an unnamed person from an unnamed agency as the fall guy. At some point the hearings need to figure out who that was, because those talking points were essentially a deliberate lie to the American people and if I hear one more time that Obama had no reason to hide the terrorist angle I think I will scream.

    He was weeks away from an election in the crappiest economy in decades and an Ambassador dies on his watch in a terrorist attack when one of his favorite talking points is how he killed Bin Laden (as if he personally pulled the trigger) and Al Quada is on the run.

    Obama had a lot to lose. Spontaneous riot due to movie sounds much less incompetent than planned terrorist attack and a lightly secure facility.

    Oh, and while I haven’t quite donned my tinfoil hat on this one, I also think there is some good indication that indicates Benghazi’s CIA operation may have played a role in arming terrorist linked groups in Syria. Basically a Fast and Furious mid east version.

    Comment by Just Me — November 16, 2012 @ 5:48 pm - November 16, 2012

  12. So Alan it doesn’t bother you at all that the administration deliberately lied and scapegoated a citizen (and please don’t use the “he was on probation excuse”).

    Having been a probation officer I know two things-almost never are cops sent at midnight to bring in a probationer for a routine violation of probation agreements.

    Also, rarely are probationers incarcerated pending trial or sent to or returned to prison for routine violations.

    Oh and Hillary’s words to Wood’s father that they would “get the man who made that movie” tells me the various liars involved fully intended to use this man as a scape goat.

    In the end he violated his probation, but how things went down were just wrong.

    Comment by Just Me — November 16, 2012 @ 5:51 pm - November 16, 2012

  13. Levi, I don’t have access to the same intelligence the White House does.And the only reason I thought there were protests outside the embassy is because that is why I read–as is indicated from the selection you quote. You quote me quoting someone else.

    Yes, Dan. That’s the point. When something like this happens in the world, nobody has the full story right away. People make assumptions, and those assumptions are either vindicated or discarded as time goes by and new information is taken into account. Honest people will let you know up front that they are not sure, that they don’t have definitive conclusions, only assessments based on the best information available, which is what Rice did.

    Dishonest people, on the other hand, will wait two months and tell you that they knew the entire story all along and that everyone who was wrong about any detail, big or small, even when they said they were guessing, is a liar who was obviously covering up for Obama’s Guns For Al-Qaeda Program. Conservatives continue to accuse Rice of saying things she did not say in ways that she did not say them. If she were lying, she would have said that the she absolutely knew the truth and that the video was directly responsible – she said neither of those things.

    I thought it was terrorism and expressed as much.

    Well, good for you. Everyone understood it was terrorism. I mean even if the administration said that the attack was based on the video (which they didn’t say), that would still be terrorism.

    God, this is so stupid in about a million different ways.

    Comment by Levi — November 16, 2012 @ 6:23 pm - November 16, 2012

  14. Obama must be personally responsible for it, and I’m going to dig until I can find some evidence that proves that”.

    Alan,
    If Obama had it within his knowledge and power to save Stevens by calling in immediate support and he decided not to, then we have a clear reason to search for misfeasance and/or malfeasance.

    That is an impeachable offense.

    I do not say that Obama IS personally responsible, but he may very well might be. Let him clear himself and explain why no help was sent to rescue the Ambassador. Two or the other three lives disobeyed orders and placed themselves in harm’s way and were murdered as a result.

    Surely their little guy, insignificant lives move you to want to make sure that we did everything within reason to save their little guy, insignificant lives. Or is it enough to say that they disobeyed orders and, therefore, murdered themselves?

    Climb down from the unicorn, please, and be objective. That is not something is capable or doing.

    Comment by heliotrope — November 16, 2012 @ 6:50 pm - November 16, 2012

  15. which is what Rice did.

    Being the idiot little fascist puke that you are keeps you from wandering anywhere in the vicinity of the truth.

    Rice was pulled out of the grandstands and sent out on center stage with talking points in hand. She is a paid political parrot who did a job that many responsible administration people hid from doing. Nothing she said bears any meaning that is a reason to believe her and nothing about her reason for reading the talking points adds any authority whatsoever to the points she parroted. She was a human TeleprompTer, fool!

    However, Susan Rice did whore her reputation by acting out her role in the minstrel show and if she should come before the Senate for confirmation for another job, her role playing will be a legitimate issue.

    Comment by heliotrope — November 16, 2012 @ 7:03 pm - November 16, 2012

  16. And again, Levi lies.

    Well, good for you. Everyone understood it was terrorism. I mean even if the administration said that the attack was based on the video (which they didn’t say), that would still be terrorism.

    Let’s go to the tape.

    “The information, the best information and the best assessment we have today, is that in fact this was not a preplanned, premeditated attack,”
    “What happened initially was that it was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo as a consequence of the video.”

    Now hush Levi, the adults are talking.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 16, 2012 @ 7:19 pm - November 16, 2012

  17. Regardless of the purposeful obstinacy of some posters, it still keeps coming back to the same question. Who made the connection to the video? Less than 24 hours after it began, the attack was being reported in the MSM as a reaction to the video. Where did that information come from? It didn’t come from “protesters” on the ground. There were none. It didn’t come from the unedited CIA talking points. Someone, most likely from inside the Administration, was telling reporters the attack was a response to the video. Who was it? How did they identify a previously little known video? And why did they do it?

    Comment by David — November 18, 2012 @ 12:48 pm - November 18, 2012

  18. Has anyone discovered any actual proof or evidence that the protesters in Cairo, Egypt spontaneously poured into the streets over the You Tube video?

    The MSM reported the video as the cause as an established fact. Can I see links to the actual evidence or am I being a conspiracy nut?

    Comment by heliotrope — November 18, 2012 @ 2:46 pm - November 18, 2012

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.