GayPatriot

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2012/11/16/if-cia-knew-benghazi-attack-was-terrorism-almost-immediately/trackback/

  1. A word of caution, sometimes stories like this get floated as trial balloons. Petraeus might be maneuvering behind the scenes by threatening to say this, without actually intending to go through with this testimony.

    Also, it’s possible that Petraeus knew it was terrorism, but allowed the CIA to issue phony-baloney “talking points” to Susan Rice at the administration’s request. If so, is Petraeus really going to come right out at the hearing and admit to it?

    Comment by Daryl Herbert — November 16, 2012 @ 12:42 am - November 16, 2012

  2. Daniel, first we will wait and see if David Petreus will in fact amend his testimony so that he is no longer peddling the White House lies.

    There has been one massive cover up over this incident. It beggars belief that the White House thought that they could get away with their lies about what “triggered” the incident.

    Nixon was brought down not from doing anything wrong, but from the cover-up as to who was responsible for the break-in to the Watergate Hotel.

    When David Petreus resigned from being head of the CIA due to the affair, he put himself in a position to be able to go against the White House and to tell the truth. He no longer has the outing of the affair hanging over his head.

    What can we expect in the near future? If David Petreus tells the closed door committee the truth about what he knew, and the intelligence he has since gathered, then eyes are going to be back on the White House.

    Who told Susan Rice to lie? Her instructions came from the White House, not the CIA. The White House had that story ready…. hmmmm…..

    Comment by StraightAussie — November 16, 2012 @ 1:33 am - November 16, 2012

  3. Okay dipshits, let’s try this again. Rice said:

    “So we’ll want to see the results of that investigation to draw any definitive conclusions. But based on the best information we have to date,” which in the real world means she is about to pass along a speculative description of what the government thought took place. She is making a point to say that they don’t know for sure and that their initial explanation may change as they find out more.

    Really, it’s like you people are illiterate. I feel like I’m explaining to a third grader how to comprehend information while reading. You can’t really be lying if you explicitly say that you’re making a guess that might be incomplete. Duh?

    Hey, did everyone see John McCain go in front of the cameras and throw a big fit because the government wasn’t giving him information about Benghazi? He missed a briefing where the administration was giving Congress information about Benghazi. He then snapped at a reporter who called him on it. This says everything that needs to be said about the Republicans’ motivation here.

    Comment by Levi — November 16, 2012 @ 3:00 am - November 16, 2012

  4. Except Levi at that point everyone who wasn’t the White House press secretary, Rice, or the MSM knew it was a terrorist attack and not about a movie.

    The Libyan government said the day after the attack that there was no protest over a movie and the attack was planned.

    When Rice made her rounds anyone paying attention to the story beyond “Ooo! Look, Romney made a gaffe even though he said the exact same thing the White House did.”

    Also, during this time it was pretty clear the administration was going after the guy who made the movie (midnight arrest and all).

    Comment by Just Me — November 16, 2012 @ 6:47 am - November 16, 2012

  5. I’m beginning to get a bad feeling about everything coming down on Susan Rice. Charles Krauthammer’s question of why, if she had nothing to do with the incident, was she selected to carry the White House’s message to the Sunday shows really needs to be answered. She is looking more and more like the administration’s fall guy, or girl I guess. The way the president forcefully defended her was very strange. It’s like he was picking a fight with Republicans and that fight seems to be about whether Susan Rice is responsible for the misleading narrative that came out following the attack. It is a fight that I am beginning to suspect the president might throw. If he does, Susan Rice, a mostly unremarkable member of Obama’s administration, will end her career and interest in the scandal could very well end with it.

    It’s all well and good for the GOP to oppose her potential nomination, at least until we are fully informed, but it would be a mistake to engage in a fight with the president over a premise that she is responsible. She merely played one part in this all and she didn’t act without orders. Which leads back to Dan’s question: ” who provided the talking points to Ambassador Susan Rice?”

    Comment by Jimmy — November 16, 2012 @ 7:12 am - November 16, 2012

  6. Shorter Sociopathic Cultist: “When will you dipshits stop thinking for yourselves and unquestioningly accept Glorious Leader’s words as truth?”

    Comment by V the K — November 16, 2012 @ 7:58 am - November 16, 2012

  7. Ah, after a little bit of reason, the fascist is back to peddling the big lie.

    As reported here 2 days after the attack, Petraus was still selling the “Protest video” lie that you swallowed. It was over a week later that they changed their tune.

    This despite the CIA conformation on the 12th.

    But you have to go back to the big lie, or maybe the pot is messing with you memory.

    Now hush Levi, the adults are talking.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 16, 2012 @ 8:01 am - November 16, 2012

  8. Except Levi at that point everyone who wasn’t the White House press secretary, Rice, or the MSM knew it was a terrorist attack and not about a movie.

    Again with the reading comprehension!

    Rice never said that it wasn’t a terrorist attack and she never said it was about the movie. Read this and pay attention:

    RICE: They are not on the ground yet, but they have already begun looking at all sorts of evidence of– of various sorts already available to them and to us. And they will get on the ground and continue the investigation. So we’ll want to see the results of that investigation to draw any definitive conclusions. But based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy–sparked by this hateful video. But soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that– in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent.

    She never even remotely says that the movie prompted the attack. She says that the movie prompted a protest, and that during the protest, extremists attacked the embassy. She attributes no motivation to the attackers, do you get it?

    Further, she does preface her answer by saying that the investigation is ongoing and that there are no definitive conclusions. Do you understand what that means? She is explicitly stating that as time goes on and as more evidence comes in, the story is likely to change. The only thing she said that wasn’t true is that there was a protest at the consulate, but you can’t accuse someone of lying if they make clear that they don’t know for sure and are giving it their best guess. You also have to remember that there were protests at dozens of our embassies, some of which lasted for a few days. Given this, any reasonable person should understand why the administration’s initial guesses about what happened involved a protest at the consulate.

    Ultimately, whether or not there was a protest at the consulate is an extremely insignificant detail. What matters is that Republicans are accusing Rice and Obama of saying things they plainly never said. To hear a conservative tell it, you would have thought Rice said “We know for sure exactly what happened – there was a protest about a video, those protesters attacked the embassy because of the video, and it was not terrorism.” You simply cannot read if you think that’s the meaning of what she said, or maybe just a desperate partisan hack.

    And so hypocritical, too. Wouldn’t it have been nice to see any percentage of this enthusiasm from conservatives for finding out the truth when Abu Graihb was exploding or when George Bush was ordering his lawyers to write memos giving him permission to torture people….

    The Libyan government said the day after the attack that there was no protest over a movie and the attack was planned.

    This does not prove that the Obama administration was lying. Again – they were mistaken about the protest at the consulate, but this was a reasonable assumption to make and they covered themselves by saying explicitly that they were not making definitive conclusions. Rice also never said that the attack was not planned.

    When Rice made her rounds anyone paying attention to the story beyond “Ooo! Look, Romney made a gaffe even though he said the exact same thing the White House did.”

    Let’s not even talk about Romney. You guys are having such a hard time understanding what Rice and Obama said and they’re the important ones.

    Also, during this time it was pretty clear the administration was going after the guy who made the movie (midnight arrest and all).

    Nobody was arrested. We know that the person who was questioned was on probation and it was against the terms of his probation to be using computers and the internet.

    Comment by Levi — November 16, 2012 @ 9:38 am - November 16, 2012

  9. Susan Rice, September 16th “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.

    “People gathered outside the embassy, and then it grew very violent, and those with extremist ties joined the fray and came with heavy weapons, which unfortunately are quite common in postrevolutionary Libya, and that then spun out of control. But we don’t see at this point signs this was a coordinated plan, premeditated attack,”

    Jay Carney, September 19th ““Right now, I’m saying we don’t have evidence at this point that this was premeditated or preplanned to coincide to happen on a specific date or coincide with that anniversary.”

    Once again, Levi keeps pedalling the big lie. He keeps defending a clear lie and cover up, yet still blames President Bush for 9/11.

    Now hush Levi, the adults are talking.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 16, 2012 @ 9:46 am - November 16, 2012

  10. If Levi weren’t a sociopath, he would be bothered by the fact that four Americans were brutally murdered while the President stood by and watched… and the next day flew to a gala party in Las Vegas.

    If he weren’t a sociopath.

    Comment by V the K — November 16, 2012 @ 9:56 am - November 16, 2012

  11. And also, lied about it.

    Comment by V the K — November 16, 2012 @ 9:56 am - November 16, 2012

  12. Levi, but that wasn’t the best information they had on the date of Ambassador Rice’s testimony.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — November 16, 2012 @ 10:41 am - November 16, 2012

  13. “A public commission investigating American intelligence in a time of war is ill conceived and, frankly, irresponsible. We need to address America’s challenges in intelligence gathering and terrorist prevention. But we don’t need to hand the terrorists an after-action report.”

    House Majority Leader

    Comment by Vince Smetana — November 16, 2012 @ 11:32 am - November 16, 2012

  14. Levi, but that wasn’t the best information they had on the date of Ambassador Rice’s testimony.

    That’s really easy to say two months after the fact. Of course, now we know what the best information was, but that’s not something that anyone could have known in the immediate aftermath, especially considering that there were still riots and protests going on. Again, everything Rice was saying fell under the umbrella of her ‘no definitive conclusions’ qualifier, which means explicitly that new details are bound to be discovered during the course of the investigation. If you say you’re making a guess, and that guess turns out to be mostly correct except for some minor detail, than you aren’t lying.

    I will remind you of this:

    http://www.gaypatriot.net/2012/09/14/carney-clueless-about-islamofascit-anti-americanism/

    You added this link/quote to your entry: “UPDATE: A reminder to Mr. Carney: The attack was pre-planned: ”According to U.S. intel, the attack on the Benghazi consulate was pre-planned and unrelated to the protest over the movie outside the building, except to the extent that it used the latter as a diversion for security.”

    This would seem to indicate that you thought there was a protest outside the consulate as well. So now the question becomes…. why are you lying? Are you part of the evil Obama conspiracy and cover-up?

    Comment by Levi — November 16, 2012 @ 11:44 am - November 16, 2012

  15. Excellent link, Vince! I don’t suppose the Republicans would be satisfied if Obama agreed to testify, in secret, without taking an oath, so long as Joe Biden was there to hold his hand?

    Comment by Levi — November 16, 2012 @ 11:58 am - November 16, 2012

  16. I’ll be honest. I’m still at a loss to understand what exactly the controversy is. What did the White House have to gain by saying that it was related to the video protest? If the intelligence was wrong and they later revised it, so be it. We need better intelligence. If they deliberately lied, what did they stand to gain from it?

    Re: @10 (“four Americans were brutally murdered while the President stood by and watched”), what exactly would be different if they called it a terrorist act the next day? Would those people magically not have been killed? Why the need for a cover story?

    The more I hear about this, the less I think anything is actually there. As best as I can understand, part of the concern is that no support was provided to them. From what I’ve read, the nearest support was simply too far away to get there in time to provide any support at all.

    While I’m sure I’ll be accused of following the Glorious Leader’s word as truth, I am genuinely trying to understand what exactly the claims are and why this is supposedly the biggest scandal since Watergate.

    Comment by Alan — November 16, 2012 @ 12:05 pm - November 16, 2012

  17. In related news, it appears that the CIA approved Rice’s statements (according to Peter King):
    http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/11/16/1203921/peter-king-cia-approved-rice-libya-statements/

    Comment by Alan — November 16, 2012 @ 1:01 pm - November 16, 2012

  18. Alan, the saying is ‘the cover-up is worse than the crime.’ The more we know, the worse it is. We now have the (former) head of the CIA admitting he’s lying in congressional testimony. We now know there was time on target intelligence, and that support was specifically denied. We don’t know who denied it or why.

    Now there might be a good reason (see the bombing of Coventry). But the question remains, why was the order to stand down given?

    Levi, Vince,
    Clearly it’s good to see you admit that the President got involved in a war in Libya, without congressional oversight. I’m sure you’ll be screaming for that ‘war criminal Obama’ to be impeached any day now.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 16, 2012 @ 1:04 pm - November 16, 2012

  19. Excellent link, Vince! I don’t suppose the Republicans would be satisfied if Obama agreed to testify, in secret, without taking an oath, so long as Joe Biden was there to hold his hand?

    Comment by Levi — November 16, 2012 @ 11:58 am – November 16, 2012

    Isn’t it funny how this worked?

    Levi and Cinesnatch are trying to fling quote after quote after quote and insist that Republicans are being hypocrites.

    Fortunately, Heliotrope already called out this game for what it is.

    4. Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.

    Of course, that only works if you aren’t aware of the game AND under the impression that either Levi or Cinesnatch is acting in good faith.

    And we know in fact that that is not the case. Both Levi and Cinesnatch are really nothing more than Obama fascists who insist that any opposition to Obama is treason, anything that contradicts Obama is racism, and that those who in any way would criticize Obama want to destroy America, enslave black people, and put gay people in concentration camps.

    They have established the rule that it is OK to lie, block investigations, refuse to testify, and do whatever you want as long as it’s being done in a partisan sense. In their case, facts, law, and right and wrong are ALWAYS trumped by partisan affiliation and political activity.

    Therefore, their attempt to criticize Republicans is contradictory to their own principles of putting partisanship ahead of everything else and demonstrates that they are hypocrites and liars.

    This is what you don’t get, Cinesnatch and Levi. We know both of you are Obama fascists. We know both of you will do whatever Obama says and support whatever Obama does, no matter how unethical, immoral, or illegal it is. You both have made it abundantly clear that facts, logic, reason, and law do not matter to you in the least, and that anything that gives you a partisan political advantage is correct.

    Therefore, your lies have no power. Since you have proven that you will not respect Republicans for acting in a non-partisan fashion, and will reward Obama Party members for acting in a partisan fashion, your attempts to demand that Republicans follow your rules explode both in philosophy and practice.

    You cannot win unless we hamstring ourselves. And none of us intend to hamstring ourselves any more. Since both of you have demonstrated your contempt for truth, decency, facts, and non-partisanship, neither of you shall ever receive it again unless we choose to give it to you, and neither of you shall ever effectively make the criticism that we are not again.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 16, 2012 @ 1:11 pm - November 16, 2012

  20. LiveWire – Thanks. Just so I’m clear, the CIA agents at the nearby annex requested to assist at the embassy and were told to stand down. Is that the claim?

    Comment by Alan — November 16, 2012 @ 1:13 pm - November 16, 2012

  21. What did the White House have to gain by saying that it was related to the video protest? If the intelligence was wrong and they later revised it, so be it. We need better intelligence. If they deliberately lied, what did they stand to gain from it?

    Comment by Alan — November 16, 2012 @ 12:05 pm – November 16, 2012

    So really, Alan, your point is that the government lying is OK if you don’t think they actually gained anything from it.

    In that case, Benghazi isn’t a problem. Since you think it normal and all right for the government to lie, just go back to your normal business.

    When you decide that, no, the government should NOT make a practice of lying unless they have a very good reason for it, and then decide that they should provide that reason, then you might be interested in the conversation.

    But until then, go ahead and worry about getting your free Obamaphone and being glad that you voted for someone with black skin without worrying about things like competence.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 16, 2012 @ 1:15 pm - November 16, 2012

  22. As I understand it yes.

    There’s also the issue that one of the former seals was painting targets with target acquisition gear. You don’t do that unless there’s something available to home in. So why would he do it unless he had reason to believe that there was something out there?

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 16, 2012 @ 1:21 pm - November 16, 2012

  23. NDT – The claim is that they lied about it being related to the video. My question is basically why? Why would they lie about that? Clearly there should be something to gain by that lie? There are accusations of a cover-up. I’m trying to suss out what exactly they are covering up by initially claiming it was related to the video. Like you said, “unless they have a very good reason for it”. What is that very good reason?

    Contrary to your assumptions, I am genuinely trying to understand what the scandal is here.

    Hyperbolic nonsense about phones duly ignored….

    Comment by Alan — November 16, 2012 @ 1:26 pm - November 16, 2012

  24. Alan

    here’s a good timeline of what happened (as we know it) and the contradictions between the Pentegon and CIA.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 16, 2012 @ 1:27 pm - November 16, 2012

  25. She never even remotely says that the movie prompted the attack. She says that the movie prompted a protest, and that during the protest, extremists attacked the embassy. She attributes no motivation to the attackers, do you get it?

    Comment by Levi — November 16, 2012 @ 9:38 am – November 16, 2012

    Wrong.

    Your lies keep imploding, Levi. You keep running away from those clear facts and quotes in which the Obama Party and Glorious Fuhrer Barack Obama state quite clearly that the video is to blame for everything.

    Susan Rice is complicit for two reasons; she was part of the Obama cabal that pushed the video story, and she went out in public to lie about it.

    Granted, Rice is an ignorant racist who is going to do whatever Obama says; like the vast majority of liberal women, she has been brainwashed into the fascist cult and thus told that she must not resist the emotional manipulation of men like Obama. But at the same time, since conservative women are quite capable of telling people who order them to lie or try to coerce them into sex to sod off, I hold Rice responsible for choosing to be helpless and choosing to support Obama’s lies.

    And then:

    And so hypocritical, too. Wouldn’t it have been nice to see any percentage of this enthusiasm from conservatives for finding out the truth when Abu Graihb was exploding or when George Bush was ordering his lawyers to write memos giving him permission to torture people….

    You have stated, Levi, that questioning or criticizing the President is always treason and motivated solely out of partisan hatred.

    You have also stated that the President refusing questioning, invoking executive privilege, sealing records, claiming information is classified, etc. is always a coverup for impeachable offenses.

    There is only one way to harmonize this: your objections are purely partisan, and based solely on attacking those of a different political affiliation or protecting those of your same political affiliation regardless of fact, reason, logic, or law.

    So frankly, by your own standards, I am not obligated in any way to criticize Bush for anything, and in fact can call you treasonous for doing it.

    Your own attempt to scream “hypocrite” only demonstrates what a lying and malicious hypocrite you are. Once one realizes that a desperate and depraved little fascist like you doesn’t care about anything other than political affiliation, you become easier to ignore, given that you support and endorse murdering conservatives and murdering Americans if Obama orders it.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 16, 2012 @ 1:27 pm - November 16, 2012

  26. NDT – The claim is that they lied about it being related to the video. My question is basically why? Why would they lie about that? Clearly there should be something to gain by that lie? There are accusations of a cover-up. I’m trying to suss out what exactly they are covering up by initially claiming it was related to the video. Like you said, “unless they have a very good reason for it”. What is that very good reason?

    Contrary to your assumptions, I am genuinely trying to understand what the scandal is here.

    Comment by Alan — November 16, 2012 @ 1:26 pm – November 16, 2012

    Better question, Alan: do you first acknowledge that they lied by blaming it on the video, instead of on terrorists?

    Now, why don’t you try explaining to us why they would do that? What particular motive would you see as relevant for Barack Obama deliberately lying to the American public and claiming that a video was responsible for the murder of Americans, rather than a pre-planned, organized terrorist attack, which, as we see from the information coming for months prior, was quite clearly anticipated by the people on the ground in Libya and for which they had regularly and repeatedly requested additional security resources to prevent?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 16, 2012 @ 1:31 pm - November 16, 2012

  27. Livewire – Thank you for the information. Just out of curiosity, what are your thoughts regarding the whole initial video claim? I’m still trying to wrap my head around why that’s an issue. I understand that intel is difficult in the early hours/days during/after an incident and there are many conflicting reports early on. I think that I read that the Libyans on the street and those that they were working with made some of the initial claims about the video. We don’t have the luxury of 20/20 hindsight while things are still happening. Anyway, just trying to understand……

    Comment by Alan — November 16, 2012 @ 1:31 pm - November 16, 2012

  28. Livewire – Just saw the link at @24. Thank you for that. I’ll definitely read up on that. I appreciate it.

    Comment by Alan — November 16, 2012 @ 1:33 pm - November 16, 2012

  29. Alan,
    I think the ‘blame the video’ was reflex. The psychology of the ‘it’s our fault’ we get from the administration aside, the Administration didn’t want report of (two) successful attacks on American bases. two months before an election. Just like pressuring businesses to violate the law on announcing layoffs, it was a desperate attempt to avoid negative press prior to the election.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 16, 2012 @ 1:38 pm - November 16, 2012

  30. NDT – I’ve read conflicting reports regarding the early intel after the attack (see @27), some of which seem to imply that the attackers potentially used anger over the video as cover for the attack. So at this point, I’m not yet ready to acknowledge that they lied. In fact, Rice’s statement is rather nuanced and doesn’t seem to explicitly blame the video directly, but incorporates it in a larger narrative.

    In terms of the pre-planned attack and denied additional security resources, do you have links to back that up? That’s not a challenge. I just don’t have the background reading to make an assessment about that. That said, there’s always a tough balance to be had regarding security with ambassadors. Too much security and they lose the ability to truly interact with the community and make progress. Too little and they risk attack.

    Comment by Alan — November 16, 2012 @ 1:44 pm - November 16, 2012

  31. The claim is that they lied about it being related to the video. My question is basically why? Why would they lie about that?

    There is substantial evidence that:

    1. The Benghazi Consulate was refused multiple requests for additional security in the months before the attack.

    2. The Benghazi was refused military assistance while under attack.

    3. The President was aware of 1 and 2 and did nothing.

    4. The campaign had a campaign talking appoint that Al Qaeda had been defeated; a difficult point to defend when Al Qaeda attacks a consulate and kills 4 Americans.

    In the midst of a close election campaign, this would have hurt Glorious Leader’s re-election chances. So, a White House whose entire campaign consisted of finding squirrels (“Big Bird” “Seamus” “Romney Gave a Woman Cancer”) to distract attention away from the big issues just reached into its tree and pulled out another squirrel… this obscure anti-Islamic video … to keep the media and the public distracted until after the election; when it would no longer matter.

    Hope that helps.

    Comment by V the K — November 16, 2012 @ 1:46 pm - November 16, 2012

  32. Livewire, thank you for your opinion. That’s a much more nuanced position and one that I can potentially agree with. It’s the hyperbolic “worse scandal ever!” stuff that irritates me. It does a disservice to the fact that there are definitely things we can and should do to improve our on the ground intelligence and how processes for how quickly we can respond to events like this.

    Btw, is it ok that I call you Livewire instead of The_Livewire? No desire to unnecessarily offend :-)

    Comment by Alan — November 16, 2012 @ 1:48 pm - November 16, 2012

  33. Alan,

    1) I can not recall ever seeing the Ambassador to the UN sent out to speak on an issue of military, CIA and State Department importance.

    2) Why did Susan Rice get trotted out? Why not the CIA or Joe Biden or the national security advisor or Hillary or some other State Department person?

    3) Susan Rice is only tangentially in the loop on this. She was given a briefing (talking points?) and then assigned to do “ambassador speak.”

    4) She did it.

    5) Obama said loud and clear that Graham and McCain should not hit the girl for doing what she was instructed to do.

    The coffins arrived at Andrews Air Force Base in the early afternoon of September 14. Hillary Clinton said this:

    This has been a difficult week for the State Department and for our country. We’ve seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful internet video that we had nothing to do with.

    Obama said exactly nothing about terrorism or the You Tube film. Instead he said this:

    We will continue to do everything in our power to protect Americans serving overseas, whether that means increasing security at our diplomatic posts, working with host countries, which have an obligation to provide security, and making it clear that justice will come to those who harm Americans.

    Then on September 16, Susan Rice was sent out on the Sunday talk shows with her “briefing” points.

    Hillary and Obama each spoke from carefully prepared remarks. You can hear Hillary’s slow, emphasis pounding delivery about the video tie-in for yourself. I heard it live and as a seasoned veteran of “newspeak” I recognized that she had been given or allowed to take the role of manipulating the message.

    If we were continuing, as Obama proclaimed, do everything in our power to protect Americans overseas, why was Steven’s request for more protection turned down many times and why were the two CIA guys in the caskets forced to disobey orders after being ordered to “stand down” and why was there a drone filming almost immediately, but no armed drone like the so many Obama has used to kill Americans who have gone terrorist?

    Do you find those questions to be legitimate?

    As more and more leaks out and we now know that Panetta knew the unfolding mess by watching it live from the drone in real time within minutes of the attack and that he met with Obama within a hour or so, don’t you just kind of imagine that Panetta might possibly have brought the matter up with the President?

    Don’t you have a slight curiosity about who knew what and when he knew it and how the decisions to let the attack go one for hours was made?

    Comment by heliotrope — November 16, 2012 @ 1:50 pm - November 16, 2012

  34. V the K -
    Thank you for your thoughts.

    Point 1 to me is a really challenging one given the nature of ambassadors’ works in dangerous, hostile areas. Like I mention, it’s a delicate balance between too much security interfering with the ability to do work, and not enough to protect them. Again, hindsight is 20/20 and it’s easy to say of course he should have had more security. I’m not clear as to whether there were specific, credible actionable threats to him or the embassy before the attack. So I’m willing to be more lenient here.

    Point 2 is the one that I’m still trying to more fully understand. From what I read, other than the agents at the CIA annex, there was not a way to get support there quickly enough to help.

    Point 3 – I’m undecided on this one. I’m more lenient with point 1 and it’s not clear to me that he (the president) explicitly denied additional support (sounds like this order came from Panetta), so I’m withholding judgement on this.

    Point 4 – That to me seems to be the crux of the scandal. I totally agree that this attack runs counter to the narrative of the administration and is definitely egg on the face for them. That said, I do give them credit for making significant progress with Al Qaeda central, though there are still plenty of local groups that claim themselves under the Al Qaeda banner.

    I can fully understand the frustration and anger behind Point 4. But it still doesn’t rise to the “worse than Watergate” moniker.

    Thanks again for your thoughts. This whole thread is very informative for me and I appreciate the dialog.

    Comment by Alan — November 16, 2012 @ 2:02 pm - November 16, 2012

  35. Alan, your initial instincts are correct. Don’t listen to any of these people, none of this shit makes any sense.

    Comment by Levi — November 16, 2012 @ 2:05 pm - November 16, 2012

  36. Re Security in Benghazi

    Remember it wasn’t (just) outside forces saying Ambassador Stevens needed more security, it was Stevens himself saying it.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 16, 2012 @ 2:06 pm - November 16, 2012

  37. Heliotrope,
    Thanks for the additional detail. Unfortunately I do really have to get back to work (I’ll try to check back in later this afternoon), but regarding your questions at the end, yes I am curious as to who knew what/when/how/why and ways that we can improve in the future. I just bristle at the “Obama lied, people died”, “worse than watergate”, “biggest scandal ever” hyperbole. I think it makes it more challenging to actually learn from our mistakes and adjust accordingly.

    Thanks again to Heliotrope, The_Livewire, and V the K. I really appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts and opinions in a constructive manner.

    Comment by Alan — November 16, 2012 @ 2:10 pm - November 16, 2012

  38. Alan,

    Now the speculation on my part. Obama was President and candidate. Benghazi is a problem for the Presidency and or the candidate both.

    Controlling the message is both a Presidential choice and a candidate choice.

    Obama was campaigning on having chased al Qaeda from the stage. al Qaeda is both alive and expanding, but it was also associated with the Benghazi attacks and Stevens said as much in his last emails.

    When the attacks on the Embassy in Cairo occurred, it was the embassy that apologized, out of the blue, for the You Tube video that most people knew nothing whatsoever about.

    Here is how CBS reported the Cairo attacks: “(CBS News) After a massive crowd of angry Egyptians began amassing outside the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, furious over an anti-Muslim film produced in the U.S., the embassy there released a statement saying it did not support any anti-religious efforts.

    Now, here an interesting assignment: Google around and locate the evidence upon which CBS and the rest of MSM used to declare that the assault occurred over the You Tube video. I can not locate any. Maybe you can do better. I found the conclusion repeated everywhere, but nowhere did I find signs, chants, interviews, evidence.

    Comment by heliotrope — November 16, 2012 @ 2:12 pm - November 16, 2012

  39. Keep in mind that when George Bush was President, his administration lied about Pat Tillman, Jessica Lynch, Abu Graihb, WMD, Valerie Plame, and a whole host of other foreign policy events. These people don’t care about investigations or they would have been more vocal about the glaring inconsistencies of the Bush era. I will say again that George Bush only agreed to testify to the 9-11 commission (which he opposed to begin with) if he could testify in secret, not under oath, and with Vice President Cheney by his side. All of this passes the smell test with the Republicans, but just because Obama didn’t say the word ‘terrorism’ quickly or frequently enough (which isn’t even true), or just because someone may have thought there was a protest about the video at the consulate (understandable given what was happening all over the world) now they want to get to the bottom of it?

    Again, your instincts are correct. All you need to know is that there was an election two months after the attack and the Republicans were desperate. Explains all of this.

    Comment by Levi — November 16, 2012 @ 2:14 pm - November 16, 2012

  40. And again Levi is forced to resort to lies and ‘pay no attention to the facts’. What’s wrong Levi, don’t want people drawing their own conclusions?

    Now hush Levi, the adults are talking.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 16, 2012 @ 2:33 pm - November 16, 2012

  41. Alan, your initial instincts are correct. Don’t listen to any of these people, none of this shit makes any sense.

    Comment by Levi — November 16, 2012 @ 2:05 pm – November 16, 2012

    Wow! The little fascist puke has gotten rattled right down to his socks.

    Comment by heliotrope — November 16, 2012 @ 2:34 pm - November 16, 2012

  42. 1. The last soldier to see Army Ranger Pat Tillman alive, Spc. Bryan O’Neal, told lawmakers that he was warned by superiors not to divulge — especially to the Tillman family — that a fellow soldier killed Tillman.

    2. The media lied. A blonde, female, was injured and captured in Iraq. Those three things spell win. For any media story. The Unit she was assigned to had no support, they got lost. Went into an area they where not authorized to be in.
    No weapon was properly maintained. The Unit didn’t have the right support, intel, route, guidance.
    It was a giant C.F.
    The real truth will only be known by those who were really there. Ask the POW’s.

    3. The paper said Qaissi did appear with a hood over his head in other photographs seized by Army investigators.

    “However, he now acknowledges he is not the man in the specific photograph he printed and held up in a portrait that accompanied the Times article,” the Times article said.

    But, Qaissi told the newspaper, “I wore that blanket, I stood on that box, and I was wired up and electrocuted.”

    4. “[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.” — From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

    “Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities” — From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

    “Saddam’s goal … is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed.” — Madeline Albright, 1998

    “(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983″ — National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

    “Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement.” — Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

    “The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability.” — Robert Byrd, October 2002

    “There’s no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat… Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He’s had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001… He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn’t have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we.” — Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

    “The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.” — Bill Clinton in 1998

    “In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.” — Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

    “I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons…I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out.” — Clinton’s Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

    “Saddam Hussein’s regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.” — John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

    “The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.” — John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

    “I share the administration’s goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction.” — Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

    “Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” — Al Gore, 2002

    “We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.” — Bob Graham, December 2002

    “We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” — Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

    “There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein’s regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed.” — Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

    “I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force – if necessary – to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” — John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

    “The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation.” — John Kerry, October 9, 2002

    “(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. …And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War.” — John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

    “Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States.” — Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

    “As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” — Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

    “There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources — something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.” — John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

    “Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East.” — John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

    “Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts.” — Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

    5. Valerie Plame???????? REALLY??????????

    Comment by heliotrope — November 16, 2012 @ 2:59 pm - November 16, 2012

  43. In terms of the pre-planned attack and denied additional security resources, do you have links to back that up? That’s not a challenge. I just don’t have the background reading to make an assessment about that.

    Comment by Alan — November 16, 2012 @ 1:44 pm – November 16, 2012

    Start here, continue here.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 16, 2012 @ 3:28 pm - November 16, 2012

  44. I can fully understand the frustration and anger behind Point 4. But it still doesn’t rise to the “worse than Watergate” moniker.

    Comment by Alan — November 16, 2012 @ 2:02 pm – November 16, 2012

    Alan, in your opinion, what exactly was it that made Watergate bad?

    My suggestion is that you answer carefully, because everything that you note will then be counter-pointed relative to Benghazi.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 16, 2012 @ 3:43 pm - November 16, 2012

  45. Keep in mind that when George Bush was President, his administration lied about Pat Tillman, Jessica Lynch, Abu Graihb, WMD, Valerie Plame, and a whole host of other foreign policy events. These people don’t care about investigations or they would have been more vocal about the glaring inconsistencies of the Bush era. I will say again that George Bush only agreed to testify to the 9-11 commission (which he opposed to begin with) if he could testify in secret, not under oath, and with Vice President Cheney by his side. All of this passes the smell test with the Republicans, but just because Obama didn’t say the word ‘terrorism’ quickly or frequently enough (which isn’t even true), or just because someone may have thought there was a protest about the video at the consulate (understandable given what was happening all over the world) now they want to get to the bottom of it?

    Comment by Levi — November 16, 2012 @ 2:14 pm – November 16, 2012

    I’m sorry, Levi, but you have already stated that lying to the American public, obstructing investigations, blocking any attempt at fact-finding, and the like is OK when Obama does it.

    You may criticize Republicans when you are willing to state that Republicans are superior and more intelligent individuals and thus can be held to a higher standard than the inferior, incompetent Obama administration and the Obama Party.

    So go ahead. Say it. Then you won’t be a hypocrite any more; you will have made an honest, defensible statement: Republicans and conservatives are more moral and intelligent and thus can be held to a higher standard than Obama and the Obama Party, which are less moral and less intelligent.

    When you admit that you are inferior, boy, then you can attack other peoples’ standards and ability to hold to them. But since you want to pretend that you are better than us, you have to be held to higher standards than you did Bush.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 16, 2012 @ 3:49 pm - November 16, 2012

  46. NDT -
    Thank you for the links. The first one states that a request for DC-3 airplane was denied 4 months before the attack. I’m not clear as to how this plane would have changed the outcome of the attack. There’s a quote that states that multiple other requests were denied, but I don’t see where those other requests are listed. The second link states that requests to the Libyan government for additional security were not fulfilled. The implications that I’ve read here and other places are that Obama is personally responsible for denying the necessary requests that could have saved these people’s lives. I’m not sure how either of these articles validate those assumptions.

    Comment by Alan — November 16, 2012 @ 3:52 pm - November 16, 2012

  47. NDT -
    Watergate = conspiracy, burglary, and violation of federal wiretapping laws
    Benghazi = poor intelligence and inadequate security

    Comment by Alan — November 16, 2012 @ 4:02 pm - November 16, 2012

  48. Well, if you don’t like those, Alan, have some more.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 16, 2012 @ 4:03 pm - November 16, 2012

  49. Watergate = conspiracy, burglary, and violation of federal wiretapping laws
    Benghazi = poor intelligence and inadequate security

    Comment by Alan — November 16, 2012 @ 4:02 pm – November 16, 2012

    Actually, Alan, the Obama administration has claimed that violating Federal wiretapping laws is not a crime.

    Furthermore, the Obama administration has stated that the President is in no way obligated to follow or uphold ANY law at his own discretion.

    Again, I don’t have a problem with Republicans and conservatives being held to a higher standard — as long as you’re willing to admit that Barack Obama cannot possibly be expected to meet these standards because he is inherently inferior and incompetent as compared to a Republican or conservative.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 16, 2012 @ 4:10 pm - November 16, 2012

  50. NDT -
    That’s a more informative article. Though even that one doesn’t detail the requests that were denied and when those requests were made. If they are more examples like the DC3 plane, I’m not certain those are great examples. There’s an implication towards the end of the article that many security requests were granted and implemented, again without details. I’d be curious to know what those were.

    Lastly, anyone that says something like “For me, the Taliban is on the inside of the building.” is automatically not a credible witness.

    Comment by Alan — November 16, 2012 @ 4:27 pm - November 16, 2012

  51. 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

  52. 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

  53. 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

  54. 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

  55. 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

  56. 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

  57. 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

  58. 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

  59. 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

  60. 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

  61. 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

  62. 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

  63. 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

  64. 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

  65. 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

  66. 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

  67. 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

  68. 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

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

**Note: Your first comment is held for moderation. Avoid profanity, avoid personal attacks on fellow commenters, and avoid complaining about personal attacks (even on you). Feel free to disagree with anyone, but focus on their ideas; give us the information that you think they overlooked.**


Live preview of comment

Close this window.

0.375 Powered by Wordpress