Democrats now critical of Rice's Benghazi explanation, amid more damaging evidence

[BroomWagon]

State Dept. Kept Media From Speaking To Benghazi Attack Survivors

In testimony to the House Oversight Committee May 8 regarding the attacks against the U.S. consulate and CIA annex in Benghaz, former US deputy chief of mission in Libya Gregory Hicks included names of several other Americans, part of the U.S. mission in Libya, who were either in Benghazi or Tripoli during the terrorist assault that took the lives of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.

The dam is now breaking as the Administration has done everything to hold back the facts of Benghazi from the American public.

 

[LisaA]

I interpret the third comment as meaning it does not MORALLY justify an attack on an embassy. I don’t see an internal inconsistency in these remarks. If, on the other hand, you are arguing that the video story was fabricated for political purposes, then the remarks take on a different meaning in that Obama is sticking with his video origin of the attack at this time rather than confirming the act of terror was premeditated. Is that what you mean?

The video wasn’t “fabricated” as it was apparently the inspiration for some of the demonstrations. I recall in fact that Hicks called Ambassador Stevens to tell him about the video and the eruption in Egypt. Thus he would naturally have been watching for this to stir up trouble in Libya as well. However if you go through the timeline, it seems like an ordinary day with Ambassador Stevens meeting with a Turkish official and walking him to the gate. Were there an uprising or demonstration, I suggest there would have been some sign of trouble brewing. Nothing happened until a very serious attack which was reported by Stevens to Hicks. No word about a video or demonstration or people carrying signs and chanting. It was a well armed group with mortars and rocket launchers. Further when Hicks reported an attack and requested of Hillary authorization to evacuate the Consulate, she said yes. You do not evacuate because a bunch of nuts are screaming and carrying signs. We didn’t evacuate the Egyptian Embassy although it was a long and somewhat violent demonstration…with signs and rocks thrown, not mortars. Further that Hillary and Obama were MIA through the attack and aftermath is a complete disgrace. When I agree with Maureen Dowd, there is fire as well as smoke.

Following the timeline further, it’s clear that while the situation was somewhat fluid there was no reason OTHER THAN POLITICAL COVER to remove references to terrorists, the type of ammunition used, the credit claimed by Islamists.

Vague references to “acts of terror” do not connect the dots. Further even after Rice’s contradiction of the Libyan President (which was said to stifle the investigation) Hillary referred to the video to the parents of the slain heroes. The video maker was put in jail. Obama went to the UN referring to a video. He and Hillary made a commercial apologizing for the video. During a 60 minutes interview LONG after the attack, he was asked point blank was this a terrorist act and he said “We don’t know…” Then 60 Minutes held back that portion of the interview until a later date.

Ya think they might have been pushing the video? Come on, it’s so obvious what was done and why. Even the usual suspects who generally rush to Obama’s side are parsing their words or coming out and requesting more information.

Lisa

 

[BroomWagon]

The video wasn’t “fabricated” as it was apparently the inspiration for some of the demonstrations. I recall in fact that Hicks called Ambassador Stevens to tell him about the video and the eruption in Egypt. Thus he would naturally have been watching for this to stir up trouble in Libya as well. However if you go through the timeline, it seems like an ordinary day with Ambassador Stevens meeting with a Turkish official and walking him to the gate. Were there an uprising or demonstration, I suggest there would have been some sign of trouble brewing. Nothing happened until a very serious attack which was reported by Stevens to Hicks. No word about a video or demonstration or people carrying signs and chanting. It was a well armed group with mortars and rocket launchers. Further when Hicks reported an attack and requested of Hillary authorization to evacuate the Consulate, she said yes. You do not evacuate because a bunch of nuts are screaming and carrying signs. We didn’t evacuate the Egyptian Embassy although it was a long and somewhat violent demonstration…with signs and rocks thrown, not mortars. Further that Hillary and Obama were MIA through the attack and aftermath is a complete disgrace. When I agree with Maureen Dowd, there is fire as well as smoke.

Following the timeline further, it’s clear that while the situation was somewhat fluid there was no reason OTHER THAN POLITICAL COVER to remove references to terrorists, the type of ammunition used, the credit claimed by Islamists.

Vague references to “acts of terror” do not connect the dots. Further even after Rice’s contradiction of the Libyan President (which was said to stifle the investigation) Hillary referred to the video to the parents of the slain heroes. The video maker was put in jail. Obama went to the UN referring to a video. He and Hillary made a commercial apologizing for the video. During a 60 minutes interview LONG after the attack, he was asked point blank was this a terrorist act and he said “We don’t know…” Then 60 Minutes held back that portion of the interview until a later date.

Ya think they might have been pushing the video? Come on, it’s so obvious what was done and why. Even the usual suspects who generally rush to Obama’s side are parsing their words or coming out and requesting more information.

Lisa

Saying “act of terror” is a bit of a non-sequitar, it could be interpreted as well as saying “I personally know it’s terror” but we are running this 3rd rate video as the reason and to the United Nations as well along with the ads made for Pakistan. “Act of Terror” is used and some people use it to “cover the bases” but perhaps this is why this affair is worthy of much further investigation but that is the last thing those standing up for the Administration want at the same time.

When one adds this to the Tea Party Tax implications, one can now start to say this was done in regards to the election and influencing it. And now, these are the same people who though their own convention requires extensive ID, though Union elections require ID, do all to fight voter ID in elections.

These kinds of stances really can make one feel spiteful about the operation of the DNC.

 

[LisaA]

State Dept. Kept Media From Speaking To Benghazi Attack Survivors

The dam is now breaking as the Administration has done everything to hold back the facts of Benghazi from the American public.

From ABC:

ABC’s DEVIN DWYER: The talking points coming out of the State Department on Monday were astonishing for their attempted revisionism. Spokeswoman Jen Psaki repeated four times in four minutes that the Obama administration’s early public characterization of the 2012 Benghazi terror attack was dictated by the CIA. “These were CIA points. They were CIA edited. They were CIA finalized,” she said. Nevermind that trove of emails, obtained by ABC News, that shows it was in fact the State Department that sought to edit out the CIA’s references to al Qaeda and to security warnings in Benghazi prior to the attack. “These started and ended as CIA talking points,” Psaki said. Technically, maybe so. But it would be disingenuous to ignore or deny the apparent influence of State during the talking-point sausage-making that occurred in between.

At some point even the MSM has to wake up. One reporter commenting on the cascade of scandals: “Is it only MONDAY?”

Frankly the AP story is frosting on the cake so to speak. The media has done everything to protect Obama and they find that THEY are not immune to retaliation. While I think the IRS story has more “legs” particularly as they try to implement Obamacare, I think the AP story will be more detrimental to the “slobbering love affair” between Obama and the media. I know a lot of people of the Democrat persusion do not like Michelle Malkin but she coined the phrase “culture of corruption” and I think it was and is appropos. This is how Obama was raised, this is how he came into power and this is how he holds onto power.

The wheels on the bus go flying off, flying off, flying off…

Lisa

 

[iamrefreshed]

At this article: mediamatters.org/blog/2013/05/06/weekly-standard-accidentally-disproves-central/193917 This is the crucial article to read, out of all those mentioned in this post.

mediamatters.org reports that Weekly Standard’s release of the original draft of the CIA’s talking points in an effort to show how they were “changed” accidentally revealed that CIA itself believed in a link between the Benghazi attacks and the Youtube video.

"A central facet of the right-wing media’s criticism of the Obama administration’s response to the September attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya has been inadvertently disproved by The Weekly Standard.

"For months, the right-wing media has suggested that the Obama administration had for political purposes attempted to link the Benghazi attacks to an anti-Islam YouTube video. According to this theory, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, and other high-ranking members of the administration had highlighted the video as a “diversion tactic” to downplay the attack’s connection to terrorism and cover up the supposed failure of American foreign policy that would indicate. But the original draft of talking points on the attacks generated by the CIA – released last week by The Weekly Standard in an effort to demonstrate how those talking points were changed “to obscure the truth”-- prove that the intelligence community itself believed that such a link existed.

"In the Weekly Standard article, Stephen F. Hayes highlighted how specifics about the involvement of members of an al Qaeda-linked terrorist group that were included in an initial September 14 draft of talking points by the CIA’s Office of Terrorism Analysis were later removed by administration officials. Included in Hayes’ report are images of the various versions of those talking points, which serve to drastically undermine the right-wing media’s critique. Here’s the first bullet point from what The Weekly Standard terms “Version 1”:

"We believe based on currently available information that the attacks in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex.

"In the final version of the document, that bullet reads:

"The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. diplomatic post and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.

"The “protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo” were part of a series of global riots and protests in Muslim countries that came in response to increasing awareness of the anti-Islam video.

"These talking points were used by Ambassador Rice for a series of September 16 television interviews. The right-wing media subsequently engaged in a witch hunt to portray her as untruthful and misleading for connecting the attack to the video. But as the Weekly Standard has now shown, it was the CIA’s Office of Terrorism Analysis and not political appointees that introduced that link into the talking points.

"Moreover, the involvement of al Qaeda-linked terrorists in the attack does not preclude the video’s possible role as the proximate cause of the attack. The New York Times reported in October that while there was no peaceful demonstration outside the Benghazi facility before the attack began, “the attackers, recognized as members of a local militant group called Ansar al-Shariah, did tell bystanders that they were attacking the compound because they were angry about the video.”

“Note that contrary to the suggestion that the administration had sought to downplay the involvement of terrorists in the attack, President Obama called it an “act of terror” during his September 12 Rose Garden address.”

The article has links in abundance, which I post here. mediamatters.org/research/2013/01/23/what-the-media-should-know-about-secretary-clin/192354#a

mediamatters.org/research/2012/10/16/contrary-to-right-wing-media-claims-report-conf/190649

mediamatters.org/research/2012/10/16/contrary-to-right-wing-media-claims-report-conf/190649

thenation.com/article/169977/whats-behind-us-embassy-protests-egypt

mediamatters.org/research/2012/10/16/contrary-to-right-wing-media-claims-report-conf/190649

Between the Weekly Standard’s inadvertent blunder and the New York Times article, I think it’s safe to say that the connections between Benghazi, Cairo et al, and the Youtube video have a pretty solid provenance.

Hence, no “smokescreen” by State or the White House.

Silly straw grasping.

 

[iamrefreshed]

Yeah, shoot the messenger and 'chute the message. I expected nothing else.

I didn’t have any illusions about changing any of your minds. But I know a lot of people lurk here, and I just might change a few of their minds. That’s the real objective of my post.

Glad to know that you will be completely open-minded should I cite Glenn Beck!

 

[ProVobis]

Glad to know that you will be completely open-minded should I cite Glenn Beck!

Sure, I could use another lesson on Babylon.

 

[qui_est_ce]

The Left eats its young if they get out of line.

Lisa

And women and African Americans.

 

[LisaA]

And women and African Americans.

And the “young” includes millions of unborn babies…you know I was thinking of Obama’s complete lack of courage. He is able to stand up for the ability to kill unborn babies…how very brave of him. But when Americans are attacked and killed he hides behind Hillary’s pantsuit and an amateur videographer (in jail!!!) yet takes no action to bring the terrorists to justice or call anyone at State accountable

Lisa

 

[rlg94086]

Silly straw grasping.

Silly straw grasping happens when your line of reasoning is strung together with Silly String.

 

[qui_est_ce]

And the “young” includes millions of unborn babies…you know I was thinking of Obama’s complete lack of courage. He is able to stand up for the ability to kill unborn babies…how very brave of him. But when Americans are attacked and killed he hides behind Hillary’s pantsuit and an amateur videographer (in jail!!!) yet takes no action to bring the terrorists to justice or call anyone at State accountable

Lisa

He is a bully.

 

[LisaA]

He is a bully.

Yes! I hadn’t thought of it this way but he doesn’t pick on someone his own size… Weakness is so apparent; the invariable blaming of others when something goes wrong but spoking the football when something goes well (even if he had little to do with it).

Interesting comments from Jonah Goldberg today. He said indeed the issue of the talking points is a bit of a sideshow, but they wrote the script in an effort to deflect criticism when it was apparent they were completely incapable in responding to a terrorist attack. The world’s greatest superpower,*** helpless ***in the face of a group of ragtag Islamists. That’s the real scandal.

Lisa

 

[_Abyssinia]

Jay Carney said in the press conference relateing to Benghazi:

This is a political sideshow and it always has been

I wonder how the families of the four dead Americans think about that comment.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Jay Carney said in the press conference relating to Benghazi:

This is a political sideshow and it always has been

I wonder how the families of the four dead Americans think about that comment.

 

[BroomWagon]

…Last week’s testimony under oath about events in Benghazi on September 11, 2012 makes painfully clear that what the Obama administration told the American people about those events were lies out of whole cloth.

What we were told repeatedly last year by the President of the United States, the Secretary of State, and the American ambassador to the U.N., was that there was a protest demonstration in Benghazi against an anti-Islamic video produced by an American, and that this protest demonstration simply escalated out of control.

This “spontaneous protest” story did not originate in Libya but in Washington. Neither the Americans on duty in Libya during the attack on the consulate in Benghazi, nor officials of the Libyan government, said anything about a protest demonstration.

…

Despite Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s loudly proclaimed question “What difference, at this point, does it make?”** the difference is between an honest mistake and a calculated lie to deceive the American people, in order to win an election.**

Thomas Sowell

 

[_Abyssinia]

More Details on Benghazi Talking Points Emerge

CNN’s Jake Tapper this afternoon obtained a version of the same White House e-mail I reported on last week that showed the evolving Benghazi talking points being shaped by the Obama administration last September.

That e-mail, authored by then-Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes on the evening of Sept. 14, 2012, reads, according to CNN:

*“Sorry to be late to this discussion. We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation.

“There is a ton of wrong information getting out into the public domain from Congress and people who are not particularly informed. Insofar as we have firmed up assessments that don’t compromise intel or the investigation, we need to have the capability to correct the record, as there are significant policy and messaging ramifications that would flow from a hardened mis-impression.

“We can take this up tomorrow morning at deputies.”*

This helps fill out the portrait of the inter-agency deliberations that went into shaping the now-discredited talking points. Assuming, as appears to be the case based on time stamps, that this is a version of the same e-mail ABC News reported on last week, there are some differences.

This is how I reported the contents of that e-mail, quoting verbatim a source who reviewed the original documents and shared detailed notes:

“We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don’t want to undermine the FBI investigation. We thus will work through the talking points tomorrow morning at the Deputies Committee meeting.”

The source was not permitted to make copies of the original e-mails. The White House has refused multiple requests – from journalists, including myself, and from Republican leaders in Congress – to release the full e-mail exchanges.

The differences in the two versions are being taken by some as evidence that my source sought to intentionally mislead about the extent of State Department involvement in changing the talking points. The version I obtained makes specific reference to the State Department, while the version reported by CNN references only “all of the relevant equities” and does not single out State.

But there’s another important note here that touches on State Department involvement and shows that the portrait remains far from complete. The subject line of the e-mail, according to CNN, was “Re: Revised HPSCI Talking Points for Review.”

The e-mail was sent to, among others, officials at the CIA, the Director of National Intelligence office, the National Security Council, and the State Department, including then-State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland.

The official who provided this e-mail to CNN removed the other e-mail exchanges from other principals. That includes anything written by Nuland, who – as I reported – objected to a paragraph in the draft talking points that referenced prior threats against US and other foreign interests in Libya.

In that e-mail, according to source, Nuland wrote that such information “could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either? Concerned …”

The paragraph Nuland was “concerned” about was removed in its entirety. That e-mail has not been disputed by the administration.

I asked my original source today to explain the different wording on the Ben Rhodes e-mail, and the fact that the words “State Department” were not included in the e-mail provided to CNN’s Tapper.

This was my source’s response, via e-mail: “WH reply was after a long chain of email about State Dept concerns. So when WH emailer says, take into account all equities, he is talking about the State equities, since that is what the email chain was about.”

The White House could still clear up this confusion by releasing the full e-mail transcripts that were provided for brief review by a select number of members of Congress earlier this year. If there’s “no ‘there’ there,” as President Obama himself claimed yesterday, a full release should help his case.

CNN exclusive: White House email contradicts Benghazi leaks

 

[7_Sorrows]

One thing this all proves, as if we needed any more proof, is the total lack of journalistic integrity in this country. Had this been a republican, I am convinced that the reporting would have been entirely different.

definitely!! they wouldn’t have ignored the story as long as they have and would have had 24 hour coverage.

 

[7_Sorrows]

Jay Carney said in the press conference relating to Benghazi:

I wonder how the families of the four dead Americans think about that comment.

exactly! what an arrogant and reckless thing for jay carney to call it - a political sideshow.
then when I see the smiles on the faces of the 4 men killed in the photos I am just shocked that he would have the audacity to say anything like that.

 

[colmywaykurtz]

The world’s greatest superpower,*** helpless ***in the face of a group of ragtag Islamists. That’s the real scandal.Lisa

Don’t sweat it too much. We’ve been there before. Like when Reagan sent Marines to Beirut and they got blown up by Hezbollah. So, we withdrew.

 

[colmywaykurtz]

Oh boy! Media Matters and The Nation! Well, that settles it, isn’t the Nation the publication that had Melissa Harris Perry’s article on Paul Ryan, the title of I would not even be able to repeat here??

What about the lack of dissimilarity between “Version 1” and the final version of the document, contrary to what The Weekly Standard was trying to assert? Why hasn’t anybody specifically addressed that?

Take another look at it, if you need to. mediamatters.org/blog/2013/05/06/weekly-standard-accidentally-disproves-central/193917

And let’s not split hairs over the difference between “terrorist” and “extremist,” shall we? All terrorists are extremists.