White House Defends New Benghazi Email

[RACJ]

I can call you Betty, and Betty when you call me, call me Al. :whackadoo:

I misinterpreted the intent of Havard’s response to another member, and my angry response to this was a regrettable misfire. To all members, I apologized to him. Rob

 

[qui_est_ce]

I misinterpreted the intent of Havard’s response to another member, and my angry response to this was a regrettable misfire. To all members, I apologized to him. Rob

I was wondering.

 

[RACJ]

I’ve had it too, TaurusRex . Had it with the complete lack of accountability in the Obama administration on the Benghazi issue. The lies, deceit, obfuscations of the truth. You might think its a small matter, but lying about something as serious as what led to an ambassador getting killed is impeachable. Something tells me that if a Republican had presided over Benghazi you wouldn’t quite be calling it “spilled milk” ? Obama and his regime ignored reports coming from top diplomats and intelligence officers in Libya that attacks were part of a planned assault by al Qaeda affiliated terrorists. They ignored this to protect Obama’s re-election. This is a shameful administration and I truly don’t understand the desire of some to defend them - except perhaps due to a partisan “circle the wagons” mentality. There are “lots of things going on” in the world - the sooner we get a president who is honorable the better. Ishii

Right on, Ishii. The fact that Obama KNEW immediately that the strike was a terror attack, and STILL gave a speech two weeks later condemning the jailed man who made the video is disgusting enough. But to know that he kept his schedule, and flew to Vegas the next day for a big fundraiser is nauseating.
Obama is not a good man, in any sense. His minions never get to the bottom of anything, including Fast and Furious and the IRS targeting of conservatives. That is to name just two of dozens of Obama scandals. This thug makes Nixon look like a choir boy.
If Obama had nothing to hide, he wouldn’t be an obstructionist coward, and he’d start answering questions. Rob

 

[gnjsdad]

It appears that Republicans have NOT learned a crucial lesson here: The American people have heard all about the tragedy in Benghazi, digested the information, and moved on.

What I find disturbing is that the Republicans continue to try to make political hay out of what we ALL acknowledge was a tragedy. The govt hopefully has learned from its mistakes (and there appear to have been plenty) and instituted procedures that will insure something like this doesn’t happen again. I find the attempts on the part of the Republicans to impute all kinds of sinister motives (“lies”, “coverups”, etc) to administration officials attempting to deal with the situation in real time downright poisonous. They act as if attacks on US embassies started with the Obama administration, when we know that’s not the case.

See…

Top 10 Attacks on US Embassies in Republican Administrations that Lindsey Graham doesn't Care about

(By Juan Cole) The Republicans in Congress keep beating the dead horse of Benghazi. Now they have sprung a briefing memo for Susan Rice, based on CIA talking points. I shows that the briefing hewed to the CIA line of the time, which was that the Benghazi disturbances were copy cats of those in...

www.juancole.com

1. The US embassy in Athens, Greece, was attacked in 2007.
2. The US embassy in Serbia was burned down early in 2008
3. The US embassy in Sanaa, Yemen, were attacked in September 2008
4. A suicide bombing at the US consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, in 2006 killed a US diplomat.
5. In 2006, a car bomb was set off outside the US embassy in Damascus.
6. Assailants set off bombs outside the US embassy in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, in 2004, at a time when the Uzbek government was allied with Bush in the ‘war on terror’ and was trying 15 persons it accused of al-Qaeda ties. Bush should have known.
7. The US consulate in Jiddah, Saudi Arabia, was attacked in 2004.
8. Anti-American Iraqis were regularly shelling the Green Zone in Baghdad where the US embassy is, in 2008.
9. In April 1983, radical Shiite suicide bombers blew up the US embassy in Beirut, killing 63. Reagan did nothing to prevent this attack, and his ultimate response to it and a later deadly attack on US Marines in Beirut was to quietly withdraw from Lebanon (he called it “redeploying offshore”).
10. The American embassy in Kuwait was attacked under Reagan in 1983 by radical members of the Da`wa (Islamic Mission) Party. George W. Bush later presided over the election of one of the bombers to the Iraqi parliament.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

It appears that Republicans have NOT learned a crucial lesson here: The American people have heard all about the tragedy in Benghazi, digested the information, and moved on.

What I find disturbing is that the Republicans continue to try to make political hay out of what we ALL acknowledge was a tragedy. The govt hopefully has learned from its mistakes (and there appear to have been plenty) and instituted procedures that will insure something like this doesn’t happen again. I find the attempts on the part of the Republicans to impute all kinds of sinister motives (“lies”, “coverups”, etc) to administration officials attempting to deal with the situation in real time downright poisonous. They act as if attacks on US embassies started with the Obama administration, when we know that’s not the case.

See…

Top Attacks on US Embassies in Republican Administrations that Lindsey Graham doesn't Care about

1. The US embassy in Athens, Greece, was attacked in 2007.
2. The US embassy in Serbia was burned down early in 2008
3. The US embassy in Sanaa, Yemen, were attacked in September 2008
4. A suicide bombing at the US consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, in 2006 killed a US diplomat.
5. In 2006, a car bomb was set off outside the US embassy in Damascus.
6. Assailants set off bombs outside the US embassy in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, in 2004, at a time when the Uzbek government was allied with Bush in the ‘war on terror’ and was trying 15 persons it accused of al-Qaeda ties. Bush should have known.
7. The US consulate in Jiddah, Saudi Arabia, was attacked in 2004.
8. Anti-American Iraqis were regularly shelling the Green Zone in Baghdad where the US embassy is, in 2008.
9. In April 1983, radical Shiite suicide bombers blew up the US embassy in Beirut, killing 63. Reagan did nothing to prevent this attack, and his ultimate response to it and a later deadly attack on US Marines in Beirut was to quietly withdraw from Lebanon (he called it “redeploying offshore”).
10. The American embassy in Kuwait was attacked under Reagan in 1983 by radical members of the Da`wa (Islamic Mission) Party. George W. Bush later presided over the election of one of the bombers to the Iraqi parliament.

And in how many of the above did the administration that was in office at the time of the attack try to pin the reason for the attacks on something that clearly wasn’t the reason for them; and continue to do so weeks after it was clear the evidence didn’t support their claims?

If you wish to use the above incidents to dismiss the claims of “coverup” as nothing more than partisan politics you need to show that these incidents were handled in a very similar manner to how the Obama administration handled Benghazi.

 

[MJE]

It appears that Republicans have NOT learned a crucial lesson here: The American people have heard all about the tragedy in Benghazi, digested the information, and moved on.

Did you miss the announcement 4 days ago from Judicial Watch that the White House emails re: Benghazi were obtained through the Freedom of Information Act? These emails give the American people details of lies and cover-up re: Benghazi.

 

[ishii]

It appears that Republicans have NOT learned a crucial lesson here: The American people have heard all about the tragedy in Benghazi, digested the information, and moved on.

.

This talking point is what the Obama administration desperately hopes to be true - that the Benghazi fiasco was just an unfortunate event, a mistake and that no one cares anymore. Nothing to see here, move on, please. And the ones asking the questions are not all Republicans, necessarily. Jon Karl of ABC questioned Jay Carney recently on new information regarding the coverup. Needless to say, if this was a Republican president, it would be covered to the hilt and be a big scandal. Instead, the pro-Obama media largely ignores the subject. But new information trickles in and it makes Obama look worse.

Ishii

 

[zz912]

Again, this is a little of a mind bender, but you must understand that it was ~9:45 pm Thursday 9/11/2012 in Benghazi when the first attack occurred;
And it’s 6 hours earlier in Washington;
So please understand that Hilary called at ~2:00 am Benghazi time to hear that Chris Stevens was dead;

However, I’m also trying to say that at about 7:00 pm Washington time Obama was on the phone with the Israeli leader for about an hour after having met with the Vice President and the secretary of defense about Benghazi at ~5:00 pm Washington time or 11:00 pm Benghazi time;
But you also have to understand that the events in Benghazi seemed to have been concluded by ~6:00 pm Washington time;
So imho Obama may very well have decided to move on to other business:

rex

So when the attack began, Obama magically knew how long itwas going to last and that’s why he refused to send any help at all? You really believe this?

And in addition to helping, Obama wouldn’t want anyone on the ground to secure the facilities, help the wounded, take care of the dead, investigate the attack, secure secret info, and begin repairs? What’s your explanation for this dereliction of basic duty? And why are you not even slightly curious as to why our CIC didn’t lift a finger?

 

[TaurusRex]

So when the attack began, Obama magically knew how long itwas going to last and that’s why he refused to send any help at all? You really believe this?

And in addition to helping, Obama wouldn’t want anyone on the ground to secure the facilities, help the wounded, take care of the dead, investigate the attack, secure secret info, and begin repairs? What’s your explanation for this dereliction of basic duty? And why are you not even slightly curious as to why our CIC didn’t lift a finger?

Please see my post #63,

rex

 

[gnjsdad]

And in how many of the above did the administration that was in office at the time of the attack try to pin the reason for the attacks on something that clearly wasn’t the reason for them; and continue to do so weeks after it was clear the evidence didn’t support their claims?

I think we can all agree that the administration’s reaction to the attacks was, to put it charitably, confused, especially given that the embassy in Cairo was attacked at the same time, and the motivation for THAT attack was indeed, the video.

I suspect that the main reason for the conflicting assignations of motive for the Benghazi attack was CYA, something every bureaucrat in every agency of government finds normal and natural.

Hillary Clinton has been excoriated, and rightly so, for not implementing the proper security policies for consulate and embassy protection. Beyond that, what else is there? If there is a “coverup” of something, what is it that the administration is trying to cover up? I can’t figure that out.

oldcatholicguy:

If you wish to use the above incidents to dismiss the claims of “coverup” as nothing more than partisan politics you need to show that these incidents were handled in a very similar manner to how the Obama administration handled Benghazi.

No, I just wanted to point out that, when they were in control of Congress at the time of these embassy attacks which occurred under Republican administrations, the Democrats didn’t engage in any major campaigns attempting to discredit the administration’s preparedness or motives.

 

[ishii]

I think we can all agree that the administration’s reaction to the attacks was, to put it charitably, confused, especially given that the embassy in Cairo was attacked at the same time, and the motivation for THAT attack was indeed, the video.

Confused? Try an organized campaign to mislead the American people into thinking the attack was the result of a popular reaction to a video some guy made. Try deceptive and duplicitous.

 I suspect that the main reason for the conflicting assignations of motive for the Benghazi attack was CYA, something every bureaucrat in every agency of government finds normal and natural.

Hillary Clinton has been excoriated, and rightly so, for not implementing the proper security policies for consulate and embassy protection. Beyond that, what else is there? If there is a “coverup” of something, what is it that the administration is trying to cover up? I can’t figure that out.

They are trying to cover up the lies they told in the effort to protect Obama’s re-election chances.

No, I just wanted to point out that, when they were in control of Congress at the time of these embassy attacks which occurred under Republican administrations, the Democrats didn’t engage in any major campaigns attempting to discredit the administration’s preparedness or motives.

And which Republican administrations created a false narrative to explain an attack on an embassy under their watch?

Ishii

 

[TaurusRex]

I think we can all agree that the administration’s reaction to the attacks was, to put it charitably, confused, especially given that the embassy in Cairo was attacked at the same time, and the motivation for THAT attack was indeed, the video.

I suspect that the main reason for the conflicting assignations of motive for the Benghazi attack was CYA, something every bureaucrat in every agency of government finds normal and natural.

Hillary Clinton has been excoriated, and rightly so, for not implementing the proper security policies for consulate and embassy protection. Beyond that, what else is there? If there is a “coverup” of something, what is it that the administration is trying to cover up? I can’t figure that out.

No, I just wanted to point out that, when they were in control of Congress at the time of these embassy attacks which occurred under Republican administrations, the Democrats didn’t engage in any major campaigns attempting to discredit the administration’s preparedness or motives.

Thanks for trying gnjsdad;
But however, with this topic, we’re up against a media which ignores facts presented while constantly spinning irrelevant manufactured, opinionated accusations ,
just watched another news video about Benghazi and they’re back to claiming that the problem started because Benghazi wasn’t recognized as a terror attack which is untrue.

Romney was left at a loss for words during the presidential campaign debate when Obama basically said, “get the transcript of his speech” pertaining to the following:

mediamatters.org/blog/2012/10/16/transcript-truthers-conservatives-deny-obama-ca/190677

Transcript Truthers: Conservatives Deny Obama Called Libya Attack An “Act Of Terror”

Blog ››› October 16, 2012 11:03 PM EDT ››› SIMON MALOY

During tonight’s presidential debate, moderator Candy Crowley corrected Mitt Romney’s false claim that President Obama did not refer to the September 11 attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya as an act of terrorism the day after the attack.

Crowley was right, and Romney was wrong: In his September 12 remarks, the president said: “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America.” Despite this, conservatives in the media are insisting that Obama never said that.

Also here in this debate we’re up against the same kind of ignoring of the facts which are presented while the constant spinning of irrelevant manufactured, opinionated accusations continues …
No use because sad to say, I believe we’re up against a conservative political mindset at least willing to look the other way concerning the truth.

rex

 

[Path_Finder]

It appears that Republicans have NOT learned a crucial lesson here: The American people have heard all about the tragedy in Benghazi, digested the information, and moved on.

What I find disturbing is that the Republicans continue to try to make political hay out of what we ALL acknowledge was a tragedy. The govt hopefully has learned from its mistakes (and there appear to have been plenty) and instituted procedures that will insure something like this doesn’t happen again. I find the attempts on the part of the Republicans to impute all kinds of sinister motives (“lies”, “coverups”, etc) to administration officials attempting to deal with the situation in real time downright poisonous. They act as if attacks on US embassies started with the Obama administration, when we know that’s not the case.

See…

Top Attacks on US Embassies in Republican Administrations that Lindsey Graham doesn't Care about

1. The US embassy in Athens, Greece, was attacked in 2007.
2. The US embassy in Serbia was burned down early in 2008
3. The US embassy in Sanaa, Yemen, were attacked in September 2008
4. A suicide bombing at the US consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, in 2006 killed a US diplomat.
5. In 2006, a car bomb was set off outside the US embassy in Damascus.
6. Assailants set off bombs outside the US embassy in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, in 2004, at a time when the Uzbek government was allied with Bush in the ‘war on terror’ and was trying 15 persons it accused of al-Qaeda ties. Bush should have known.
7. The US consulate in Jiddah, Saudi Arabia, was attacked in 2004.
8. Anti-American Iraqis were regularly shelling the Green Zone in Baghdad where the US embassy is, in 2008.
9. In April 1983, radical Shiite suicide bombers blew up the US embassy in Beirut, killing 63. Reagan did nothing to prevent this attack, and his ultimate response to it and a later deadly attack on US Marines in Beirut was to quietly withdraw from Lebanon (he called it “redeploying offshore”).
10. The American embassy in Kuwait was attacked under Reagan in 1983 by radical members of the Da`wa (Islamic Mission) Party. George W. Bush later presided over the election of one of the bombers to the Iraqi parliament.

Let’s see, a number of these attacks on your list saw no Americans or others killed.

The Marines in #9 were in Lebanon as peace keepers, were there under international restrictions in defending themselves.

** If we go down this route, then we should be sure to say Watergate was nothing compared to Benghazi, no one died at Watergate. ** Yet, a President left office over Watergate, since Benghazi is worse, perhaps we should know as much about Benghazi.

Also, in Benghazi, there were plenty of requests for help which is a significant difference from just saying a car bomb went off likewise, what Ambassador Stevens and the others were doing there has never been clarified. If it is about running arms to Syrian Rebels who crucify people, then the people of the United States deserve to know.

 

[Path_Finder]

No one died at Watergate, so likewise, all about Benghazi needs to come out.

Where is this transparent administration? Seems, this issue is obfuscated by those accusing others of all kinds of things. The truth should not be so allusive.

Thank goodness, a House Select Committee will now look at this versus those who want there to be secrecy about this incident.

Accusing others of a “Conservative Mindset” while using the George Soros funded website Media Matters, just goes to show, you can’t make this stuff up.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Matters_for_America

Media Matters, fighting against Unionization of their own employees.washingtonexaminer.com/media-matters-employees-feel-betrayed-by-anti-union-actions/article/2547822

These recent memos per Benghazi really are the equivalent of the Nixon tapes at Watergate.

KRAUTHAMMER: Yes, because of the appearance of this memo. To me, it’s the equivalent of what was discovered with the Nixon tapes. The point is that Republicans have done a terrible job in building the case. Even today I have to say, the questioning was disjointed. It was not orgdanized. If they had appointed a special committee a long time ago, the way it was done in Watergate, we would have had answers on this and the country wouldn’t be tired.

But what I did say was the reason it would not go anywhere is because the lack of interest of the other media. And what’s changed now, and we saw it in the briefing room, is I think the other media are somewhat embarrassed by the fact that, unlike FOX, they allowed themselves to be stoned and spun and rolled for a year and a half and now the memo appears and it’s obvious that they missed this story.

realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/05/01/krauthammer_on_benghazi_emails_the_equivalent_of_what_was_discovered_with_the_nixon_tapes.html

 

[Path_Finder]

Even CNN openly mocks White House denial memos are about Benghazi:

The problem is that, while the faithful sheep might refuse to recognize the truth, the press has been left with no other option. Allow us to direct your attention to CNN’s John King, who is openly mocking Jay Carney’s disastrous press conference:

“I don’t know how…. Y’know, and I don’t have two hands. I don’t know how you can say this is not about Benghazi. If you look at the timeline of events… I can’t understand why the White House did this. Because if you released it with all the other Ben Rhodes, when he wrote this document, was following a previous email that came over from the CIA saying here are the talking points. They could release this.  People could say it was wrong, people could say it was misleading, and be done with it a year ago.  Now people are saying, why are you hiding this?”

canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/62798

 

[TaurusRex]

Even CNN openly mocks White House denial memos are about Benghazi:

canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/62798

Before I continue I have to say that it’s all I can do to restrain myself from insulting some of you with name-calling for your deliberate attempts at keeping this topic as confused and misunderstood as you possibly can because your goal is political, that is, intended to try to keep as many voters as you can thinking the Obama administration committed some terrible “scandal” regarding the Benghazi terrorist attack.

There’s absolutely nothing wrong with Jay Carney’s explanation except that people here and people in the media are pretending that there wasn’t an almost world-wide negative response to that Muslim video;
And the truth is that the email in question according to Carney was to prepare Rice with information regarding the general protests and demonstrations around the Muslim world connected to the video, not about Benghazi:

cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/carney-email-and-talking-points-were-not-about-benghazi

“The email and the talking points were not about Benghazi. They were about the general situation in the Muslim world,” Carney told reporters

One of the “goals” listed in the Rhodes email reads: “To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.”

cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/carney-email-and-talking-points-were-not-about-benghazi

(CNSNews.com) - A newly declassified email suggests that Susan Rice’s talking points on Benghazi may have originated at the White House. But on Wednesday, the White House denied it.

“The email and the talking points were not about Benghazi. They were about the general situation in the Muslim world,” Carney told reporters.
The Sept. 14, 2012 email, sent by Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes three days after the deadly Benghazi attack, was intended to prepare then-U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice for her upcoming appearance on five Sunday talk shows, where she blamed the attack on protests arising from an obscure anti-Muslim video.

One of the “goals” listed in the Rhodes email reads: “To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.”
But according to Carney, the email “was explicitly not about Benghazi. It was about the overall situation in the region, the Muslim world, where you saw protests at – outside of embassy facilities across the region, including in Cairo, Sanaa, Khartoum and Tunis.”
Carney said several times that the talking points used by Susan Rice to explain what happened in Benghazi were prepared by the CIA, not the White House:

“What I can tell you is, there were talking points produced by the intelligence community on Benghazi. There was another document produced on the overall dynamic in the Muslim world, the fact that there were protests at embassies around the Muslim world, as you would expect to be the case since the very shows that were hosting Ambassador Rice that Sunday were promoting the fact that one of the topics of discussion would be the unrest around the region.”

However, a reporter told Carney the Rhodes email suggests that “political calculation” was involved – that “political considerations were being made in preparing Susan Rice” for her Sunday talk show appearances.
But Carney repeated that the Rhodes email was intended to prepare Susan Rice for “anticipated questions around the upheaval in the Middle East, in the Muslim world, related to the inflammatory video that had caused so many protests around the world. I – you know, the amount of coverage that CNN and other outlets appropriately gave to those protests is often forgotten now, but this was an enormous story.”
Carney said the email was “about the general dynamic” in the Muslim world at that time.

Later, Carney said the White House knew that the Sunday talk shows would focus mainly on the attack that killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens:
“Absolutely,” Carney said. “And that’s why, as members of Congress did, Ambassador Rice relied on points about the Benghazi attack that were produced by the CIA.”
Carney said Rice “went out there with the best information that we had at the time. The CIA deputy director has testified to that. The fact that there were protests around the region threatening our embassies at the very same time is something that is often forgotten but obviously affected the whole environment about how we perceived what was happening at the time.”

Asked why it took a lawsuit for the White House to release the email to Judicial Watch, Carney replied: “I can say it again and again, and I know you can keep asking again and again. This document was not about Benghazi.” Carney repeated that Rice “relied” on the CIA document for her answers about Benghazi – not on the Rhodes email.
Carney also complained about the “intense effort to politicize” the Benghazi attack, saying the “real issue” has always been to make sure that what happened in Benghazi doesn’t happen again.

rex

 

[TaurusRex]

PS:
The fact that Rice also attributed the Benghazi terrorist attack to the Muslim video had nothing to do with the email …
Rice apparently got her signals about Benghazi from the CIA.
There’s a shade of difference in the explanation which I’m sure the media and our politically conservative members here I’m sure will neglect and I’m sure won’t lose any sleep over neglecting it.

Finally again, it’s been stated here and elsewhere that the Benghazi terrorist attack, (that is, TERRORIST ATTACK, NOT PROTEST)
WAS
triggered by the Muslim video, but the truth of that is also being ignored;
And also again, please read the entire link in my post #63:

hardnoxandfriends.com/2014/01/24/gregory-hicks-benghazi-and-the-smearing-of-chris-stevens//

Because it basically explains that the security of the Benghazi embassy was out of the hands of our military because they needed diplomatic immunity and clearance.

Admittedly, my interpretation may not be exactly right, but a Patrick Kennedy is mentioned as having declined a request from Chris Stevens earlier for support with the idea of hiring “Libyan guards”, but also there’s mention of the new task of the consulate as being to train Libyan security?? (again not sure of my wording (didn’t re-read)).
There is also a reference in that link to Leon Panetta having gone over Chris Stevens head (so to speak) concerning “special forces”:

http://hardnoxandfriends.com/2014/01...chris-stevens/:

During that video conference, Chris stressed that the only way to mitigate the risk was to ensure that U.S. military personnel serving in Libya would have diplomatic immunity, which should be done prior to any change of authority.

Chris understood the importance of the special forces team to the security of our embassy personnel. He believed that by explaining his concerns, the Defense Department would postpone the decision so he could have time to work with the Libyan government and get diplomatic immunity for the special forces.

According to the National Defense Authorization Act, the Defense Department needed Chris’s concurrence to change the special forces mission. But soon after the Aug. 1 meeting, and as a complete surprise to us at the embassy, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta signed the order without Chris’s concurrence.

Please don’t misunderstand, but according to that link there seems to have been some blame directed at Chris Stevens for lack of security because of being too concerned about getting diplomatic immunity and again, I’m not sure, but it seems that’s where Panetta went over his head;
Except it also seems according to that link that State Department undersecretary Patrick Kennedy made the final call on security at Benghazi.
Again, please read that link in its entirety and please correct me where/if I may have unintentionally misinterpreted it.

rex

 

[TaurusRex]

PPS:
Again from my very first post in this thread is the statement by Ahmed Abu Khattala (leader of Ansar al Sharia) that “the attack grew out of a protest against the video”:

thinkprogress.org/security/2012/10/20/1049311/fox-admits-libya-caused-by-video/

the New York Times met with Ahmed Abu Khattala — leader in the Ansar al-Sharia militia suspected by the Libyan and U.S. governments of taking part in the attack — in a Benghazi hotel. While Abu Khattala claimed that he himself did not take part in the assault, he said the attack grew out of a protest against the video.

rex

 

[Jerurussia]

realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/05/01/fmr_security_council_spokesman_tommy_veitor_on_benghazi_dude_this_was_two_years_ago.html

:bigyikes:

 

[vz71]

He miscalculated badly.

Using an injection of humor to gain the interviewer and the audience to your side may work in some instances, but not here.

This shows a misunderstanding of the seriousness of the events.

And this lack of understanding is a prime example of why the current administration should never have been given the office.