Thread: Another US Embassy Under Siege

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

not to see the attack in Benghazi as a terrorist attack as the original CIA report said

The CIA are the ones responsible for putting in "spontaneous attack by extremists". It was in every version of the talking points.

Originally Posted by Humbert

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

not to see the attack in Benghazi as a terrorist attack as the original CIA report said

The CIA are the ones responsible for putting in "spontaneous attack by extremists". It was in every version of the talking points.

The original CIA talking points had been blunt: The assault on U.S. facilities in Benghazi was a terrorist attack conducted by a large group of Islamic extremists, including some with ties to al Qaeda.
These were strong claims. The CIA usually qualifies its assessments, providing policymakers a sense of whether the conclusions of its analysis are offered with “high confidence,” “moderate confidence,” or “low confidence.” That first draft signaled confidence, even certainty: “We do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda participated in the attack.”
There was good reason for this conviction. Within 24 hours of the attack, the U.S. government had intercepted communications between two al Qaeda-linked terrorists discussing the attacks in Benghazi. One of the jihadists, a member of Ansar al Sharia, reported to the other that he had participated in the assault on the U.S. diplomatic post. Solid evidence. And there was more. Later that same day, the CIA station chief in Libya had sent a memo back to Washington, reporting that eyewitnesses to the attack said the participants were known jihadists, with ties to al Qaeda.

Note the lack of emphasis on spontaneity.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Why were the talking points changed 12 times and counting?

Because that's what happens in a bureaucracy. Are your really that naïve? When Boehner and Obama emerge from a meeting don't you think the press is handed a sugar coated version of what happened? It's never going to be "Oh, they told each other to fuck off a dozen times and slammed the table in anger".

Originally Posted by misskit

Anyone paying attention?

They, our dear government damn sure should be.

Here ya go Booners. Just one of my many criticisms of Obama.

Obama should be leading the charge. His failure to do more than give it lip service is a breach of leadership.

Obama and the Justice Department should listen to that woman and not protect the "too big to fail" crowd.

Yes, criticize Obama for this!

Originally Posted by misskit

APGate gets a rise from reporters

Me too- but I am not blinkered enough to see this purely through antiObama spec's, rather as a continuation of policies of the US government sector- removing, insulating and cloistering them from the US citizenry, ie 'general public'. 'Inside the Beltway' is an oligarchy now, with both Democrat And Republican members.

The security state is not a partisan agenda, it is a government agenda.

Originally Posted by misskit

Obama and the Justice Department should listen to that woman and not protect the "too big to fail" crowd.

Yes, criticize Obama for this!

Unfortunately the Fed and the Banking system has a gun to any President's head.

You wonder if the system can ever be reined in without completely rebuilding it from scratch.

Originally Posted by Humbert

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Why were the talking points changed 12 times and counting?

Because that's what happens in a bureaucracy. Are your really that naïve? When Boehner and Obama emerge from a meeting don't you think the press is handed a sugar coated version of what happened? It's never going to be "Oh, they told each other to fuck off a dozen times and slammed the table in anger".

Afraid you're the naive one here Humbert. Taking every line from the Obama Administration as Gospel. The reason those talking points were changed multiple times is these crooks cannot get their stories straight.

What about those pesky WH emails that didn't mention the video once?

Forgot about that, did you?

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

You wonder if the system can ever be reined in without completely rebuilding it from scratch.

There is no chance of ever reining in the American political system. As you can see by the posting activity in these threads it is doing its job. Distracting the American people from the real problems and enabling the corporapists to continue robbing the working man.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

What about those pesky WH emails that didn't mention the video once?

I Was Promised a Cover-Up

I was told there was going to be a cover-up. After reading the 100 pages of emails related to the Benghazi media talking points, I’m hard-pressed to find evidence for the most damning accusations against the president and his staff. If they were involved, they were once again leading from behind.

The most incendiary charge aimed at the president is that, in order to insulate himself in an election year, he and his team made up a fake story about a "spontaneous uprising" in Benghazi and downplayed intelligence that it could have been a premeditated attack by known terrorist organizations. There has been so much spinning from the president and his staff in the aftermath of the attack, this storyline seems possible—when the public spin is this bad it is easy to imagine deeper rot. The emails help your imagination along. They destroy the impression left last November by White House spokesman Jay Carney that only a single word was changed in the process, which can get your adrenaline up. But when you pull on the thread in search of evidence for the Big Story, your heartbeat slows. The emails show a lot of CIA and State Department action, but comparatively little White House meddling, and certainly nothing near the level of meddling that would be required to put in the big fix.
One of the challenges of figuring out what's a cover-up, what's a lie, and what's just spin in this Benghazi drama is that this entire discussion is about media talking points. Talking points produced to guide members of Congress in their conversations with the media are not the product of sodium pentothal. They are created to put the best face on an event and to coordinate spin so that everyone in the administration, campaign, or party caucus has the story straight. That means if you don't see bureaucratic ass-covering and efforts to make the interesting appear bland, you're not reading
talking points.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a..._evidence.html

Originally Posted by Humbert

The most incendiary charge aimed at the president is that

He won the election, and crushed the opposition. Losers never forget.

I was told there was going to be a cover-up.

so too, were the right wingers on this board.

some are slowly starting to realize that they've been duped....again.

the dimmest continue on......desperately waiting for that scandal which will be the one to bring down obama once and for all.

Originally Posted by raycarey

I was told there was going to be a cover-up.

so too, were the right wingers on this board.

some are slowly starting to realize that they've been duped....again.

the dimmest continue on......desperately waiting for that scandal which will be the one to bring down obama once and for all.

There's no question a coverup took place. The question now is who sourced it? Who briefed Ambassador Rice?

It's beginning to look like much of it came from the State dept in CYA mode. But the State dept and the White House are just the left and right hands of the same body. Who is the head anyway?
Which hand is washing the other is almost a moot point!

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

Who briefed Ambassador Rice?

the CIA

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

State dept in CYA mode

As opposed to politics and government? Or Big Business and bureaucracy? Or lawyers?

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

Who is the head anyway?

It's a Gorgon.

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

There's no question a coverup took place.

of course, earl.

of course.

no question at all.

^Ray you simply aren't paying attention if you can't smell a rat here.
Let's see what could be the reason for that......

Originally Posted by sabang

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

Who briefed Ambassador Rice?

the CIA

Then how did Ambassador Rice's narrative differ so completely from the original CIA report. The CIA never mentions any video or spontaneous demonstrations.
Where did that fiction come from?

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

Originally Posted by sabang

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

Who briefed Ambassador Rice?

the CIA

Then how did Ambassador Rice's narrative differ so completely from the original CIA report. The CIA never mentions any video or spontaneous demonstrations.
Where did that fiction come from?

Heh...Earl, buddy, where you been last few months?

The coverup started the minute Val Jar (Valrie Jarrett) realized boy wonder went to bed that night leaving his Ambassador to fend for himself.

Out trotted that video!

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

^Ray you simply aren't paying attention if you can't smell a rat here.
Let's see what could be the reason for that......

Originally Posted by sabang

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

Who briefed Ambassador Rice?

the CIA

Then how did Ambassador Rice's narrative differ so completely from the original CIA report. The CIA never mentions any video or spontaneous demonstrations.
Where did that fiction come from?

The original CIA report? We are talking about the 'talking points' originally drafted by the CIA and subsequently revised by CIA and State, Earl. What are you referring to. In the first days after the attack there was no 'definitive' report or conclusion drawn based upon actual investigation.

^
All that is simply smoke & mirrors.

Rice was trotted out 1/2 dozen times to make the talk show circuit and every time she opened her gob, out came the same old, same old.

"The Video Was The Root Of All"!

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

"The Video Was The Root Of All"!

All embassies and consulates were on high alert at the time following the violent, demonstrations in Cairo that were a direct result of the video. You seem to have developed amnesia regarding that fact. Why is it so hard for you to accept that the CIA and State department linked that violence to the incidents in Cairo?

Originally Posted by Humbert

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

"The Video Was The Root Of All"!

All embassies and consulates were on high alert at the time following the violent, demonstrations in Cairo that were a direct result of the video. You seem to have developed amnesia regarding that fact. Why is it so hard for you to accept that the CIA and State department linked that violence to the incidents in Cairo?

Why is it so hard for you to accept that the Benghazi coverup began with the video, eh?

And, why is it so hard for you to accept that extra security was requested weeks before for Ambassador Stevens but was blown off?

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

And, why is it so hard for you to accept that extra security was requested weeks before for Ambassador Stevens but was blown off?

It was denied because Republicans defeated the request for appropriations for additional security for US missions abroad.

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

There's no question a coverup took place.

Yup. We'd better get to the bottom of this-


It's Official: Those Bogus Email Leaks Came From Republicans

today Major Garrett made it official: the leaks that misquoted the Benghazi emails came directly from Republicans. Here's the report on the CBS Evening News:
It's Official: Those Bogus Email Leaks Came From Republicans | Mother Jones


Another remaining thread of republican credibility under siege. Andrew Breitbart would be so proud.


FAIL