Benghazi-Gate Enters New Phase: The Cover Up of the Cover Up (Twitter Title )

Breitbart News ^ | 23 Nov 2012, 8:43 AM PDT | John Nolte

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Sources: Intel Community Didn't Rule Out Terrorism in Rice Talking Points

It now looks as though the White House's excuse for the pre-election Libya cover-up is itself a cover up. Last week we were told by the Administration (and the compliant media) that during her now-infamous round robin of five Sunday news shows, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice was only telling us what she was told by the intelligence community. We were also told that references to al-Qaeda were edited out of the talking points in order to avoid tipping off the attackers that we were on to them. According to a number of CBS News' sources, this simply isn't true.

As recently as yesterday, though, Rice doubled down on this defense:

"I relied soley and squarely on the information provided to me by the intelligence community. I made clear that the information was preliminary and that our investigations would give us the definitive answers."

At first glance, Rice's comments might not appear to move the ball, but they do tell us that the Administration has found its defense and intends to stick to it -- that defense being that Rice was only parroting the false information she was given. But now, thanks to some good reporting from CBS News, we know things weren't that simple.

Let's back up just a little bit…

Last week, former CIA Chief Davis Petraeus testified that within a day he knew the assault on our consulate in Benghazi was a premeditated terrorist attack committed by a Libyan militia with ties to al-Qaeda. As a result, Petraeus authorized the release of this information to the public in talking points to be given to the White House and to lawmakers.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

fyi

[Trailerpark Badass]

The focus on what Rice did or didn't say, and who told her to/not to, and why a coupla old white men are picking on this nice black lesbian lady, seems conveniently to distract from the question of what happened while the attack was going on.

Almost like it was planned that way.

[spawn44]

I see. They were using diversionary tactics so as not to TIP OFF THE TERRORISTS that we were on to them. I take back everything I ever said about THE FOREIGNER. With this kind of INSIGHT I know he will make a quality commander in chief. ANDY WHERE’S MY BULLET.

[onyx]

Rice is a lesbo, too? LOL.

[onyx]

This cover up, which the media has happily become a co-conspirator in, was only about winning Obama a second term.

And now the cover up of the cover up is in full swing.

[annieokie]

So it looks like the MATTER OF 4 DEAD men in Benghazi is now off the table, of no consequence, while we die on this stupid hill of who changed the documents.

To the families of those men, I humbly & sorrowfully apologize for our nation of fools and our government of self absorbed pigs who's only concern is preseving their status quo.

To you the parents of LIVE young men and women serving under this REGIME, I humbly and sorrowfully apologize for that, and advice you to advice them to GET OUT ASAP. THEY WILL BE sent into harms way & LEFT FOR DEAD if need be for the sake of politics.

And lastly to you parents, the MEDIA does not care either. They only care when it can be used to defeat a Republican, nothing more. When or if you are ever given the opportunity to speak with the media, quit mincing words, tell them exactly what you think of them and this lying president. They killed your child, what more do you have to lose, speak out.

It wasn't always this way, and I am disgusted.

[justa-hairyape]

There is one possibility that fits the narrative rather well. The attackers wore Al Qeada emblems on their clothes, (reported by a Libyan working in the mission), and they supposedly claimed responsibility for the attack, but what if the attackers were not Al Qeada and were just disguising themselves as Al Qeada ? That could explain why the initial assessment was held back, because they later discovered that Al Qeada was not really responsible ? And there were military regulars involved due to the precise mortar firings on the CIA annex. And Obama/Hillary/NATO have been helping Al Qeada and Muslim Brotherhood insurgents in Syria with funds and possible weapons. So they would not want to be forced to falsely claim Al Qeada attacked them in Libya.

In a nut shell, whoever attacked Benghazi was diabolically brilliant. Much smarter then the clowns running this country right now. They got off scot-free with killing four Americans and shutting down the arms pipeline into Syria.

[PieterCasparzen]

We still don't know why POTUS did not give the cross-border authorization to save his own Ambassador.

[newfreep]

Excerpt from tthe article....

But here's where the plot thickens.

DNI spokesman Shawn Turner told CBS News, "The intelligence community assessed from the very beginning that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack." He added that this classified information was shared with the White House. CBS News then quite correctly concludes that as a member of Obama's cabinet, Susan Rice would would've known this. All cabinet members are given classified briefings.

The bottom line, then, is that during her Sunday show appearances, Rice knew the information she was spreading was false.

[Gator113]

**WHO in the hell gave the damn order to NOT rescue our men in Benghazi?**

[Trailerpark Badass]

According to Wikipedia, she's married, albeit to a Canadian.

The way she waddles like a wrestler, though, I ain't buying it.

[WVKayaker]

Look! Squirrel! (pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!)

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

And I was looking at an article at Hot Air...dated Nov 20....:

CBS: “Office of the DNI” cut al-Qaeda and terrorism references from Benghazi talking points

****************************EXCERPT***********************************************

Nov 20, 2012 11:01 AM by Ed Morrissey

Meet James Clapper — the latest fall guy for the White House on Benghazi. After last week’s hearings in Congress showed that the talking points from the CIA had been changed to eliminate the mention of terrorism, Washington erupted into a whodunit. CBS reports today that the culprit has been found … sort of: ...

****************************************************

Video(CBS) at the link

*********************************************

CBS News has learned that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) cut specific references to “al Qaeda” and “terrorism” from the unclassified talking points given to Ambassador Susan Rice on the Benghazi consulate attack – with the agreement of the CIA and FBI. The White House or State Department did not make those changes. …

However, an intelligence source tells CBS News correspondent Margaret Brennan the links to al Qaeda were deemed too “tenuous” to make public, because there was not strong confidence in the person providing the intelligence. CIA Director David Petraeus, however, told Congress he agreed to release the information — the reference to al Qaeda — in an early draft of the talking points, which were also distributed to select lawmakers.

“The intelligence community assessed from the very beginning that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.” DNI spokesman Shawn Turner tells CBS News. That information was shared at a classified level — which Rice, as a member of President Obama’s cabinet, would have been privy to. …

The head of the DNI is James Clapper, an Obama appointee. He ultimately did review the points, before they were given to Ambassador Rice and members of the House intelligence committee on Sept. 14. They were compiled the day before.

Note that this report doesn’t pin the blame on Clapper himself.  It instead locates the change in Clapper’s “office,” allowing for a rather non-specific assignment that makes almost no sense at all.  Are we to believe that a Clapper aide overruled David Petraeus’ assessment of Benghazi?  If so, on what basis?

The report also states that the reason for the redaction was because the link to AQ was “too tenuous.”  However, the presence of mortars and RPGs, as well as coordinated fire and attack strategies in play, made it clear “almost immediately” to Petraeus and others in the CIA that this was much more than a spontaneous demonstration run amok.  That made the YouTube video explanation rather “tenuous” too, no?  And yet that stayed in the talking points while terrorism got excised.

This explanation seems even more tenuous than the previous stories coming from the White House.  If Petraeus knew “almost immediately” that this was an act of deliberate terrorism and included that in his talking points, then we need an explanation of who in the “office of the DNI” removed that explanation, and why — more than just the “too tenuous” excuse here that turned out to be totally wrong — and whether they got pressured to do so.

[onyx]

OKay...LOL.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

So it looks like the MATTER OF 4 DEAD men in Benghazi is now off the table, of no consequence, while we die on this stupid hill of who changed the documents.

***********************************************************

OK I WILL TAKE A SWING AT THAT!

**************************************************************

IT IS NOT THAT IS OF NO CONSEQUENCE.....

***********************************************************

BUT WHAT WE ARE ESTABLISHING IS THE OVER ALL MOTIVE OF THE PRESIDENT.....IN EVERY LITTLE DETAIL

********************************************************

[BerryDingle]

Where are the Treason and Murder charges?
Who has the authority to tell British assets to "stand down" also?
Who decided to abandon 30 Americans resulting in the death of 4?

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

TO ME:

IT SEEMs .....that it is:

DO NOT ALLOW the WORD AL QUEDA TO APPEAR

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

See #17....