Posted on 11/27/2012 8:04:34 AM PST by bryan999
Ayotte interview with Kelley (9 min)
Possibly. But, Lindsey was the one who was the most vocal after the meeting. He may have risen above his normal self.
Herridge reported on Bret Baier’s Special Report:
“A Congressional-memo review by Fox News also suggests AQ-affiliated terrorists were involved, not only in Benghazi, but also assaults on American embassies in Egypt, Yemen, and Tunisia. The research by Tom Joscelyn, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, suggests the terrorist attacks on 9/11 were not isolated events, but rather they were potentially linked.”
This had been reported before but not mentioned in awhile. Not certain if she is referring to Joscelyn’s piece below or has new, substantiating info. That was all she said about it.
I agree entirely that this was another of the purposes for him being ordered to sit in on this meeting. All the tricks are being pulled out.
IMO, he was also there to make careful note of Ms. Rice's presentation to the 3 so that it agrees with the master cover-up plan as laid out by the Master-in-Cheat.
If all the perps go under oath later on, it's important that there's no contradictions or discrepencies in their testimonies....and not too many "I can't remember, my mind's in a blender, it's Jello" dodges.
Leni
Saw the Ayotte interview, she was good, but disappointing that Megan Kelley immediately jumped back into the endless, mindless chitter-chatter about the “fiscal cliff” after the interview.
Saw Cavuto/McCain. What a wasted opportunity.
Thanks for your pings and posts, I appreciate your efforts.
Agree.
Did you also hear tonight (think Baier first reported it) that Morrell told the senators today that the FBI changed the talking points and removed reference to “Al Qaeda” because FBI did not want to jeopardize their “ongoing criminal investigation.”
and THEN, CIA had to notify senators late today that Morrell erred and that it was the CIA that changed talking points and removed “Al Qaeda.”
??? Is it possible they didn’t have their story straight when they walked into the meeting...or was that a deliberate trick Morrell pulled to avoid having to answer subsequent questions on the subject?
I don’t get it.
As Liz Cheney said, “It is now the forth or fifth iteration of who changed the talking points, which isn’t something that happens when you are actually telling the truth.”
This is part of the entire picture. Zawahiri’s brother, his BROTHER led the attack on the embassy in Cairo. They placed an al qaeda flag on the embassy. OWS was also involved. In several other places, al qaeda leaders less well known led ‘protests’. ALL were claiming al qaeda affiliation. ALL were claiming revenge for something, but not for the video. They blended in with the ragtag who were whipped into frenzies by the groups over the video. It was insane.
obama and clinton actually INSTIGATED the violence in Pakistan...days afterward.
obama used the video in his un speech to instigate the muslim world even further. WHY?
Only the Benghazi attack was different. Only the death of Stevens was actually called for. His was the only name mentioned in both al qaeda vids released the day before.
People got so caught up in the petraeus farce, they stopped looking.
And now, looky, looky. The petraeus gambit paid off in spades. A brilliant maneuver. petraeus is home free and even being considered for secretary of defense. It was a game. ALL of it.
But it needs to be put together in a straight line before the lightbulbs come on. There was collusion by our own government from start to what has not finished yet.
And the nsa also claimed responsibility for that. Sidestepping. Head faking. BS!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.