Posted on 05/16/2013 2:17:08 PM PDT by don-o
1.U.N. Ambassador Susan E. Rice gave a deliberately false account of the attack.
2. A faster military response would have saved at least some of the four Americans.
3.Obama and Clinton should not be blamed.
4. The Benghazi attack could not have been predicted.
5. Benghazi is a pseudo-scandal manufactured by the GOP.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
He says it's a myth that Rice gave a misleading account:
"And there is little doubt that Rice’s taped remarks reflected the best intelligence assessment of the attacks at the time."
Really? The video was the best intelligence assessment at the time? And Rice really thought it was true? Blatant lie.
Muddying the waters so Obama doesn't stand out so much.
Typical media trick.
One thing that came out of the hearing the other day with Holder was an exchange with Chaffetz over an investigation of General Petraeus. Freeper Onyx summarized a few of the questions posed by Chaffetz here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3019843/posts?page=491#491
I could not listen to the hearing, but it sounds like there was an attempt to nail down some times about “what did they know and when did they know it.”
It would be impossible to say for sure, but the speculation that Petraeus might testify could be the additional “shoe” to drop in the Benghazi scandal suggested here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3019263/posts
There was some posting to that effect on the thread.
Petraeus is obviously the elephant in the room. The WH is locked in on assigning responsibility for the talking points to CIA. His testimony, in light of what we know today, is vital. I can’t find ant mention of additional hearings, beyond getting Pickering and Mullen to testify about the ARB, While I can understand this approach in challenging the credibility of State, I want substance on what happened on 9/11/12 especially from the military.
One thing I have not seen mentioned goes to the standard boilerplate that the Admin is using “...can’t comment because it’s under investigation”
In the 100 emails, it is stated that the FBI had no problem with the Talking Points 1.0. The CIA obviously has no problem with what they had composed. So, by process of elimination, that leaves only two entities who had a problem - The State Department and the White House.
Added keyword fivemyths
Quote from the article:”On Sunday talk shows five days after the attack, Rice gave interviews based on talking points supplied by U.S. intelligence agencies; she suggested that Stevens’s death resulted from “spontaneous” protests that spread from the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, provoked by a movie trailer lampooning the prophet Muhammad.”
The talking points never mentioned the video. The word video does not appear in the talking points.
bump for more FReeper participation. We cannot let Benghazi get overshadowed.
"Cintoon was covering-up our real mission in Benghazi. It was a *kidnap US Ambassador to exchange for blind shiek* scam, that went very wrong, when 2 SEALS fought back and ruined the plan. They didn’t want any defense back then; the 4 deaths have now forced them to arm the Consulate extension bldgs. Stevens, and his homo Libyan boyfriends, were running guns to murderous islamists and trying to buy-back MANPADS w/ CIA-supplied cash. CIA also had a rendition/holding facility for terrorists. There was so much going on there in Benghazi and throughout the ME, I’m thinking they’re glad that only some small parts of it’s come out, so far. If America heard the entire story, so many heads would explode that we’d run out of duct tape.
Many articles have carried all the pieces, but no single article has put it all together, yet, and it sure won’t come out during the BS “hearings”, which’ll go nowhere and net nothing. 0traitor is untouchable on any of this. Like his life, his part in this is sanitized, sealed and secured."
Also, As I said on that thread, they KNEW (and planned) this, but didn’t want any interference in the kidnap-exchange plan, so they had all avail assets - near and far - stand down, twice ordered by 0traitor. Fired Gens and Adms attest to that. SEALS Woods & Doherty messed-up the original plan. (Post #122)
On the same thread, remember the WH SitRoom pics of the OBL raid? Why nothing like that, on this? Because it wasn’t supposed to happen. It was to be a kidnap-exchange op, pre-Nov 6 GE, to blow air up 0traitor’s dress. If all had gone as “planned”, 0dirtbag would have “handled it” from AF1 on way to Vegas fundraiser, next day.
Where’d he go after 5pm call/mtg w/ Hitlery. Sanitized, sealed & secured. Forever. I can imagine 10-20 scenarios, though... (Post #134)
So you are lining up behind post 37?
I have not looked at that closely. My initial reaction is that it's a little "out there" but, I started this thread to accommodate all POV's.
I am.
I think at that point, they were afraid of Nov 6 GE, and were plotting it as a ‘fallback’, since Stevens was now arming the murderous MB/islamists, and trying to get the MANPADS back so US and allies’ planes, worldwide, wouldn’t get shot down, a la TWA 800, and others.
Sure, it’s more complex and convoluted than I would expect, but the MB and other 0traitor muzzie allies wanted the blind sheik released. That would have been a huge symbolic victory over the West, for them. And 0liar was more than willing to accommodate; with Valerie Jarrett in on the planning.
Gen Petraeus could shed some serious reality on this, if he wasn’t destined to wind-up like Vince Foster. I’d think, though, he’d have more than enough SF people to protect his/family’s butts.
JMO.
A Viet Nam era F-4 pilot lays out help could have been sent
FReeper MestaMachine has been on Benghazi from the get go
9/12/12 story from Brit press debunking the video story that the Regime was concocting.
Bookmark
The weapons transfer aspect
Rice knew no later than 9/12 that it was a planned terrorist attack, not a spontaneous demonstration over a crappy video, after being briefed by the head of the Libyan government.
2. A faster military response would have saved at least some of the four Americans.
We'll never know for sure, but at least two of them might have been saved with a more rapid response.
3.Obama and Clinton should not be blamed. 4. The Benghazi attack could not have been predicted. 5. Benghazi is a pseudo-scandal manufactured by the GOP.
They're right that these three are indeed myths.
Misleading wording. The construction says that Susan Rice deliberately misled - and that may be incorrect. However, with every voice on the ground (I agree with Uncle Miltie) saying it was a planned attack, and with the known gyrations on editing the talking points from the CIA, it is clear that Susan Rice was (at least) given a deliberately false account of the attack to present. She may not have known of the deception, but she was definitely the face of it.
2. A faster military response would have saved at least some of the four Americans.
Like most people, I do not claim to be a psychic. That's the crux of this whopper. It predicts to a certainty.
However, it is unarguable that military assets in country and in the region could have reached the site before the actual fighting ended, if the political hacks in the White House could have made a decision in a timely fashion. The fact that nobody was ever authorized to go to their aid (including the two operators that died) means that military was never given the chance to try.
3.Obama and Clinton should not be blamed.
Well, given that it was their JOBS to protect the compound, support those stationed there, and make fast decisions (which is different than dithering until the decision is moot), I'm unclear as to what exculpatory reasons they could have for not being blamed.
"What does it matter now?" Even Hillary admits that the debacle was a fiasco, but she's not into crying over spilled milk - er, blood.
As far as Obama is concerned, consider that the President is the only person - the ONE - who can authorize cross-border action by the military, and he manifestly failed to do so. He disappeared for hours, then went to Vegas to play with his dice...
I would say dereliction of duty is somewhat less than exculpatory.
4. The Benghazi attack could not have been predicted.
Well, apparently someone forgot to tell the people who DID predict it. Based on recent history of attacks at the compound, and on chatter, Ambassador Stevens asked several times for heightened security at the compound. That sounds pretty darned predictive to me.
Besides, who could have predicted that the anniversary of 9/11/2001 would be a date for such an attack? (rhetorical answer: Even the blind sheik could see this one coming!)
5. Benghazi is a pseudo-scandal manufactured by the GOP.
Ah, projection in the springtime! I won't even discuss the politics here. The Obama administration has used every tactic they had at their disposal to not answer any questions, and the author of this dreck says it's the people asking questions fault?
The GOP had nothing to do with Amb. Steven's whereabouts, the lack of security, or the lack of response to the situation. 4 Americans are dead because of those 3 items. This last piece of excrement is pure political posturing - and it's NOT coming from the Republican side of the aisle.
2/7/13 - Defense Secretary Leon Panetta testified this morning on Capitol Hill that President Barack Obama was absent the night four Americans were murdered in Benghazi on September 11, 2012: Panetta said, though he did meet with Obama at a 5 o'clock prescheduled gathering, the president left operational details, including knowledge of what resources were available to help the Americans under siege, "up to us."
In fact, Panetta says that the night of 9/11, he did not communicate with a single person at the White House. The attack resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.
Obama did not call or communicate in anyway with the defense secretary that night. There were no calls about what was going on in Benghazi. He never called to check-in.
The 5 o'clock meeting was a pre-scheduled 30-minute session, where, according to Panetta's recollection, they spent about 20 minutes talking a lot about the American embassy that was surrounded in Egypt and the situation that was just unfolding in Benghazi.
As Bill Kristol wrote in the month after the attack, "Panetta's position is untenable: The Defense Department doesn't get to unilaterally decide whether it's too risky or not to try to rescue CIA operators, or to violate another country's air space. In any case, it's inconceivable Panetta didn't raise the question of what to do when he met with the national security adviser and the president at 5 p.m. on the evening of September 11 for an hour. And it's beyond inconceivable he didn't then stay in touch with the White House after he returned to the Pentagon."
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.