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.
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."
Ok have a hard time understanding why they would label this as a myth.
There is no doubt that if say, the 108th Airborn had dropped down a few minutes after the attack had started then it is very unlikely any of the four would have been killed.
A faster military response would have saved at least some if not all of the four Americans. There is no doubt this is true.
Article scorches Patreus
What ever happened to posting BARF ALERT? Thought the piece was going to take a different (truthful) direction...
Just sayin'...