U.S. Ambassador to Libya Killed in Rocket Attack (1 Viewer)

[Ookie Pringle]

Sept. 16: Libya President Mohamed Magariaf says on CBS News’ “Face the Nation” that the attack on the U.S. consulate was planned months in advance. But Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, tells CBS News’ Bob Schieffer: “We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.” She says it began “spontaneously … as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo,” and “extremist elements” joined in the protest. (It was later learned that Rice received her information from talking points developed by the CIA.)

Update, May 16, 2013: The talking points given to Rice were extensively revised, largely at the request of the State Department. The original CIA talking points said, “We do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.” And they said that “nitial press reporting linked the attack to Ansar al-Sharia.” References to al-Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia were removed. However, all of the drafts say the attack began “spontaneously” in response to the Cairo protest. Read our article “Benghazi Attack, Revisited” for more information on what changes were made to the talking points.


Update, May 2, 2014: Two days before Rice’s appearance on the Sunday talk show circuit, Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes sent an email to other administration officials, including White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, with the subject line “PREP CALL with Susan: Saturday at 4:00 pm ET.” Rhodes’ email outlined four “goals” for Rice’s TV appearances. One of the goals: “To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.” The email contained a mock Q&A session, and the third question asked whether the Benghazi attack was “an intelligence failure.” The answer in the email parroted — nearly word for word — Rice’s talking points when it said: “The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US Consulate and subsequently its annex.” The Rhodes email was released April 29 by Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group that obtained 41 State Department documents under the Freedom of Information Act.

Seems to be reasonable thing that someone could say 4 days after the attack - certainly a lawyer could work with the bolded to eliminate any impeachable offenses - let's call it a white lie until they knew for sure. They just did not want to answer the questions without a little more knowledge? I would also venture to say that anyone from any administration that appears on a Sunday show goes thru a vetting process of their answers. So are we really surprised there was a call/email to get a story straight before going on TV?

So it is reasonable for one of the goals of Rice's appearance was “To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.” Even though they knew it was a planned attack at that point.

at the present(sept 16) - to conclude - yes - she's the United Nations Ambassador for crying out loud. She drew the short straw to go on Face the Nation that Sunday. I'm not expecting anything other than some cleaned up crap to be spewed on the Sunday shows anyway. It's typical State Dept speak - crap like "broader failure of policy" And the using the video story was the perfect State Dept crap to talk about on a Sunday show.
Now if she had been in front of a committee talking about the video when she knew better? Then we have a problem.

Oh, so you have no problems with her lying. Shocking.

 

[RBM]

Sept. 16: Libya President Mohamed Magariaf says on CBS News’ “Face the Nation” that the attack on the U.S. consulate was planned months in advance. But Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, tells CBS News’ Bob Schieffer: “We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.” She says it began “spontaneously … as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo,” and “extremist elements” joined in the protest. (It was later learned that Rice received her information from talking points developed by the CIA.)

Update, May 16, 2013: The talking points given to Rice were extensively revised, largely at the request of the State Department. The original CIA talking points said, “We do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.” And they said that “nitial press reporting linked the attack to Ansar al-Sharia.” References to al-Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia were removed. However, all of the drafts say the attack began “spontaneously” in response to the Cairo protest. Read our article “Benghazi Attack, Revisited” for more information on what changes were made to the talking points.

Update, May 2, 2014: Two days before Rice’s appearance on the Sunday talk show circuit, Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes sent an email to other administration officials, including White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, with the subject line “PREP CALL with Susan: Saturday at 4:00 pm ET.” Rhodes’ email outlined four “goals” for Rice’s TV appearances. One of the goals: “To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.” The email contained a mock Q&A session, and the third question asked whether the Benghazi attack was “an intelligence failure.” The answer in the email parroted — nearly word for word — Rice’s talking points when it said: “The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US Consulate and subsequently its annex.” The Rhodes email was released April 29 by Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group that obtained 41 State Department documents under the Freedom of Information Act.

Seems to be reasonable thing that someone could say 4 days after the attack - certainly a lawyer could work with the bolded to eliminate any impeachable offenses - let's call it a white lie until they knew for sure. They just did not want to answer the questions without a little more knowledge? I would also venture to say that anyone from any administration that appears on a Sunday show goes thru a vetting process of their answers. So are we really surprised there was a call/email to get a story straight before going on TV?

So it is reasonable for one of the goals of Rice's appearance was “To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.” Even though they knew it was a planned attack at that point.

They didn't know it was a planned attack at that time.

Yes they did.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I bolded the obvious explanation for the contrast between the comments in the immediate wake of the attack and the comments a few days later in my most recent post. It's a pretty concise summary of what I and others have said over and over and over again. It's supported by extensive testimony and has yet to be contradicted.

I don't really know how else to explain it. If you're so inclined to believe in conspiracy theories with dubious purposes that you refuse to admit that the simplest explanation, an explanation that is backed unanimously by testimony, an explanation that has not been refuted by a single thing produced in an investigation that now spans years, is the correct one, I don't know what else to tell you. Seek help, I guess.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

Unbelievable. Did you read Tobias' link just a few posts above yours? If not please read it and respond. If that article doesn't show you why it wasn't a deliberate lie, nothing ever will.

That's right....I forgot that Hillary never deliberately lies and you think she is a very honest and honorable person.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

Seek help, I guess.

Can you refer me to your therapist?

 

[TobiasFunke]

Sept. 16: Libya President Mohamed Magariaf says on CBS News’ “Face the Nation” that the attack on the U.S. consulate was planned months in advance. But Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, tells CBS News’ Bob Schieffer: “We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.” She says it began “spontaneously … as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo,” and “extremist elements” joined in the protest. (It was later learned that Rice received her information from talking points developed by the CIA.)

Update, May 16, 2013: The talking points given to Rice were extensively revised, largely at the request of the State Department. The original CIA talking points said, “We do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.” And they said that “nitial press reporting linked the attack to Ansar al-Sharia.” References to al-Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia were removed. However, all of the drafts say the attack began “spontaneously” in response to the Cairo protest. Read our article “Benghazi Attack, Revisited” for more information on what changes were made to the talking points.

Update, May 2, 2014: Two days before Rice’s appearance on the Sunday talk show circuit, Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes sent an email to other administration officials, including White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, with the subject line “PREP CALL with Susan: Saturday at 4:00 pm ET.” Rhodes’ email outlined four “goals” for Rice’s TV appearances. One of the goals: “To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.” The email contained a mock Q&A session, and the third question asked whether the Benghazi attack was “an intelligence failure.” The answer in the email parroted — nearly word for word — Rice’s talking points when it said: “The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US Consulate and subsequently its annex.” The Rhodes email was released April 29 by Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group that obtained 41 State Department documents under the Freedom of Information Act.

Seems to be reasonable thing that someone could say 4 days after the attack - certainly a lawyer could work with the bolded to eliminate any impeachable offenses - let's call it a white lie until they knew for sure. They just did not want to answer the questions without a little more knowledge? I would also venture to say that anyone from any administration that appears on a Sunday show goes thru a vetting process of their answers. So are we really surprised there was a call/email to get a story straight before going on TV?

So it is reasonable for one of the goals of Rice's appearance was “To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.” Even though they knew it was a planned attack at that point.

They didn't know it was a planned attack at that time.

Yes they did.

Can you give me a link to evidence supporting this? Not evidence that they claimed to know it on September 11 or 12, but that they knew on September 16, after the contradictory CIA intelligence came in?

And while you're at it maybe go ahead and send the link to the Committee, because they don't have it either.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Here's the New Republic on Wednesday, accurately predicting and then throwing water on this "they lied about the cause of the attacks" thing being the dominant conservative tack during and after the hearings:

The mildest but most politically acceptable Benghazi conspiracy theory holds that in the aftermath of the attacks, the Obama administration fabricated a claim that the attack on our outpost there grew out of a spontaneous protest, in order to mislead the country into believing we weren’t caught off guard by a planned act of terrorism.

There is ample evidence demonstrating that this theory is false. But there are also plenty of ways to create the impression that it’s true. For instance, the Benghazi committee’s Democrats recently compiled a report based on every interview the panel has conducted to date. Their conclusion, though partisan, reflects the well substantiated view that none of the Republican-fueled Benghazi allegations and conspiracy theories—including the aforementioned coverup theory—have any merit. However, the same report includes call notes from a September 12, 2012 conversation between Clinton and then-Egyptian Prime Minister Heshvan Kandi in which Clinton said, “We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack—not a protest.”

Subsequent revelations cast this initial assessment into doubt, driving the intelligence analysis temporarily toward the incorrect conclusion that a protest gave rise to the attack. But stripped of that context, it looks like Clinton and the Obama administration knew full well, all along, that the attack was premeditated, and then lied about it. An overwhelming number of Benghazi leaks and allegations involve the same kind of deceptive decontextualization, and have turned the true history of the attacks into a cynical and exploitative hall of mirrors.

Clinton has already addressed these apparent-but-not-actual inconsistencies at length, as has basically everybody swept up in the process of sorting out what really happened. In June of last year, she told Fox, “This was the fog of war. My own assessment careened from the video had something to do with it, the video had nothing to do with it; it may have affected some people, it didn’t affect other people…. So I was trying to make sense of it. And I think that the investigations that have been carried out basically conclude we can’t say that everybody was influenced and we can’t say everybody wasn’t, but what the intelligence community said was spontaneous protests, and that is what at the time they thought."

The aftermath of the attack in Benghazi was marked by genuine confusion, which took a great deal of time and effort to sort out. That’s the nature of chaotic events. Years later, it's possible to isolate stray thoughts, or comments, or preliminary conclusions that make it look like all the facts were known right away, and that the administration’s initial vagueness and uncertainty was a product of intentional dissembling. This is the tack I expect Benghazi committee Republicans to take. To wind the tape on all of this back to the week and months after the attacks, when conspiracy theories first took hold, because it still wasn’t clear who knew what, and when. And they can do that without subjecting Clinton to the kind of abuse so many people expect them to.

Of course they had to indulge in a little abuse, because they couldn't help themselves, but otherwise this pretty much nails it.

I just want to say I think this is good stuff.

It also links to the Democratic staff report, which states:

Once the video footage and FBI reporting from interviews of personnel on the ground in Benghazi during the attacks became available, the CIA changed its assessment. As explained in the bipartisan report issued by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence: “Once the video footage became available on September 18, 2012, two days after Ambassador Rice spoke, and FBI reporting from interviews with U.S. officials on the ground began to be published on September 22, 2012, CIA changed its judgment and made it clear in a WIRe that ran on September 24ththat CIA now assessed that no protest had occurred outside the TMF.”

It would be good if people hung their hat on something. It's worth noting and I hope it is agreed to that the US government no longer views the movie as an actual source of the attack. It has not for a long, long time. That's the Democratic staff report, p. 31.

It's two different things: 1. what we know now, and 2. what the government knew then.

I think there may have also been conflation of those doing on the ground reporting, whether intelligence sources or media: attacks "inspired by" the movie as opposed to "taking advantage of" the chaos caused by the movie. I have always thought the former absurd given the situation in Libya for the 2 years prior to the attack and the situation in Benghazi which our administration was repeatedly warned about, but I can totally see the latter ie how terrorists/militia would see 9/11/12 as a perfect day to launch an attack and cause confusion and spread disinformation, which indeed we bit on and continue to. It's really crazy that we as a people struggle over this breadcrumb left for us by Ansar while the real facts in the mideast are harrowing and this whole event is a microcosm of that.

 

[ffldrew]

Sept. 16: Libya President Mohamed Magariaf says on CBS News’ “Face the Nation” that the attack on the U.S. consulate was planned months in advance. But Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, tells CBS News’ Bob Schieffer: “We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.” She says it began “spontaneously … as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo,” and “extremist elements” joined in the protest. (It was later learned that Rice received her information from talking points developed by the CIA.)

Update, May 16, 2013: The talking points given to Rice were extensively revised, largely at the request of the State Department. The original CIA talking points said, “We do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.” And they said that “nitial press reporting linked the attack to Ansar al-Sharia.” References to al-Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia were removed. However, all of the drafts say the attack began “spontaneously” in response to the Cairo protest. Read our article “Benghazi Attack, Revisited” for more information on what changes were made to the talking points.

Update, May 2, 2014: Two days before Rice’s appearance on the Sunday talk show circuit, Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes sent an email to other administration officials, including White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, with the subject line “PREP CALL with Susan: Saturday at 4:00 pm ET.” Rhodes’ email outlined four “goals” for Rice’s TV appearances. One of the goals: “To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.” The email contained a mock Q&A session, and the third question asked whether the Benghazi attack was “an intelligence failure.” The answer in the email parroted — nearly word for word — Rice’s talking points when it said: “The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US Consulate and subsequently its annex.” The Rhodes email was released April 29 by Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group that obtained 41 State Department documents under the Freedom of Information Act.

Seems to be reasonable thing that someone could say 4 days after the attack - certainly a lawyer could work with the bolded to eliminate any impeachable offenses - let's call it a white lie until they knew for sure. They just did not want to answer the questions without a little more knowledge? I would also venture to say that anyone from any administration that appears on a Sunday show goes thru a vetting process of their answers. So are we really surprised there was a call/email to get a story straight before going on TV?

So it is reasonable for one of the goals of Rice's appearance was “To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.” Even though they knew it was a planned attack at that point.

at the present(sept 16) - to conclude - yes - she's the United Nations Ambassador for crying out loud. She drew the short straw to go on Face the Nation that Sunday. I'm not expecting anything other than some cleaned up crap to be spewed on the Sunday shows anyway. It's typical State Dept speak - crap like "broader failure of policy" And the using the video story was the perfect State Dept crap to talk about on a Sunday show. Now if she had been in front of a committee talking about the video when she knew better? Then we have a problem.

Oh, so you have no problems with her lying. Shocking.

Don't forget to pick up your winnings at the window on your way out Inspector Renault.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

Sept. 16: Libya President Mohamed Magariaf says on CBS News’ “Face the Nation” that the attack on the U.S. consulate was planned months in advance. But Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, tells CBS News’ Bob Schieffer: “We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.” She says it began “spontaneously … as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo,” and “extremist elements” joined in the protest. (It was later learned that Rice received her information from talking points developed by the CIA.)

Update, May 16, 2013: The talking points given to Rice were extensively revised, largely at the request of the State Department. The original CIA talking points said, “We do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.” And they said that “nitial press reporting linked the attack to Ansar al-Sharia.” References to al-Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia were removed. However, all of the drafts say the attack began “spontaneously” in response to the Cairo protest. Read our article “Benghazi Attack, Revisited” for more information on what changes were made to the talking points.


Update, May 2, 2014: Two days before Rice’s appearance on the Sunday talk show circuit, Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes sent an email to other administration officials, including White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, with the subject line “PREP CALL with Susan: Saturday at 4:00 pm ET.” Rhodes’ email outlined four “goals” for Rice’s TV appearances. One of the goals: “To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.” The email contained a mock Q&A session, and the third question asked whether the Benghazi attack was “an intelligence failure.” The answer in the email parroted — nearly word for word — Rice’s talking points when it said: “The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US Consulate and subsequently its annex.” The Rhodes email was released April 29 by Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group that obtained 41 State Department documents under the Freedom of Information Act.

Seems to be reasonable thing that someone could say 4 days after the attack - certainly a lawyer could work with the bolded to eliminate any impeachable offenses - let's call it a white lie until they knew for sure. They just did not want to answer the questions without a little more knowledge? I would also venture to say that anyone from any administration that appears on a Sunday show goes thru a vetting process of their answers. So are we really surprised there was a call/email to get a story straight before going on TV?

So it is reasonable for one of the goals of Rice's appearance was “To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.” Even though they knew it was a planned attack at that point.

They didn't know it was a planned attack at that time.

Yes they did.

Can you give me a link to evidence supporting this? Not evidence that they claimed to know it on September 11 or 12, but that they knew on September 16, after the contradictory CIA intelligence came in?And while you're at it maybe go ahead and send the link to the Committee, because they don't have it either.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-state-department-almost-immediately-labeled-benghazi-attack-as-terrorism-event/

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-state-department-almost-immediately-labeled-benghazi-attack-as-terrorism-event/

Objection: non-responsive.

 

[Aerial Assault]

Holy #### you nut job Ds are doubling down on the lie.

Making complete fools of yourselves.

Your signal to noise ratio is astonishing. Sorry, don't mean to interrupt; just had to let you know.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Can you give me a link to evidence supporting this? Not evidence that they claimed to know it on September 11 or 12, but that they knew on September 16, after the contradictory CIA intelligence came in?

And while you're at it maybe go ahead and send the link to the Committee, because they don't have it either.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-state-department-almost-immediately-labeled-benghazi-attack-as-terrorism-event/

Lets try one more time. I'll bold the key condition for you to make it harder to miss.

Can you give me a link to evidence supporting this? Not evidence that they claimed to know it on September 11 or 12, but that they knew on September 16, after the contradictory CIA intelligence came in?

 

[George Jefferson Airplane]

Sept. 16: Libya President Mohamed Magariaf says on CBS News’ “Face the Nation” that the attack on the U.S. consulate was planned months in advance. But Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, tells CBS News’ Bob Schieffer: “We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.” She says it began “spontaneously … as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo,” and “extremist elements” joined in the protest. (It was later learned that Rice received her information from talking points developed by the CIA.)

Update, May 16, 2013: The talking points given to Rice were extensively revised, largely at the request of the State Department. The original CIA talking points said, “We do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.” And they said that “nitial press reporting linked the attack to Ansar al-Sharia.” References to al-Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia were removed. However, all of the drafts say the attack began “spontaneously” in response to the Cairo protest. Read our article “Benghazi Attack, Revisited” for more information on what changes were made to the talking points.

Update, May 2, 2014: Two days before Rice’s appearance on the Sunday talk show circuit, Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes sent an email to other administration officials, including White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, with the subject line “PREP CALL with Susan: Saturday at 4:00 pm ET.” Rhodes’ email outlined four “goals” for Rice’s TV appearances. One of the goals: “To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.” The email contained a mock Q&A session, and the third question asked whether the Benghazi attack was “an intelligence failure.” The answer in the email parroted — nearly word for word — Rice’s talking points when it said: “The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US Consulate and subsequently its annex.” The Rhodes email was released April 29 by Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group that obtained 41 State Department documents under the Freedom of Information Act.

Seems to be reasonable thing that someone could say 4 days after the attack - certainly a lawyer could work with the bolded to eliminate any impeachable offenses - let's call it a white lie until they knew for sure. They just did not want to answer the questions without a little more knowledge? I would also venture to say that anyone from any administration that appears on a Sunday show goes thru a vetting process of their answers. So are we really surprised there was a call/email to get a story straight before going on TV?

So it is reasonable for one of the goals of Rice's appearance was “To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.” Even though they knew it was a planned attack at that point.

They didn't know it was a planned attack at that time.

Yes they did.

Can you give me a link to evidence supporting this?

No

 

[Ookie Pringle]

Can you give me a link to evidence supporting this? Not evidence that they claimed to know it on September 11 or 12, but that they knew on September 16, after the contradictory CIA intelligence came in?



And while you're at it maybe go ahead and send the link to the Committee, because they don't have it either.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-state-department-almost-immediately-labeled-benghazi-attack-as-terrorism-event/

Lets try one more time. I'll bold the key condition for you to make it harder to miss.


Can you give me a link to evidence supporting this? Not evidence that they claimed to know it on September 11 or 12, but that they knew on September 16, after the contradictory CIA intelligence came in?

I guess you missed this part....Last week, Judicial Watch reported that it had obtained more than 100 pages of previously classified “Secret” documents from the Department of Defense and the Department of State revealing that DOD knew almost immediately that the Benghazi attack was committed by the al Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood-linked “Brigades of the Captive Omar Abdul Rahman” (BCOAR), and had been planned at least 10 days in advance.

What CIA evidence came out after all of these 100 pages of classified emails that contradicted this?

 

[timschochet]

Can you give me a link to evidence supporting this? Not evidence that they claimed to know it on September 11 or 12, but that they knew on September 16, after the contradictory CIA intelligence came in?



And while you're at it maybe go ahead and send the link to the Committee, because they don't have it either.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-state-department-almost-immediately-labeled-benghazi-attack-as-terrorism-event/

Lets try one more time. I'll bold the key condition for you to make it harder to miss.

Can you give me a link to evidence supporting this? Not evidence that they claimed to know it on September 11 or 12, but that they knew on September 16, after

the contradictory CIA intelligence came in?

I guess you missed this part....Last week, Judicial Watch reported that it had obtained more than 100 pages of previously classified “Secret” documents from the Department of Defense and the Department of State revealing that DOD knew almost immediately that the Benghazi attack was committed by the al Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood-linked “Brigades of the Captive Omar Abdul Rahman” (BCOAR), and had been planned at least 10 days in advance.

I don't think you read his question correctly.

 

[timschochet]

Tobias, maybe we should give up. It's not just Ookie Pringle and RBM here, it's practically every conservative talking head on Fox News, it's Rush Limbaugh, it's Mark Levin, it's even Hugh Hewitt whom I regard as a pretty thoughtful guy. They've all bought into this. I suppose they all just hate Hillary so much they're willing to believe anything. It's pretty sad.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Can you give me a link to evidence supporting this? Not evidence that they claimed to know it on September 11 or 12, but that they knew on September 16, after the contradictory CIA intelligence came in?



And while you're at it maybe go ahead and send the link to the Committee, because they don't have it either.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-state-department-almost-immediately-labeled-benghazi-attack-as-terrorism-event/

Lets try one more time. I'll bold the key condition for you to make it harder to miss.

Can you give me a link to evidence supporting this? Not evidence that they claimed to know it on September 11 or 12, but that they knew on September 16, after

the contradictory CIA intelligence came in?

I guess you missed this part....Last week, Judicial Watch reported that it had obtained more than 100 pages of previously classified “Secret” documents from the Department of Defense and the Department of State revealing that DOD knew almost immediately that the Benghazi attack was committed by the al Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood-linked “Brigades of the Captive Omar Abdul Rahman” (BCOAR), and had been planned at least 10 days in advance.

I don't think I'm the one missing something here.

Here's the testimony about the initial CIA Report disseminated on September 13. That report wrongly concluded that the attack was an outgrowth of a spontaneous protest and not the result of planning. Once would assume that after reading that report, nobody in the administration would be certain that the attack was a planned attack, regardless of what they thought on September 11 or 12.

Now, you said Clinton, Rice et al knew the attacks were planned as of September 16th. But it's been repeatedly confirmed and is not disputed that the CIA said the 13th that they were unplanned and the result of protests. Anyone who read that report would not have known for certain that the attacks were planned without further information, even if they thought they were certain about it before the 13th. So I'll ask you once again- what evidence do you have that they were certain the attacks were planned as of September 16 but lied about it anyway? It would have to be something that came after the September 13 report. You get that, right?

 

[Ookie Pringle]

Can you give me a link to evidence supporting this? Not evidence that they claimed to know it on September 11 or 12, but that they knew on September 16, after the contradictory CIA intelligence came in?



And while you're at it maybe go ahead and send the link to the Committee, because they don't have it either.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-state-department-almost-immediately-labeled-benghazi-attack-as-terrorism-event/

Lets try one more time. I'll bold the key condition for you to make it harder to miss.


Can you give me a link to evidence supporting this? Not evidence that they claimed to know it on September 11 or 12, but that they knew on September 16, after the contradictory CIA intelligence came in?

I guess you missed this part....Last week, Judicial Watch reported that it had obtained more than 100 pages of previously classified “Secret” documents from the Department of Defense and the Department of State revealing that DOD knew almost immediately that the Benghazi attack was committed by the al Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood-linked “Brigades of the Captive Omar Abdul Rahman” (BCOAR), and had been planned at least 10 days in advance.

I don't think you read his question correctly.

I don't think you read my post which included this...

What CIA evidence came out after all of these 100 pages of classified emails that contradicted this?

 

[TobiasFunke]

Tobias, maybe we should give up. It's not just Ookie Pringle and RBM here, it's practically every conservative talking head on Fox News, it's Rush Limbaugh, it's Mark Levin, it's even Hugh Hewitt whom I regard as a pretty thoughtful guy. They've all bought into this. I suppose they all just hate Hillary so much they're willing to believe anything. It's pretty sad.

Those guys can get away with it because there's nobody there to call them out on their obvious . These guys don't have that luxury. If someone comes to this thread without knowledge of what went down they shouldn't leave with the impression that there's any validity to this garbage.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

Can you give me a link to evidence supporting this? Not evidence that they claimed to know it on September 11 or 12, but that they knew on September 16, after the contradictory CIA intelligence came in?



And while you're at it maybe go ahead and send the link to the Committee, because they don't have it either.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-state-department-almost-immediately-labeled-benghazi-attack-as-terrorism-event/

Lets try one more time. I'll bold the key condition for you to make it harder to miss.


Can you give me a link to evidence supporting this? Not evidence that they claimed to know it on September 11 or 12, but that they knew on September 16, after the contradictory CIA intelligence came in?

I guess you missed this part....Last week, Judicial Watch reported that it had obtained more than 100 pages of previously classified “Secret” documents from the Department of Defense and the Department of State revealing that DOD knew almost immediately that the Benghazi attack was committed by the al Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood-linked “Brigades of the Captive Omar Abdul Rahman” (BCOAR), and had been planned at least 10 days in advance.

I don't think I'm the one missing something here.

Here's the testimony about the initial CIA Report disseminated on September 13. That report wrongly concluded that the attack was an outgrowth of a spontaneous protest and not the result of planning. Once would assume that after reading that report, nobody in the administration would be certain that the attack was a planned attack, regardless of what they thought on September 11 or 12.

Now, you said Clinton, Rice et al knew the attacks were planned as of September 16th. But it's been repeatedly confirmed and is not disputed that the CIA said the 13th that they were unplanned and the result of protests. Anyone who read that report would not have known for certain that the attacks were planned without further information, even if they thought they were certain about it before the 13th. So I'll ask you once again- what evidence do you have that they were certain the attacks were planned as of September 16 but lied about it anyway? It would have to be something that came after the September 13 report. You get that, right?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/02/former-cia-chief-accused-helping-white-house-give-false-narrative-on-benghazi/

"What is most troubling is that the CIA Chief of Station in Libya repeatedly informed Washington that no demonstration ever occurred in Benghazi on the day of the attack, and that his views were consistently disregarded and overruled by CIA officials in Washington, including Mr. Morell," said a statement from Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz.; Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.; and Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H. "The Chief of Station was the agency's senior leader on the ground during the terrorist attack in Benghazi, so it is unfathomable why his views were not taken more seriously."

In another curious moment during the hearing, Morell claimed he deleted references to terrorism warnings from the talking points to avoid the spy agency's gloating at the expense of the State Department.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

So for about 10 days there were conflicting reports from different sources?

 

[TobiasFunke]

Can you give me a link to evidence supporting this? Not evidence that they claimed to know it on September 11 or 12, but that they knew on September 16, after the contradictory CIA intelligence came in?



And while you're at it maybe go ahead and send the link to the Committee, because they don't have it either.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-state-department-almost-immediately-labeled-benghazi-attack-as-terrorism-event/

Lets try one more time. I'll bold the key condition for you to make it harder to miss.

Can you give me a link to evidence supporting this? Not evidence that they claimed to know it on September 11 or 12, but that they knew on September 16, after

the contradictory CIA intelligence came in?

I guess you missed this part....Last week, Judicial Watch reported that it had obtained more than 100 pages of previously classified “Secret” documents from the Department of Defense and the Department of State revealing that DOD knew almost immediately that the Benghazi attack was committed by the al Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood-linked “Brigades of the Captive Omar Abdul Rahman” (BCOAR), and had been planned at least 10 days in advance.

I don't think I'm the one missing something here.

Here's the testimony about the initial CIA Report disseminated on September 13. That report wrongly concluded that the attack was an outgrowth of a spontaneous protest and not the result of planning. Once would assume that after reading that report, nobody in the administration would be certain that the attack was a planned attack, regardless of what they thought on September 11 or 12.

Now, you said Clinton, Rice et al knew the attacks were planned as of September 16th. But it's been repeatedly confirmed and is not disputed that the CIA said the 13th that they were unplanned and the result of protests. Anyone who read that report would not have known for certain that the attacks were planned without further information, even if they thought they were certain about it before the 13th. So I'll ask you once again- what evidence do you have that they were certain the attacks were planned as of September 16 but lied about it anyway? It would have to be something that came after the September 13 report. You get that, right?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/02/former-cia-chief-accused-helping-white-house-give-false-narrative-on-benghazi/"What is most troubling is that the CIA Chief of Station in Libya repeatedly informed Washington that no demonstration ever occurred in Benghazi on the day of the attack, and that his views were consistently disregarded and overruled by CIA officials in Washington, including Mr. Morell," said a statement from Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz.; Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.; and Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H. "The Chief of Station was the agency's senior leader on the ground during the terrorist attack in Benghazi, so it is unfathomable why his views were not taken more seriously."

In another curious moment during the hearing, Morell claimed he deleted references to terrorism warnings from the talking points to avoid the spy agency's gloating at the expense of the State Department.

That is an interesting take that does nothing to establish that Clinton or Rice were certain the attacks were planned as of September 16. It highlights an intelligence breakdown at the agency level, which is problematic but been known for years (and was admitted by Morell in his testimony. It does absolutely nothing to prove your claim about what Rice and Clinton knew as of the 16th. You said they knew it was a planned attack on the 16th and lied about it. I asked for evidence of that. I'm still waiting for it.

In fact it seems to confirm the exact opposite, since it says that Rice's mistaken comments on the 16th were in reliance on that flawed intelligence, and thus not a deliberate lie, which is what you claimed.

 

[Amused to Death]

Tobias, maybe we should give up. It's not just Ookie Pringle and RBM here, it's practically every conservative talking head on Fox News, it's Rush Limbaugh, it's Mark Levin, it's even Hugh Hewitt whom I regard as a pretty thoughtful guy. They've all bought into this. I suppose they all just hate Hillary so much they're willing to believe anything. It's pretty sad.

I think its time to just admit defeat. The Fox crowd won. Hillary's obviously defeated. Just let them win the White House in '16 like they've earned.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

Can you give me a link to evidence supporting this? Not evidence that they claimed to know it on September 11 or 12, but that they knew on September 16, after the contradictory CIA intelligence came in?



And while you're at it maybe go ahead and send the link to the Committee, because they don't have it either.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-state-department-almost-immediately-labeled-benghazi-attack-as-terrorism-event/

Lets try one more time. I'll bold the key condition for you to make it harder to miss.


Can you give me a link to evidence supporting this? Not evidence that they claimed to know it on September 11 or 12, but that they knew on September 16, after the contradictory CIA intelligence came in?

I guess you missed this part....Last week, Judicial Watch reported that it had obtained more than 100 pages of previously classified “Secret” documents from the Department of Defense and the Department of State revealing that DOD knew almost immediately that the Benghazi attack was committed by the al Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood-linked “Brigades of the Captive Omar Abdul Rahman” (BCOAR), and had been planned at least 10 days in advance.

I don't think I'm the one missing something here.

Here's the testimony about the initial CIA Report disseminated on September 13. That report wrongly concluded that the attack was an outgrowth of a spontaneous protest and not the result of planning. Once would assume that after reading that report, nobody in the administration would be certain that the attack was a planned attack, regardless of what they thought on September 11 or 12.

Now, you said Clinton, Rice et al knew the attacks were planned as of September 16th. But it's been repeatedly confirmed and is not disputed that the CIA said the 13th that they were unplanned and the result of protests. Anyone who read that report would not have known for certain that the attacks were planned without further information, even if they thought they were certain about it before the 13th. So I'll ask you once again- what evidence do you have that they were certain the attacks were planned as of September 16 but lied about it anyway? It would have to be something that came after the September 13 report. You get that, right?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/02/former-cia-chief-accused-helping-white-house-give-false-narrative-on-benghazi/"What is most troubling is that the CIA Chief of Station in Libya repeatedly informed Washington that no demonstration ever occurred in Benghazi on the day of the attack, and that his views were consistently disregarded and overruled by CIA officials in Washington, including Mr. Morell," said a statement from Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz.; Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.; and Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H. "The Chief of Station was the agency's senior leader on the ground during the terrorist attack in Benghazi, so it is unfathomable why his views were not taken more seriously."

In another curious moment during the hearing, Morell claimed he deleted references to terrorism warnings from the talking points to avoid the spy agency's gloating at the expense of the State Department.

That is an interesting take that does nothing to establish that Clinton or Rice were certain the attacks were planned as of September 16. It highlights an intelligence breakdown at the agency level, which is problematic but been known for years (and was admitted by Morell in his testimony. It does absolutely nothing to prove your claim about what Rice and Clinton knew as of the 16th. You said they knew it was a planned attack on the 16th and lied about it. I asked for evidence of that. I'm still waiting for it.

In fact it seems to confirm the exact opposite, since it says that Rice's mistaken comments on the 16th were in reliance on that flawed intelligence, and thus not a deliberate lie, which is what you claimed.

The CIA Chief on the ground in Benghazi was disregarded and overruled by CIA officials in Washington. He stated there was no demonstration. Other witnesses stated the same thing. The Judicial Watch articles shows that over 100 classified documents from the fist two days show the DOD knew it was a planned attack and who did it.

Yet you ignore all of that and hang onto what Morell stated. at thinking it was flawed intelligence. Morrell is the one that was flawed.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

Tobias, maybe we should give up. It's not just Ookie Pringle and RBM here, it's practically every conservative talking head on Fox News, it's Rush Limbaugh, it's Mark Levin, it's even Hugh Hewitt whom I regard as a pretty thoughtful guy. They've all bought into this. I suppose they all just hate Hillary so much they're willing to believe anything. It's pretty sad.

I think its time to just admit defeat. The Fox crowd won. Hillary's obviously defeated. Just let them win the White House in '16 like they've earned.

How about just admitting that they knew that night what was going on.

http://leestranahan.com/the-benghazi-cover-up/

That’s because the administration knew within hours that the Benghazi attack had been carried out with military precision by Al Qaeda. Not only did the Obama administration know but CNN had actually reported this information live on the night of the attack, pointing out the same details that Petraeus told Congress after the election was over.

 

[TobiasFunke]

OK, I think it's time to call it a day. I've made my point repeatedly. You've done nothing to support your claim that Clinton/Rice or anyone else knowingly lied about the nature of the attacks on the 16th. You want to change direction and blame the CIA officials in Washington, fine. The flaws in their initial analysis are not news. It would be news if you were able to link that to some sort of administration-wide conspiracy or knowing public misstatements, but you can't. The GOP members of the committee couldn't either, and they have far greater resources than you or I. This seems like a good stopping point.

Have a great weekend.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

OK, I think it's time to call it a day. I've made my point repeatedly. You've done nothing to support your claim that Clinton/Rice or anyone else knowingly lied about the nature of the attacks on the 16th. You want to change direction and blame the CIA officials in Washington, fine. The flaws in their initial analysis are not news. It would be news if you were able to link that to some sort of administration-wide conspiracy or knowing public misstatements, but you can't. The GOP members of the committee couldn't either, and they have far greater resources than you or I. This seems like a good stopping point.

Have a great weekend.

I've done a lot to support what they knew on the 11th and 12th following the attack. I guess those 100's of classified documents that state they knew what was going on don't mean anything to you.

You have a great weekend too.

 

[glock]

Tobias, maybe we should give up. It's not just Ookie Pringle and RBM here, it's practically every conservative talking head on Fox News, it's Rush Limbaugh, it's Mark Levin, it's even Hugh Hewitt whom I regard as a pretty thoughtful guy. They've all bought into this. I suppose they all just hate Hillary so much they're willing to believe anything. It's pretty sad.

I think its time to just admit defeat. The Fox crowd won. Hillary's obviously defeated. Just let them win the White House in '16 like they've earned.

How about just admitting that they knew that night what was going on.

And then what happens?

 

[timschochet]

Tobias, maybe we should give up. It's not just Ookie Pringle and RBM here, it's practically every conservative talking head on Fox News, it's Rush Limbaugh, it's Mark Levin, it's even Hugh Hewitt whom I regard as a pretty thoughtful guy. They've all bought into this. I suppose they all just hate Hillary so much they're willing to believe anything. It's pretty sad.

I think its time to just admit defeat. The Fox crowd won. Hillary's obviously defeated. Just let them win the White House in '16 like they've earned.

How about just admitting that they knew that night what was going on.

And then what happens?

Then reasonable people would accuse them of lying. Because there's no way they could have known what was going on that night. Not then, and not for the next 10 days or so either.

 

[Aerial Assault]

It seems that the number of rollies in a post, or made repeatedly by the same poster over time discussing the same issue, bears a direct correlation to the emptiness of that poster's arguments. Interesting.

 

[MaxThreshold]

It seems that the number of rollies in a post, or made repeatedly by the same poster over time discussing the same issue, bears a direct correlation to the emptiness of that poster's arguments. Interesting.

Unlike yourself, who doesn't even have to use rollies for the correlation to be there. All you have to do is post.

 

[urbanhack]

It seems that the number of rollies in a post, or made repeatedly by the same poster over time discussing the same issue, bears a direct correlation to the emptiness of that poster's arguments. Interesting.

Unlike yourself, who doesn't even have to use rollies for the correlation to be there. All you have to do is post.

this is pure gold coming from you.

 

[MaxThreshold]

It seems that the number of rollies in a post, or made repeatedly by the same poster over time discussing the same issue, bears a direct correlation to the emptiness of that poster's arguments. Interesting.

Unlike yourself, who doesn't even have to use rollies for the correlation to be there. All you have to do is post.

this is pure gold coming from you.

And from you, pure platinum.

 

[squistion]

It seems that the number of rollies in a post, or made repeatedly by the same poster over time discussing the same issue, bears a direct correlation to the emptiness of that poster's arguments. Interesting.

True, and it also has the quality of someone always laughing at their own jokes but being the only one who finds them funny.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Some people are taking this worse than I took the game 7 Stanley Cup Final loss in 2009.

Why is this so damn personal to you guys? This investigation has run longer than Watergate and the result is they don't know anything more than they knew at the start, all at the cost of $20 million to the taxpayer. I'm all for witch hunts when there is actually a witch, but surprisingly, Hillary isn't one.

 

[Rove!]

"We know the video had nothing to do with the attack"

It doesn't get much clearer than that. They knew one thing and said another. They told insiders one thing, and the public and the UN another.

As for what Morrel said or for the CIA intelligence that said Iraq had WMDs, there needs to be a serious investigation into that agency. I think they are out of control.

You can't confuse the two. It's like you asking me what the weather is at my house and I tell you it's raining and you go and tell the world it was sunny and clear at my house.

 

[Joe Summer]

Tobias, maybe we should give up. It's not just Ookie Pringle and RBM here, it's practically every conservative talking head on Fox News, it's Rush Limbaugh, it's Mark Levin, it's even Hugh Hewitt whom I regard as a pretty thoughtful guy. They've all bought into this. I suppose they all just hate Hillary so much they're willing to believe anything. It's pretty sad.

I think its time to just admit defeat. The Fox crowd won. Hillary's obviously defeated. Just let them win the White House in '16 like they've earned.

How about just admitting that they knew that night what was going on.

And then what happens?

I picture George Costanza exclaiming, "AH-HAHHHHHH!!!!"link

 

[Ookie Pringle]

Tobias, maybe we should give up. It's not just Ookie Pringle and RBM here, it's practically every conservative talking head on Fox News, it's Rush Limbaugh, it's Mark Levin, it's even Hugh Hewitt whom I regard as a pretty thoughtful guy. They've all bought into this. I suppose they all just hate Hillary so much they're willing to believe anything. It's pretty sad.

I think its time to just admit defeat. The Fox crowd won. Hillary's obviously defeated. Just let them win the White House in '16 like they've earned.

How about just admitting that they knew that night what was going on.

And then what happens?

Then reasonable people would accuse them of lying. Because there's no way they could have known what was going on that night. Not then, and not for the next 10 days or so either.

You are so clueless Tim. I suggest you take time to read about all the intelligence from that night and a few days after. You really think it took 10 days to figure out what happened? You must think our intelligence community is made up of morons.

 

[Bucky86]

So what do you guys hope happens now?

 

[greenroom]

So what do you guys hope happens now?

It goes away. After 8 investigations and millions of wasted tax dollars going down the bucket for political games. By both sides.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

So what do you guys hope happens now?

It goes away. After 8 investigations and millions of wasted tax dollars going down the bucket for political games. By both sides.

And besides, now the Repubes are doing even worse crap with Planned Parenthood. ####### idiots.

 

[Chaka]

Still haven't heard what the "GET HER!!!" crowd wants to see happen from these hearings/investigations/committees.

Pretty sure it is all based on scoring political hits for 2016 but I would like to believe that it wasn't something so obvious and petty but I still haven't heard anything to the contrary.

 

[matuski]

What do we predict to be the next conspiracy fail for the Right?

 

[Green and Gold]

Benghazi didn't resonate with the public much, or for long, in 2012. Why do they think it will hurt Hilary 4 years later? The only people who care about this topic would vote for Pol Pot before they would vote for her or any other Democrat.

 

[RBM]

Still haven't heard what the "GET HER!!!" crowd wants to see happen from these hearings/investigations/committees.

Pretty sure it is all based on scoring political hits for 2016 but I would like to believe that it wasn't something so obvious and petty but I still haven't heard anything to the contrary.

Nothing tangible was ever going to come from it, but if it damages her credibility for some voters who may have considered her then I guess there's that?

Really don't know what they wanted from these. I and most people I know would never vote for her no matter what.

 

[Chaka]

Still haven't heard what the "GET HER!!!" crowd wants to see happen from these hearings/investigations/committees.

Pretty sure it is all based on scoring political hits for 2016 but I would like to believe that it wasn't something so obvious and petty but I still haven't heard anything to the contrary.

Nothing tangible was ever going to come from it, but if it damages her credibility for some voters who may have considered her then I guess there's that?

Really don't know what they wanted from these. I and most people I know would never vote for her no matter what.

That's the truly sad part. This committee never had any designs other than to try and damage a Hillary Presidential run. It was essentially a tax payer funded Super PAC and shame on those who call themselves conservatives who are not outraged by the needless waste piled on top of what was already a great tragedy.

 

[Wrigley]

Lol at either side worrying about tax payer money.

 

[Chaka]

Lol at either side worrying about tax payer money.

When a large portion of a political platform is allegedly tied to decreasing spending and decreasing the size of government it's a shame that it merely warrants an "as if" LOL from those who profess to believe in that platform. (not sure where you stand on that one Wrigley, it's merely an observation).

As a fiscal conservative I absolutely feel the conservatives pushing this political witch hunt are hypocrites who should be ashamed of themselves.

 

[chauncey]

RBM your version of the truth IMO is heavily skewed by what I would call the right wing bubble. There's no conclusive proof that Hillary or anyone else deliberately lied and I don't believe they did. There's no conclusive proof that Hillary or a one close to her level is to blame for the lack of security at Benghazi and I don't believe she was.

Didn't she admit that she lied in the hearing the other day? Wasn't there email from 9/12 from her admitting it was a terrorist attack and not a video protest?

Not sure how much more concrete you can get than that.

 

[timschochet]

RBM your version of the truth IMO is heavily skewed by what I would call the right wing bubble. There's no conclusive proof that Hillary or anyone else deliberately lied and I don't believe they did. There's no conclusive proof that Hillary or a one close to her level is to blame for the lack of security at Benghazi and I don't believe she was.

Didn't she admit that she lied in the hearing the other day? Wasn't there email from 9/12 from her admitting it was a terrorist attack and not a video protest?Not sure how much more concrete you can get than that.

No.