Father Of Benghazi Victim Challenges Hillary Clinton To Lie Detector Test [VIDEO]...

[Care4all]

does he get paid for every interview?

Did Hillary tell these parents that it was the video airing, after the CIA released their official report on Sept. 24th?

If it was beforehand, when it was still 'foggy' then why make an issue out of it but for solely political reasons?

If it was 'foggy' they shouldn't have laid blame where they were unsure it actually belonged.

I don't buy this fog story at all. I don't see how anyone that actually looked at the timeline, e-mails and other available information could either. To me, it's nothing but an excellent BS story, in that is not disprovable. Plausible deniability and all that, except for the fact that there is a record on all of this if people choose to read it. I'm not going to post all of the evidence contradicting their 'fog' story, but there is plenty here:

Benghazi Timeline

"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."

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."


To me this was a total BS story, made up from whole cloth to, in their own words make it seem that "these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy"

they lied. no doubt in my mind about it. Grabbed that feeble straw of this video, knew they were lying, trotted Rice out to lie to people and rode that pony as long as it took for the short attention span of the American public to get into 'yesterday's news' territory.

Then Rice got her reward for being a good soldier and was appointed as National Security Advisor, which would be belly-laugh territory if it wasn't an actually important post. They should have appointed her ambassador to Libya instead......

I don't care if they initially used the video, there was unrest and riots in the region due to the video elsewhere, they had intelligence saying the unrest was spreading to other middle eastern regions and cities, the State dept was concerned with it spreading and found an opportunity to speak out against the violence and try to quell the swelling anger over it in the region...

Without having a definitive answer on whether the video some how inspired the attack by the terrorists from the Intelligence community, which did not come until about 2 weeks later, then using the video, which the CIA said was a part of this attack was okay to do if they felt it would serve our Nation best at the time.

And even then, after the two weeks it took for the CIA to come out with their report on the attack, and to this very day, Our Intelligence community has NOT taken the video off the table as being a part of this attack.

They, the intelligence agencies, the State Department and Defense Dept and Military commanders have their reasons for handling things the way they do in foreign affairs, and I am not privileged to know those security reasons.

Now if they continue to hound that it was simply a video outburst, and nothing else, AFTER the CIA released their analysis of the situation, then I'd be concerned.

First, thanks for not shrieking at me for disagreeing.

Anyhoo, I can't agree with simply trusting them. Not because I don't think there are times when the government needs to do things on the fly for the good of the country, but because in this case it does not appear that this serves anyone's interests but those of the administration in this case. That is, of course, arguable

If you read through the link you will see Hillary herself blaming an al qaeda like group immediately after the attack.

“Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an al Qaeda-like group: The Ambassador, whom I handpicked and a young communications officer on temporary duty w a wife and two young children. Very hard day and I fear more of the same tomorrow.”

then the talking points issued by the CIA are massaged, yes? I posted this before, precisely because the CIA's original position WAS altered, but here it is again.

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.

Here are some other tidbits:

"We call attention in particular to these key facts:

• 
  
  
  • There were no protesters at the Benghazi consulate prior to the attack, even though Obama and others repeatedly said the attackers joined an angry mob that had formed in opposition to the anti-Muslim film that had triggered protests in Egypt and elsewhere. The State Department disclosed this fact Oct. 9 — nearly a month after the attack.
  • Libya President Mohamed Magariaf insisted on Sept. 16 — five days after the attack — that it was a planned terrorist attack, but administration officials continued for days later to say there was no evidence of a planned attack.
  • Magariaf also said the idea that the attack was a “spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous.” This, too, was on Sept. 16. Yet, Obama and others continued to describe the incident in exactly those terms — including during the president’s Sept. 18 appearance on the “Late Show With David Letterman.”
  • Matt Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, was the first administration official to call it “a terrorist attack” during a Sept. 19 congressional hearing. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did the same on Sept. 20. Even so, Obama declined opportunities to call it a terrorist attack when asked at a town hall meeting on Sept. 20 and during a taping of “The View” on Sept. 24."

As to intelligence agencies never taking the video off the table as a possible contributor, I'm not sure what that really means. They'd have to prove a negative to do so. They can't prove anything did NOT contribute to something.

Sorry, I don't buy it, not for a second. Not their story and not this fog of war stuff, which I think is nonsense.

Evidence provided by Politifact is there for anyone that chooses to read it. To me it would seem to indicate that the administration, including Clinton, knew what happened but decided to play CYA in an election year by trying to deflect blame away from something that could be construed as a "broader failure of policy"- their own words yet again:

"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.”

thank you as well!

Let me address the Hillary email to her daughter right after the attack.

(I watched the Benghazi hearing with her and have read the previous Benghazi reports lead by Republicans Committees.)

The CIA and other intelligence reports had supplied the administration with information that a terrorist group was taking credit for the attack, of which the CIA claims they had no warning or previous Knowledge that something like this would happen.

The CIA AT THE SAME TIME also supplied them with information that some of their intelligence sources are saying it was an attack inspired by the video and this video resentment was getting ready to explode across the middle east.

that night when she spoke to Chelsea, a terrorist group had taken credit for it....thus what she mentioned to Chelsea.

The following morning, CIA/NSA intelligence told the administration that the group that initially tweeted that they were responsible came out and RETRACTED/ RENEGED their initial claim....so as she had said, the intelligence was fluid, and changing by the minute....

Also just two weeks after the incident, the Intelligence community came out with their analysis and said it was a specific terrorist group, this was in the news everywhere and it was still 6 weeks minimum until the election. It would have made no difference to the American people Knowing on the 12th of September or knowing on the 24th of September....they had plenty of time to change their minds about voting for Obama.

and I might add that Obama NEVER SAID AlQaeda was completely eliminated as the right wing is trying to mix in as a "talking point" with all of this and give this as a reason for not claiming it was terrorists.... and Romney would have won if the people knew this garbage....yahdahdahdahdah..... Obama said we were making good progress against Alqaeda, NOT that they were gone forever and a day....

And, I might add that Alqaeda has basically disappeared since he mentioned our progress and now the terrorists we are against are ISIL.

Do you have sources for your assertions on these things? Not being accusatory, as actually I believe that you believe what you're saying, but this is simply a version with no supporting evidence. The timeline I found at politifact is the best synopsis I've found that is sourced and supported.

Here's another correspondence

"Sept. 12, 3:04 p.m.: Clinton calls then-Egyptian Prime Minister Hisham Qandil and tells him, “We know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack — not a protest.” An account of that call was contained in an email written by State Department Public Affairs Officer Lawrence Randolph that summarizes the call between the two leaders. The email was released by the House Benghazi committee."

I was also two days later (Sept 14) that the e-mail written by Rhodes went out regarding their desires to have this not be seen as a failure of policy, so this shift and new information has to have come during that ~48 hour time period. That is certainly possible, but I've seen nothing to this point that supports it other than this claim of 'fluidity' and 'fog of war' stuff. Who said what and when to shift from this position of a terrorist attack to a video and why were the CIA's talking points massaged to omit references to Al Qaeda and by whom?

Obama said Al Qaeda was 'decimated' several times. Completely eliminated? No, that's not possible to actually claim, but decimated, 'on the run' etc. He was stumping big on this supposed victory. I can post quotes here, but I think everyone remembers that stuff.

We can say, well people had time to change their minds, however, once the facts are muddled how is it expected that voters by and large can do that. We're still debating it years later.

At the time it's a win politically if they can simply confuse or convince enough people that what they've been saying all along, is in fact true, otherwise they lose that plank. Fighting it to a draw is a win for them in this case, as otherwise they lose ground.

Do they lose the election if they get egg splattered squarely on them on this? Probably not, but at the time we didn't know that- and neither did they.

Fueri, See, I don't care what our government told other Nation heads...and when they said it... What I expect our government to do, is put us in our best light, and have a plan to keep the rest of our folks over there, secure. No way Jose' would I expect our government blast over world wide television that we got caught with our pants down....that IS NOT IN OUR BEST INTEREST as a Nation.

It is NOT my decision to make, or to know everything that is going on over there....but I KNOW, without a doubt, that in any kind of situation like this, the Secretary of State, the President, the whole administration....no matter the Party, has our Nation's best interest in how they handle it..... there is no reason for them to not put the US in its best light possible...it's their job.

as far as the intelligence being a 'fog of war' and it going back and forth to a group making the claim of being the attackers and then reneging it, and the CIA also stating that it was inspired by the video....this came out in the Benghazi hearings with the one where Hillary was there, and it was discussed in this hearing which you can find on C-span if you did not watch it. And you can bet your bottom dollar, that if Hillary had lied about the CIA saying it was a terrorist group that took credit and then the terrorist reneged, and Intelligence also reporting it was the video, you can bet your bottom dollar the House would have at least tried to bring charges against her...

The Benghazi hearings by all the different committees also reported such.

read this full report here: http://intelligence.house.gov/sites/intelligence.house.gov/files/documents/Benghazi Report.pdf

 

[Redfish]

If it was 'foggy' they shouldn't have laid blame where they were unsure it actually belonged.

I don't buy this fog story at all. I don't see how anyone that actually looked at the timeline, e-mails and other available information could either. To me, it's nothing but an excellent BS story, in that is not disprovable. Plausible deniability and all that, except for the fact that there is a record on all of this if people choose to read it. I'm not going to post all of the evidence contradicting their 'fog' story, but there is plenty here:

Benghazi Timeline

"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."

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."


To me this was a total BS story, made up from whole cloth to, in their own words make it seem that "these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy"

they lied. no doubt in my mind about it. Grabbed that feeble straw of this video, knew they were lying, trotted Rice out to lie to people and rode that pony as long as it took for the short attention span of the American public to get into 'yesterday's news' territory.

Then Rice got her reward for being a good soldier and was appointed as National Security Advisor, which would be belly-laugh territory if it wasn't an actually important post. They should have appointed her ambassador to Libya instead......

I don't care if they initially used the video, there was unrest and riots in the region due to the video elsewhere, they had intelligence saying the unrest was spreading to other middle eastern regions and cities, the State dept was concerned with it spreading and found an opportunity to speak out against the violence and try to quell the swelling anger over it in the region...

Without having a definitive answer on whether the video some how inspired the attack by the terrorists from the Intelligence community, which did not come until about 2 weeks later, then using the video, which the CIA said was a part of this attack was okay to do if they felt it would serve our Nation best at the time.

And even then, after the two weeks it took for the CIA to come out with their report on the attack, and to this very day, Our Intelligence community has NOT taken the video off the table as being a part of this attack.

They, the intelligence agencies, the State Department and Defense Dept and Military commanders have their reasons for handling things the way they do in foreign affairs, and I am not privileged to know those security reasons.

Now if they continue to hound that it was simply a video outburst, and nothing else, AFTER the CIA released their analysis of the situation, then I'd be concerned.

First, thanks for not shrieking at me for disagreeing.

Anyhoo, I can't agree with simply trusting them. Not because I don't think there are times when the government needs to do things on the fly for the good of the country, but because in this case it does not appear that this serves anyone's interests but those of the administration in this case. That is, of course, arguable

If you read through the link you will see Hillary herself blaming an al qaeda like group immediately after the attack.

“Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an al Qaeda-like group: The Ambassador, whom I handpicked and a young communications officer on temporary duty w a wife and two young children. Very hard day and I fear more of the same tomorrow.”

then the talking points issued by the CIA are massaged, yes? I posted this before, precisely because the CIA's original position WAS altered, but here it is again.

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.

Here are some other tidbits:

"We call attention in particular to these key facts:

• 
  
  
  • There were no protesters at the Benghazi consulate prior to the attack, even though Obama and others repeatedly said the attackers joined an angry mob that had formed in opposition to the anti-Muslim film that had triggered protests in Egypt and elsewhere. The State Department disclosed this fact Oct. 9 — nearly a month after the attack.
  • Libya President Mohamed Magariaf insisted on Sept. 16 — five days after the attack — that it was a planned terrorist attack, but administration officials continued for days later to say there was no evidence of a planned attack.
  • Magariaf also said the idea that the attack was a “spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous.” This, too, was on Sept. 16. Yet, Obama and others continued to describe the incident in exactly those terms — including during the president’s Sept. 18 appearance on the “Late Show With David Letterman.”
  • Matt Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, was the first administration official to call it “a terrorist attack” during a Sept. 19 congressional hearing. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did the same on Sept. 20. Even so, Obama declined opportunities to call it a terrorist attack when asked at a town hall meeting on Sept. 20 and during a taping of “The View” on Sept. 24."

As to intelligence agencies never taking the video off the table as a possible contributor, I'm not sure what that really means. They'd have to prove a negative to do so. They can't prove anything did NOT contribute to something.

Sorry, I don't buy it, not for a second. Not their story and not this fog of war stuff, which I think is nonsense.

Evidence provided by Politifact is there for anyone that chooses to read it. To me it would seem to indicate that the administration, including Clinton, knew what happened but decided to play CYA in an election year by trying to deflect blame away from something that could be construed as a "broader failure of policy"- their own words yet again:

"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.”

thank you as well!

Let me address the Hillary email to her daughter right after the attack.

(I watched the Benghazi hearing with her and have read the previous Benghazi reports lead by Republicans Committees.)

The CIA and other intelligence reports had supplied the administration with information that a terrorist group was taking credit for the attack, of which the CIA claims they had no warning or previous Knowledge that something like this would happen.

The CIA AT THE SAME TIME also supplied them with information that some of their intelligence sources are saying it was an attack inspired by the video and this video resentment was getting ready to explode across the middle east.

that night when she spoke to Chelsea, a terrorist group had taken credit for it....thus what she mentioned to Chelsea.

The following morning, CIA/NSA intelligence told the administration that the group that initially tweeted that they were responsible came out and RETRACTED/ RENEGED their initial claim....so as she had said, the intelligence was fluid, and changing by the minute....

Also just two weeks after the incident, the Intelligence community came out with their analysis and said it was a specific terrorist group, this was in the news everywhere and it was still 6 weeks minimum until the election. It would have made no difference to the American people Knowing on the 12th of September or knowing on the 24th of September....they had plenty of time to change their minds about voting for Obama.

and I might add that Obama NEVER SAID AlQaeda was completely eliminated as the right wing is trying to mix in as a "talking point" with all of this and give this as a reason for not claiming it was terrorists.... and Romney would have won if the people knew this garbage....yahdahdahdahdah..... Obama said we were making good progress against Alqaeda, NOT that they were gone forever and a day....

And, I might add that Alqaeda has basically disappeared since he mentioned our progress and now the terrorists we are against are ISIL.

Do you have sources for your assertions on these things? Not being accusatory, as actually I believe that you believe what you're saying, but this is simply a version with no supporting evidence. The timeline I found at politifact is the best synopsis I've found that is sourced and supported.

Here's another correspondence

"Sept. 12, 3:04 p.m.: Clinton calls then-Egyptian Prime Minister Hisham Qandil and tells him, “We know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack — not a protest.” An account of that call was contained in an email written by State Department Public Affairs Officer Lawrence Randolph that summarizes the call between the two leaders. The email was released by the House Benghazi committee."

I was also two days later (Sept 14) that the e-mail written by Rhodes went out regarding their desires to have this not be seen as a failure of policy, so this shift and new information has to have come during that ~48 hour time period. That is certainly possible, but I've seen nothing to this point that supports it other than this claim of 'fluidity' and 'fog of war' stuff. Who said what and when to shift from this position of a terrorist attack to a video and why were the CIA's talking points massaged to omit references to Al Qaeda and by whom?

Obama said Al Qaeda was 'decimated' several times. Completely eliminated? No, that's not possible to actually claim, but decimated, 'on the run' etc. He was stumping big on this supposed victory. I can post quotes here, but I think everyone remembers that stuff.

We can say, well people had time to change their minds, however, once the facts are muddled how is it expected that voters by and large can do that. We're still debating it years later.

At the time it's a win politically if they can simply confuse or convince enough people that what they've been saying all along, is in fact true, otherwise they lose that plank. Fighting it to a draw is a win for them in this case, as otherwise they lose ground.

Do they lose the election if they get egg splattered squarely on them on this? Probably not, but at the time we didn't know that- and neither did they.

Fueri, See, I don't care what our government told other Nation heads...and when they said it... What I expect our government to do, is put us in our best light, and have a plan to keep the rest of our folks over there, secure. No way Jose' would I expect our government blast over world wide television that we got caught with our pants down....that IS NOT IN OUR BEST INTEREST as a Nation.

It is NOT my decision to make, or to know everything that is going on over there....but I KNOW, without a doubt, that in any kind of situation like this, the Secretary of State, the President, the whole administration....no matter the Party, has our Nation's best interest in how they handle it..... there is no reason for them to not put the US in its best light possible...it's their job.

as far as the intelligence being a 'fog of war' and it going back and forth to a group making the claim of being the attackers and then reneging it, and the CIA also stating that it was inspired by the video....this came out in the Benghazi hearings with the one where Hillary was there, and it was discussed in this hearing which you can find on C-span if you did not watch it. And you can bet your bottom dollar, that if Hillary had lied about the CIA saying it was a terrorist group that took credit and then the terrorist reneged, and Intelligence also reporting it was the video, you can bet your bottom dollar the House would have at least tried to bring charges against her...

The Benghazi hearings by all the different committees also reported such.

View attachment 59261

read this full report here: http://intelligence.house.gov/sites/intelligence.house.gov/files/documents/Benghazi Report.pdf

Nice try. But the facts differ. Obama, Clinton, and Rice all spouted the lie about the video being the cause of the attack, and they continued the lie until after the election.

The truth is that they lied because they thought that the truth about a terrorist attack would hurt obozo in the election.

They LIED for political gain. Then to top it off, Hillary lied to the families of the 4 American victims as they bodies were unloaded in the US.

I get it that you love Hillary and all things democrat, I get that. But the American people are entitled to the truth from their elected officials. Nixon lied and was run out of office, Bubba Clinton lied and was impeached. Hillary Clinton is not above the law.

 

[Fueri]

If it was 'foggy' they shouldn't have laid blame where they were unsure it actually belonged.

I don't buy this fog story at all. I don't see how anyone that actually looked at the timeline, e-mails and other available information could either. To me, it's nothing but an excellent BS story, in that is not disprovable. Plausible deniability and all that, except for the fact that there is a record on all of this if people choose to read it. I'm not going to post all of the evidence contradicting their 'fog' story, but there is plenty here:

Benghazi Timeline

"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."

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."


To me this was a total BS story, made up from whole cloth to, in their own words make it seem that "these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy"

they lied. no doubt in my mind about it. Grabbed that feeble straw of this video, knew they were lying, trotted Rice out to lie to people and rode that pony as long as it took for the short attention span of the American public to get into 'yesterday's news' territory.

Then Rice got her reward for being a good soldier and was appointed as National Security Advisor, which would be belly-laugh territory if it wasn't an actually important post. They should have appointed her ambassador to Libya instead......

I don't care if they initially used the video, there was unrest and riots in the region due to the video elsewhere, they had intelligence saying the unrest was spreading to other middle eastern regions and cities, the State dept was concerned with it spreading and found an opportunity to speak out against the violence and try to quell the swelling anger over it in the region...

Without having a definitive answer on whether the video some how inspired the attack by the terrorists from the Intelligence community, which did not come until about 2 weeks later, then using the video, which the CIA said was a part of this attack was okay to do if they felt it would serve our Nation best at the time.

And even then, after the two weeks it took for the CIA to come out with their report on the attack, and to this very day, Our Intelligence community has NOT taken the video off the table as being a part of this attack.

They, the intelligence agencies, the State Department and Defense Dept and Military commanders have their reasons for handling things the way they do in foreign affairs, and I am not privileged to know those security reasons.

Now if they continue to hound that it was simply a video outburst, and nothing else, AFTER the CIA released their analysis of the situation, then I'd be concerned.

First, thanks for not shrieking at me for disagreeing.

Anyhoo, I can't agree with simply trusting them. Not because I don't think there are times when the government needs to do things on the fly for the good of the country, but because in this case it does not appear that this serves anyone's interests but those of the administration in this case. That is, of course, arguable

If you read through the link you will see Hillary herself blaming an al qaeda like group immediately after the attack.

“Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an al Qaeda-like group: The Ambassador, whom I handpicked and a young communications officer on temporary duty w a wife and two young children. Very hard day and I fear more of the same tomorrow.”

then the talking points issued by the CIA are massaged, yes? I posted this before, precisely because the CIA's original position WAS altered, but here it is again.

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.

Here are some other tidbits:

"We call attention in particular to these key facts:

• 
  
  
  • There were no protesters at the Benghazi consulate prior to the attack, even though Obama and others repeatedly said the attackers joined an angry mob that had formed in opposition to the anti-Muslim film that had triggered protests in Egypt and elsewhere. The State Department disclosed this fact Oct. 9 — nearly a month after the attack.
  • Libya President Mohamed Magariaf insisted on Sept. 16 — five days after the attack — that it was a planned terrorist attack, but administration officials continued for days later to say there was no evidence of a planned attack.
  • Magariaf also said the idea that the attack was a “spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous.” This, too, was on Sept. 16. Yet, Obama and others continued to describe the incident in exactly those terms — including during the president’s Sept. 18 appearance on the “Late Show With David Letterman.”
  • Matt Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, was the first administration official to call it “a terrorist attack” during a Sept. 19 congressional hearing. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did the same on Sept. 20. Even so, Obama declined opportunities to call it a terrorist attack when asked at a town hall meeting on Sept. 20 and during a taping of “The View” on Sept. 24."

As to intelligence agencies never taking the video off the table as a possible contributor, I'm not sure what that really means. They'd have to prove a negative to do so. They can't prove anything did NOT contribute to something.

Sorry, I don't buy it, not for a second. Not their story and not this fog of war stuff, which I think is nonsense.

Evidence provided by Politifact is there for anyone that chooses to read it. To me it would seem to indicate that the administration, including Clinton, knew what happened but decided to play CYA in an election year by trying to deflect blame away from something that could be construed as a "broader failure of policy"- their own words yet again:

"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.”

thank you as well!

Let me address the Hillary email to her daughter right after the attack.

(I watched the Benghazi hearing with her and have read the previous Benghazi reports lead by Republicans Committees.)

The CIA and other intelligence reports had supplied the administration with information that a terrorist group was taking credit for the attack, of which the CIA claims they had no warning or previous Knowledge that something like this would happen.

The CIA AT THE SAME TIME also supplied them with information that some of their intelligence sources are saying it was an attack inspired by the video and this video resentment was getting ready to explode across the middle east.

that night when she spoke to Chelsea, a terrorist group had taken credit for it....thus what she mentioned to Chelsea.

The following morning, CIA/NSA intelligence told the administration that the group that initially tweeted that they were responsible came out and RETRACTED/ RENEGED their initial claim....so as she had said, the intelligence was fluid, and changing by the minute....

Also just two weeks after the incident, the Intelligence community came out with their analysis and said it was a specific terrorist group, this was in the news everywhere and it was still 6 weeks minimum until the election. It would have made no difference to the American people Knowing on the 12th of September or knowing on the 24th of September....they had plenty of time to change their minds about voting for Obama.

and I might add that Obama NEVER SAID AlQaeda was completely eliminated as the right wing is trying to mix in as a "talking point" with all of this and give this as a reason for not claiming it was terrorists.... and Romney would have won if the people knew this garbage....yahdahdahdahdah..... Obama said we were making good progress against Alqaeda, NOT that they were gone forever and a day....

And, I might add that Alqaeda has basically disappeared since he mentioned our progress and now the terrorists we are against are ISIL.

Do you have sources for your assertions on these things? Not being accusatory, as actually I believe that you believe what you're saying, but this is simply a version with no supporting evidence. The timeline I found at politifact is the best synopsis I've found that is sourced and supported.

Here's another correspondence

"Sept. 12, 3:04 p.m.: Clinton calls then-Egyptian Prime Minister Hisham Qandil and tells him, “We know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack — not a protest.” An account of that call was contained in an email written by State Department Public Affairs Officer Lawrence Randolph that summarizes the call between the two leaders. The email was released by the House Benghazi committee."

I was also two days later (Sept 14) that the e-mail written by Rhodes went out regarding their desires to have this not be seen as a failure of policy, so this shift and new information has to have come during that ~48 hour time period. That is certainly possible, but I've seen nothing to this point that supports it other than this claim of 'fluidity' and 'fog of war' stuff. Who said what and when to shift from this position of a terrorist attack to a video and why were the CIA's talking points massaged to omit references to Al Qaeda and by whom?

Obama said Al Qaeda was 'decimated' several times. Completely eliminated? No, that's not possible to actually claim, but decimated, 'on the run' etc. He was stumping big on this supposed victory. I can post quotes here, but I think everyone remembers that stuff.

We can say, well people had time to change their minds, however, once the facts are muddled how is it expected that voters by and large can do that. We're still debating it years later.

At the time it's a win politically if they can simply confuse or convince enough people that what they've been saying all along, is in fact true, otherwise they lose that plank. Fighting it to a draw is a win for them in this case, as otherwise they lose ground.

Do they lose the election if they get egg splattered squarely on them on this? Probably not, but at the time we didn't know that- and neither did they.

Fueri, See, I don't care what our government told other Nation heads...and when they said it... What I expect our government to do, is put us in our best light, and have a plan to keep the rest of our folks over there, secure. No way Jose' would I expect our government blast over world wide television that we got caught with our pants down....that IS NOT IN OUR BEST INTEREST as a Nation.

It is NOT my decision to make, or to know everything that is going on over there....but I KNOW, without a doubt, that in any kind of situation like this, the Secretary of State, the President, the whole administration....no matter the Party, has our Nation's best interest in how they handle it..... there is no reason for them to not put the US in its best light possible...it's their job.

as far as the intelligence being a 'fog of war' and it going back and forth to a group making the claim of being the attackers and then reneging it, and the CIA also stating that it was inspired by the video....this came out in the Benghazi hearings with the one where Hillary was there, and it was discussed in this hearing which you can find on C-span if you did not watch it. And you can bet your bottom dollar, that if Hillary had lied about the CIA saying it was a terrorist group that took credit and then the terrorist reneged, and Intelligence also reporting it was the video, you can bet your bottom dollar the House would have at least tried to bring charges against her...

The Benghazi hearings by all the different committees also reported such.

View attachment 59261

read this full report here: http://intelligence.house.gov/sites/intelligence.house.gov/files/documents/Benghazi Report.pdf

I cannot agree on any of that. This assumption that politicians are acting to put the nation's interest first because ' it's their job', and then resting the rest of it on top of this foundation is pretty tough to swallow.

We did get caught napping, although there was plenty of warning. Point of fact is that the original CIA talking points included that fact:

"The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qa’ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya. These noted that, since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador’s convoy. We cannot rule out the individuals has previously surveilled the U.S. facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks.”

The state department had that removed, and their reason for doing so, again in their own words, speaks to the heart of your argument. The state department is worried about the state department, not 'the nation'

"State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland took issue with including that information because it “could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either? Concerned …”

As a result that paragraph was completely removed, as were any references to Al Qaeda.

To me this looks like politicians covering their own asses on multiple fronts. Their own words, again, would seem to indicate same.

I'll freely admit I'm cynical as hell about politicians although I see plenty of motive here for the Obama camp to not have its 'Al Qaeda is decimated' campaign narrative disrupted during the last months of the campaign and for the state department to not want to look asleep at the switch.

Beyond that I do not see how molding all of this in the way they did helps the nation in any way, but it's easy to see how it served their political interests. Could it be both? Well, I guess so, but that's mighty convenient that what was best for the nation also served their own interests by deflecting blame from their policies, in the case of the administration, or from their lack of response to Intel, in the case of state. In short, I think this was politicians being politicians and playing CYA, not people attempting to protect the nation.

 

[Care4all]

I don't care if they initially used the video, there was unrest and riots in the region due to the video elsewhere, they had intelligence saying the unrest was spreading to other middle eastern regions and cities, the State dept was concerned with it spreading and found an opportunity to speak out against the violence and try to quell the swelling anger over it in the region...

Without having a definitive answer on whether the video some how inspired the attack by the terrorists from the Intelligence community, which did not come until about 2 weeks later, then using the video, which the CIA said was a part of this attack was okay to do if they felt it would serve our Nation best at the time.

And even then, after the two weeks it took for the CIA to come out with their report on the attack, and to this very day, Our Intelligence community has NOT taken the video off the table as being a part of this attack.

They, the intelligence agencies, the State Department and Defense Dept and Military commanders have their reasons for handling things the way they do in foreign affairs, and I am not privileged to know those security reasons.

Now if they continue to hound that it was simply a video outburst, and nothing else, AFTER the CIA released their analysis of the situation, then I'd be concerned.

First, thanks for not shrieking at me for disagreeing.

Anyhoo, I can't agree with simply trusting them. Not because I don't think there are times when the government needs to do things on the fly for the good of the country, but because in this case it does not appear that this serves anyone's interests but those of the administration in this case. That is, of course, arguable

If you read through the link you will see Hillary herself blaming an al qaeda like group immediately after the attack.

“Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an al Qaeda-like group: The Ambassador, whom I handpicked and a young communications officer on temporary duty w a wife and two young children. Very hard day and I fear more of the same tomorrow.”

then the talking points issued by the CIA are massaged, yes? I posted this before, precisely because the CIA's original position WAS altered, but here it is again.

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.

Here are some other tidbits:

"We call attention in particular to these key facts:

• 
  
  
  • There were no protesters at the Benghazi consulate prior to the attack, even though Obama and others repeatedly said the attackers joined an angry mob that had formed in opposition to the anti-Muslim film that had triggered protests in Egypt and elsewhere. The State Department disclosed this fact Oct. 9 — nearly a month after the attack.
  • Libya President Mohamed Magariaf insisted on Sept. 16 — five days after the attack — that it was a planned terrorist attack, but administration officials continued for days later to say there was no evidence of a planned attack.
  • Magariaf also said the idea that the attack was a “spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous.” This, too, was on Sept. 16. Yet, Obama and others continued to describe the incident in exactly those terms — including during the president’s Sept. 18 appearance on the “Late Show With David Letterman.”
  • Matt Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, was the first administration official to call it “a terrorist attack” during a Sept. 19 congressional hearing. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did the same on Sept. 20. Even so, Obama declined opportunities to call it a terrorist attack when asked at a town hall meeting on Sept. 20 and during a taping of “The View” on Sept. 24."

As to intelligence agencies never taking the video off the table as a possible contributor, I'm not sure what that really means. They'd have to prove a negative to do so. They can't prove anything did NOT contribute to something.

Sorry, I don't buy it, not for a second. Not their story and not this fog of war stuff, which I think is nonsense.

Evidence provided by Politifact is there for anyone that chooses to read it. To me it would seem to indicate that the administration, including Clinton, knew what happened but decided to play CYA in an election year by trying to deflect blame away from something that could be construed as a "broader failure of policy"- their own words yet again:

"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.”

thank you as well!

Let me address the Hillary email to her daughter right after the attack.

(I watched the Benghazi hearing with her and have read the previous Benghazi reports lead by Republicans Committees.)

The CIA and other intelligence reports had supplied the administration with information that a terrorist group was taking credit for the attack, of which the CIA claims they had no warning or previous Knowledge that something like this would happen.

The CIA AT THE SAME TIME also supplied them with information that some of their intelligence sources are saying it was an attack inspired by the video and this video resentment was getting ready to explode across the middle east.

that night when she spoke to Chelsea, a terrorist group had taken credit for it....thus what she mentioned to Chelsea.

The following morning, CIA/NSA intelligence told the administration that the group that initially tweeted that they were responsible came out and RETRACTED/ RENEGED their initial claim....so as she had said, the intelligence was fluid, and changing by the minute....

Also just two weeks after the incident, the Intelligence community came out with their analysis and said it was a specific terrorist group, this was in the news everywhere and it was still 6 weeks minimum until the election. It would have made no difference to the American people Knowing on the 12th of September or knowing on the 24th of September....they had plenty of time to change their minds about voting for Obama.

and I might add that Obama NEVER SAID AlQaeda was completely eliminated as the right wing is trying to mix in as a "talking point" with all of this and give this as a reason for not claiming it was terrorists.... and Romney would have won if the people knew this garbage....yahdahdahdahdah..... Obama said we were making good progress against Alqaeda, NOT that they were gone forever and a day....

And, I might add that Alqaeda has basically disappeared since he mentioned our progress and now the terrorists we are against are ISIL.

Do you have sources for your assertions on these things? Not being accusatory, as actually I believe that you believe what you're saying, but this is simply a version with no supporting evidence. The timeline I found at politifact is the best synopsis I've found that is sourced and supported.

Here's another correspondence

"Sept. 12, 3:04 p.m.: Clinton calls then-Egyptian Prime Minister Hisham Qandil and tells him, “We know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack — not a protest.” An account of that call was contained in an email written by State Department Public Affairs Officer Lawrence Randolph that summarizes the call between the two leaders. The email was released by the House Benghazi committee."

I was also two days later (Sept 14) that the e-mail written by Rhodes went out regarding their desires to have this not be seen as a failure of policy, so this shift and new information has to have come during that ~48 hour time period. That is certainly possible, but I've seen nothing to this point that supports it other than this claim of 'fluidity' and 'fog of war' stuff. Who said what and when to shift from this position of a terrorist attack to a video and why were the CIA's talking points massaged to omit references to Al Qaeda and by whom?

Obama said Al Qaeda was 'decimated' several times. Completely eliminated? No, that's not possible to actually claim, but decimated, 'on the run' etc. He was stumping big on this supposed victory. I can post quotes here, but I think everyone remembers that stuff.

We can say, well people had time to change their minds, however, once the facts are muddled how is it expected that voters by and large can do that. We're still debating it years later.

At the time it's a win politically if they can simply confuse or convince enough people that what they've been saying all along, is in fact true, otherwise they lose that plank. Fighting it to a draw is a win for them in this case, as otherwise they lose ground.

Do they lose the election if they get egg splattered squarely on them on this? Probably not, but at the time we didn't know that- and neither did they.

Fueri, See, I don't care what our government told other Nation heads...and when they said it... What I expect our government to do, is put us in our best light, and have a plan to keep the rest of our folks over there, secure. No way Jose' would I expect our government blast over world wide television that we got caught with our pants down....that IS NOT IN OUR BEST INTEREST as a Nation.

It is NOT my decision to make, or to know everything that is going on over there....but I KNOW, without a doubt, that in any kind of situation like this, the Secretary of State, the President, the whole administration....no matter the Party, has our Nation's best interest in how they handle it..... there is no reason for them to not put the US in its best light possible...it's their job.

as far as the intelligence being a 'fog of war' and it going back and forth to a group making the claim of being the attackers and then reneging it, and the CIA also stating that it was inspired by the video....this came out in the Benghazi hearings with the one where Hillary was there, and it was discussed in this hearing which you can find on C-span if you did not watch it. And you can bet your bottom dollar, that if Hillary had lied about the CIA saying it was a terrorist group that took credit and then the terrorist reneged, and Intelligence also reporting it was the video, you can bet your bottom dollar the House would have at least tried to bring charges against her...

The Benghazi hearings by all the different committees also reported such.

View attachment 59261

read this full report here: http://intelligence.house.gov/sites/intelligence.house.gov/files/documents/Benghazi Report.pdf

I cannot agree on any of that. This assumption that politicians are acting to put the nation's interest first because ' it's their job', and then resting the rest of it on top of this foundation is pretty tough to swallow.

We did get caught napping, although there was plenty of warning. Point of fact is that the original CIA talking points included that fact:

"The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qa’ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya. These noted that, since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador’s convoy. We cannot rule out the individuals has previously surveilled the U.S. facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks.”

The state department had that removed, and their reason for doing so, again in their own words, speaks to the heart of your argument. The state department is worried about the state department, not 'the nation'

"State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland took issue with including that information because it “could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either? Concerned …”

As a result that paragraph was completely removed, as were any references to Al Qaeda.

To me this looks like politicians covering their own asses on multiple fronts. Their own words, again, would seem to indicate same.

I'll freely admit I'm cynical as hell about politicians although I see plenty of motive here for the Obama camp to not have its 'Al Qaeda is decimated' campaign narrative disrupted during the last months of the campaign and for the state department to not want to look asleep at the switch.

Beyond that I do not see how molding all of this in the way they did helps the nation in any way, but it's easy to see how it served their political interests. Could it be both? Well, I guess so, but that's mighty convenient that what was best for the nation also served their own interests by deflecting blame from their policies, in the case of the administration, or from their lack of response to Intel, in the case of state. In short, I think this was politicians being politicians and playing CYA, not people attempting to protect the nation.

Do you think, going before the whole world on tv, including terrorist, within hours of the attack and saying we were caught off guard, would be good for our Nation? Our security elsewhere overseas? I don't!!!!

We still didn't even have it confirmed yet, and still didn't know who and why, definitively. That's a weakness that should not be plastered everywhere, especially without all the facts....


It concerns me more that within 24 hours of 9/11 we had 19 hijackers photos plastered in every newspaper saying they did it.....

How in the heck could the FBI and CIA have photos and names of all those terrorists within minutes of the attack, and NOT have been able to stop these terrorists they were VERY AWARE OF?????


Oh, and this was Obama's full statement using "decimated"


Obama said, “We’ve decimated al Qaeda’s top leadership in the border regions around Pakistan, but in Yemen, in Libya, in other of these places – increasingly in places like Syria – what you see is these elements that don’t have the same capacity that a bin Laden or core al Qaeda had, but can still cause a lot of damage, and we’ve got to make sure that we remain vigilant and are focused on preventing them from doing us any harm.”

 

[Redfish]

First, thanks for not shrieking at me for disagreeing.

Anyhoo, I can't agree with simply trusting them. Not because I don't think there are times when the government needs to do things on the fly for the good of the country, but because in this case it does not appear that this serves anyone's interests but those of the administration in this case. That is, of course, arguable

If you read through the link you will see Hillary herself blaming an al qaeda like group immediately after the attack.

“Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an al Qaeda-like group: The Ambassador, whom I handpicked and a young communications officer on temporary duty w a wife and two young children. Very hard day and I fear more of the same tomorrow.”

then the talking points issued by the CIA are massaged, yes? I posted this before, precisely because the CIA's original position WAS altered, but here it is again.

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.

Here are some other tidbits:

"We call attention in particular to these key facts:

• 
  
  
  • There were no protesters at the Benghazi consulate prior to the attack, even though Obama and others repeatedly said the attackers joined an angry mob that had formed in opposition to the anti-Muslim film that had triggered protests in Egypt and elsewhere. The State Department disclosed this fact Oct. 9 — nearly a month after the attack.
  • Libya President Mohamed Magariaf insisted on Sept. 16 — five days after the attack — that it was a planned terrorist attack, but administration officials continued for days later to say there was no evidence of a planned attack.
  • Magariaf also said the idea that the attack was a “spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous.” This, too, was on Sept. 16. Yet, Obama and others continued to describe the incident in exactly those terms — including during the president’s Sept. 18 appearance on the “Late Show With David Letterman.”
  • Matt Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, was the first administration official to call it “a terrorist attack” during a Sept. 19 congressional hearing. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did the same on Sept. 20. Even so, Obama declined opportunities to call it a terrorist attack when asked at a town hall meeting on Sept. 20 and during a taping of “The View” on Sept. 24."

As to intelligence agencies never taking the video off the table as a possible contributor, I'm not sure what that really means. They'd have to prove a negative to do so. They can't prove anything did NOT contribute to something.

Sorry, I don't buy it, not for a second. Not their story and not this fog of war stuff, which I think is nonsense.

Evidence provided by Politifact is there for anyone that chooses to read it. To me it would seem to indicate that the administration, including Clinton, knew what happened but decided to play CYA in an election year by trying to deflect blame away from something that could be construed as a "broader failure of policy"- their own words yet again:

"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.”

thank you as well!

Let me address the Hillary email to her daughter right after the attack.

(I watched the Benghazi hearing with her and have read the previous Benghazi reports lead by Republicans Committees.)

The CIA and other intelligence reports had supplied the administration with information that a terrorist group was taking credit for the attack, of which the CIA claims they had no warning or previous Knowledge that something like this would happen.

The CIA AT THE SAME TIME also supplied them with information that some of their intelligence sources are saying it was an attack inspired by the video and this video resentment was getting ready to explode across the middle east.

that night when she spoke to Chelsea, a terrorist group had taken credit for it....thus what she mentioned to Chelsea.

The following morning, CIA/NSA intelligence told the administration that the group that initially tweeted that they were responsible came out and RETRACTED/ RENEGED their initial claim....so as she had said, the intelligence was fluid, and changing by the minute....

Also just two weeks after the incident, the Intelligence community came out with their analysis and said it was a specific terrorist group, this was in the news everywhere and it was still 6 weeks minimum until the election. It would have made no difference to the American people Knowing on the 12th of September or knowing on the 24th of September....they had plenty of time to change their minds about voting for Obama.

and I might add that Obama NEVER SAID AlQaeda was completely eliminated as the right wing is trying to mix in as a "talking point" with all of this and give this as a reason for not claiming it was terrorists.... and Romney would have won if the people knew this garbage....yahdahdahdahdah..... Obama said we were making good progress against Alqaeda, NOT that they were gone forever and a day....

And, I might add that Alqaeda has basically disappeared since he mentioned our progress and now the terrorists we are against are ISIL.

Do you have sources for your assertions on these things? Not being accusatory, as actually I believe that you believe what you're saying, but this is simply a version with no supporting evidence. The timeline I found at politifact is the best synopsis I've found that is sourced and supported.

Here's another correspondence

"Sept. 12, 3:04 p.m.: Clinton calls then-Egyptian Prime Minister Hisham Qandil and tells him, “We know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack — not a protest.” An account of that call was contained in an email written by State Department Public Affairs Officer Lawrence Randolph that summarizes the call between the two leaders. The email was released by the House Benghazi committee."

I was also two days later (Sept 14) that the e-mail written by Rhodes went out regarding their desires to have this not be seen as a failure of policy, so this shift and new information has to have come during that ~48 hour time period. That is certainly possible, but I've seen nothing to this point that supports it other than this claim of 'fluidity' and 'fog of war' stuff. Who said what and when to shift from this position of a terrorist attack to a video and why were the CIA's talking points massaged to omit references to Al Qaeda and by whom?

Obama said Al Qaeda was 'decimated' several times. Completely eliminated? No, that's not possible to actually claim, but decimated, 'on the run' etc. He was stumping big on this supposed victory. I can post quotes here, but I think everyone remembers that stuff.

We can say, well people had time to change their minds, however, once the facts are muddled how is it expected that voters by and large can do that. We're still debating it years later.

At the time it's a win politically if they can simply confuse or convince enough people that what they've been saying all along, is in fact true, otherwise they lose that plank. Fighting it to a draw is a win for them in this case, as otherwise they lose ground.

Do they lose the election if they get egg splattered squarely on them on this? Probably not, but at the time we didn't know that- and neither did they.

Fueri, See, I don't care what our government told other Nation heads...and when they said it... What I expect our government to do, is put us in our best light, and have a plan to keep the rest of our folks over there, secure. No way Jose' would I expect our government blast over world wide television that we got caught with our pants down....that IS NOT IN OUR BEST INTEREST as a Nation.

It is NOT my decision to make, or to know everything that is going on over there....but I KNOW, without a doubt, that in any kind of situation like this, the Secretary of State, the President, the whole administration....no matter the Party, has our Nation's best interest in how they handle it..... there is no reason for them to not put the US in its best light possible...it's their job.

as far as the intelligence being a 'fog of war' and it going back and forth to a group making the claim of being the attackers and then reneging it, and the CIA also stating that it was inspired by the video....this came out in the Benghazi hearings with the one where Hillary was there, and it was discussed in this hearing which you can find on C-span if you did not watch it. And you can bet your bottom dollar, that if Hillary had lied about the CIA saying it was a terrorist group that took credit and then the terrorist reneged, and Intelligence also reporting it was the video, you can bet your bottom dollar the House would have at least tried to bring charges against her...

The Benghazi hearings by all the different committees also reported such.

View attachment 59261

read this full report here: http://intelligence.house.gov/sites/intelligence.house.gov/files/documents/Benghazi Report.pdf

I cannot agree on any of that. This assumption that politicians are acting to put the nation's interest first because ' it's their job', and then resting the rest of it on top of this foundation is pretty tough to swallow.

We did get caught napping, although there was plenty of warning. Point of fact is that the original CIA talking points included that fact:

"The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qa’ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya. These noted that, since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador’s convoy. We cannot rule out the individuals has previously surveilled the U.S. facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks.”

The state department had that removed, and their reason for doing so, again in their own words, speaks to the heart of your argument. The state department is worried about the state department, not 'the nation'

"State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland took issue with including that information because it “could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either? Concerned …”

As a result that paragraph was completely removed, as were any references to Al Qaeda.

To me this looks like politicians covering their own asses on multiple fronts. Their own words, again, would seem to indicate same.

I'll freely admit I'm cynical as hell about politicians although I see plenty of motive here for the Obama camp to not have its 'Al Qaeda is decimated' campaign narrative disrupted during the last months of the campaign and for the state department to not want to look asleep at the switch.

Beyond that I do not see how molding all of this in the way they did helps the nation in any way, but it's easy to see how it served their political interests. Could it be both? Well, I guess so, but that's mighty convenient that what was best for the nation also served their own interests by deflecting blame from their policies, in the case of the administration, or from their lack of response to Intel, in the case of state. In short, I think this was politicians being politicians and playing CYA, not people attempting to protect the nation.

Do you think, going before the whole world on tv, including terrorist, within hours of the attack and saying we were caught off guard, would be good for our Nation? Our security elsewhere overseas? I don't!!!!

We still didn't even have it confirmed yet, and still didn't know who and why, definitively. That's a weakness that should not be plastered everywhere, especially without all the facts....


It concerns me more that within 24 hours of 9/11 we had 19 hijackers photos plastered in every newspaper saying they did it.....

How in the heck could the FBI and CIA have photos and names of all those terrorists within minutes of the attack, and NOT have been able to stop these terrorists they were VERY AWARE OF?????


Oh, and this was Obama's full statement using "decimated"


Obama said, “We’ve decimated al Qaeda’s top leadership in the border regions around Pakistan, but in Yemen, in Libya, in other of these places – increasingly in places like Syria – what you see is these elements that don’t have the same capacity that a bin Laden or core al Qaeda had, but can still cause a lot of damage, and we’ve got to make sure that we remain vigilant and are focused on preventing them from doing us any harm.”

thanks, you proved that Obama lied about al Qaeda being decimated. You also explained very well why he, Clinton, and rice lied about the video being the cause.

have you had an epiphany?

 

[Fueri]

First, thanks for not shrieking at me for disagreeing.

Anyhoo, I can't agree with simply trusting them. Not because I don't think there are times when the government needs to do things on the fly for the good of the country, but because in this case it does not appear that this serves anyone's interests but those of the administration in this case. That is, of course, arguable

If you read through the link you will see Hillary herself blaming an al qaeda like group immediately after the attack.

“Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an al Qaeda-like group: The Ambassador, whom I handpicked and a young communications officer on temporary duty w a wife and two young children. Very hard day and I fear more of the same tomorrow.”

then the talking points issued by the CIA are massaged, yes? I posted this before, precisely because the CIA's original position WAS altered, but here it is again.

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.

Here are some other tidbits:

"We call attention in particular to these key facts:

• 
  
  
  • There were no protesters at the Benghazi consulate prior to the attack, even though Obama and others repeatedly said the attackers joined an angry mob that had formed in opposition to the anti-Muslim film that had triggered protests in Egypt and elsewhere. The State Department disclosed this fact Oct. 9 — nearly a month after the attack.
  • Libya President Mohamed Magariaf insisted on Sept. 16 — five days after the attack — that it was a planned terrorist attack, but administration officials continued for days later to say there was no evidence of a planned attack.
  • Magariaf also said the idea that the attack was a “spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous.” This, too, was on Sept. 16. Yet, Obama and others continued to describe the incident in exactly those terms — including during the president’s Sept. 18 appearance on the “Late Show With David Letterman.”
  • Matt Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, was the first administration official to call it “a terrorist attack” during a Sept. 19 congressional hearing. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did the same on Sept. 20. Even so, Obama declined opportunities to call it a terrorist attack when asked at a town hall meeting on Sept. 20 and during a taping of “The View” on Sept. 24."

As to intelligence agencies never taking the video off the table as a possible contributor, I'm not sure what that really means. They'd have to prove a negative to do so. They can't prove anything did NOT contribute to something.

Sorry, I don't buy it, not for a second. Not their story and not this fog of war stuff, which I think is nonsense.

Evidence provided by Politifact is there for anyone that chooses to read it. To me it would seem to indicate that the administration, including Clinton, knew what happened but decided to play CYA in an election year by trying to deflect blame away from something that could be construed as a "broader failure of policy"- their own words yet again:

"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.”

thank you as well!

Let me address the Hillary email to her daughter right after the attack.

(I watched the Benghazi hearing with her and have read the previous Benghazi reports lead by Republicans Committees.)

The CIA and other intelligence reports had supplied the administration with information that a terrorist group was taking credit for the attack, of which the CIA claims they had no warning or previous Knowledge that something like this would happen.

The CIA AT THE SAME TIME also supplied them with information that some of their intelligence sources are saying it was an attack inspired by the video and this video resentment was getting ready to explode across the middle east.

that night when she spoke to Chelsea, a terrorist group had taken credit for it....thus what she mentioned to Chelsea.

The following morning, CIA/NSA intelligence told the administration that the group that initially tweeted that they were responsible came out and RETRACTED/ RENEGED their initial claim....so as she had said, the intelligence was fluid, and changing by the minute....

Also just two weeks after the incident, the Intelligence community came out with their analysis and said it was a specific terrorist group, this was in the news everywhere and it was still 6 weeks minimum until the election. It would have made no difference to the American people Knowing on the 12th of September or knowing on the 24th of September....they had plenty of time to change their minds about voting for Obama.

and I might add that Obama NEVER SAID AlQaeda was completely eliminated as the right wing is trying to mix in as a "talking point" with all of this and give this as a reason for not claiming it was terrorists.... and Romney would have won if the people knew this garbage....yahdahdahdahdah..... Obama said we were making good progress against Alqaeda, NOT that they were gone forever and a day....

And, I might add that Alqaeda has basically disappeared since he mentioned our progress and now the terrorists we are against are ISIL.

Do you have sources for your assertions on these things? Not being accusatory, as actually I believe that you believe what you're saying, but this is simply a version with no supporting evidence. The timeline I found at politifact is the best synopsis I've found that is sourced and supported.

Here's another correspondence

"Sept. 12, 3:04 p.m.: Clinton calls then-Egyptian Prime Minister Hisham Qandil and tells him, “We know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack — not a protest.” An account of that call was contained in an email written by State Department Public Affairs Officer Lawrence Randolph that summarizes the call between the two leaders. The email was released by the House Benghazi committee."

I was also two days later (Sept 14) that the e-mail written by Rhodes went out regarding their desires to have this not be seen as a failure of policy, so this shift and new information has to have come during that ~48 hour time period. That is certainly possible, but I've seen nothing to this point that supports it other than this claim of 'fluidity' and 'fog of war' stuff. Who said what and when to shift from this position of a terrorist attack to a video and why were the CIA's talking points massaged to omit references to Al Qaeda and by whom?

Obama said Al Qaeda was 'decimated' several times. Completely eliminated? No, that's not possible to actually claim, but decimated, 'on the run' etc. He was stumping big on this supposed victory. I can post quotes here, but I think everyone remembers that stuff.

We can say, well people had time to change their minds, however, once the facts are muddled how is it expected that voters by and large can do that. We're still debating it years later.

At the time it's a win politically if they can simply confuse or convince enough people that what they've been saying all along, is in fact true, otherwise they lose that plank. Fighting it to a draw is a win for them in this case, as otherwise they lose ground.

Do they lose the election if they get egg splattered squarely on them on this? Probably not, but at the time we didn't know that- and neither did they.

Fueri, See, I don't care what our government told other Nation heads...and when they said it... What I expect our government to do, is put us in our best light, and have a plan to keep the rest of our folks over there, secure. No way Jose' would I expect our government blast over world wide television that we got caught with our pants down....that IS NOT IN OUR BEST INTEREST as a Nation.

It is NOT my decision to make, or to know everything that is going on over there....but I KNOW, without a doubt, that in any kind of situation like this, the Secretary of State, the President, the whole administration....no matter the Party, has our Nation's best interest in how they handle it..... there is no reason for them to not put the US in its best light possible...it's their job.

as far as the intelligence being a 'fog of war' and it going back and forth to a group making the claim of being the attackers and then reneging it, and the CIA also stating that it was inspired by the video....this came out in the Benghazi hearings with the one where Hillary was there, and it was discussed in this hearing which you can find on C-span if you did not watch it. And you can bet your bottom dollar, that if Hillary had lied about the CIA saying it was a terrorist group that took credit and then the terrorist reneged, and Intelligence also reporting it was the video, you can bet your bottom dollar the House would have at least tried to bring charges against her...

The Benghazi hearings by all the different committees also reported such.

View attachment 59261

read this full report here: http://intelligence.house.gov/sites/intelligence.house.gov/files/documents/Benghazi Report.pdf

I cannot agree on any of that. This assumption that politicians are acting to put the nation's interest first because ' it's their job', and then resting the rest of it on top of this foundation is pretty tough to swallow.

We did get caught napping, although there was plenty of warning. Point of fact is that the original CIA talking points included that fact:

"The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qa’ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya. These noted that, since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador’s convoy. We cannot rule out the individuals has previously surveilled the U.S. facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks.”

The state department had that removed, and their reason for doing so, again in their own words, speaks to the heart of your argument. The state department is worried about the state department, not 'the nation'

"State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland took issue with including that information because it “could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either? Concerned …”

As a result that paragraph was completely removed, as were any references to Al Qaeda.

To me this looks like politicians covering their own asses on multiple fronts. Their own words, again, would seem to indicate same.

I'll freely admit I'm cynical as hell about politicians although I see plenty of motive here for the Obama camp to not have its 'Al Qaeda is decimated' campaign narrative disrupted during the last months of the campaign and for the state department to not want to look asleep at the switch.

Beyond that I do not see how molding all of this in the way they did helps the nation in any way, but it's easy to see how it served their political interests. Could it be both? Well, I guess so, but that's mighty convenient that what was best for the nation also served their own interests by deflecting blame from their policies, in the case of the administration, or from their lack of response to Intel, in the case of state. In short, I think this was politicians being politicians and playing CYA, not people attempting to protect the nation.

Do you think, going before the whole world on tv, including terrorist, within hours of the attack and saying we were caught off guard, would be good for our Nation? Our security elsewhere overseas? I don't!!!!

We still didn't even have it confirmed yet, and still didn't know who and why, definitively. That's a weakness that should not be plastered everywhere, especially without all the facts....


It concerns me more that within 24 hours of 9/11 we had 19 hijackers photos plastered in every newspaper saying they did it.....

How in the heck could the FBI and CIA have photos and names of all those terrorists within minutes of the attack, and NOT have been able to stop these terrorists they were VERY AWARE OF?????


Oh, and this was Obama's full statement using "decimated"


Obama said, “We’ve decimated al Qaeda’s top leadership in the border regions around Pakistan, but in Yemen, in Libya, in other of these places – increasingly in places like Syria – what you see is these elements that don’t have the same capacity that a bin Laden or core al Qaeda had, but can still cause a lot of damage, and we’ve got to make sure that we remain vigilant and are focused on preventing them from doing us any harm.”

Obviously we disagree on the motives of these people. I've quoted them and it makes no difference. I didn't really expect it to, but I'm not going to accept all of this 'they did it for us' position when their own statements contradict it.

Obama used that 'decimated' statement, or some variation on it, repeatedly during the campaign to the point it was standard fare for a stump speech, so there was not one statement, it was a core 'message' The only one that looks like a fool if that message is proven untrue is him, imo.

They cared about getting re-elected and spun this the best they could under the circumstances and the hard evidence shows that they had removed from the talking points things that would reflect poorly on them. It's what politicians do.