U.S. Ambassador Killed Over Anti-Islam Movie

[MrsSpringsteen]

I was wondering what took Dick so long to have his say

Huffington Post

Former Vice President Dick Cheney said Monday that President Barack Obama is part of a "cover-up" over the nature of the terrorist attack on a diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, 2012.

Obama administration officials "lied," Cheney told Sean Hannity on Fox News. "They claimed it was because of a demonstration video, so that they wouldn’t have to admit it was really all about their incompetence,” he said. "They ignored repeated warnings from the CIA about the threat. They ignored messages from their own people on the ground that they needed more security."

He added, "The cover-up included several officials up to and including President Obama, and the cover-up is still ongoing."

Republicans have also accused former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of a "cover-up," but coming from a former vice president, Cheney's allegation was an unusually strong charge.

Obama rejected the notion that he was involved in a "cover-up" at a press conference Monday. "If this was some effort on our part to try to downplay what had happened ... that would be a pretty odd thing that three days later we ended up putting out all the information that now serves as the basis for everybody recognizing this was a terrorist attack," he said. "Who executes some sort of cover-up or effort to tamp things down for three days? The whole thing defies logic."

The State Department's talking points on Sept. 14, released by ABC News, initially said that the attacks were "spontaneously inspired" by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo over an anti-Muslim video and "evolved" into an attack. They also mentioned a "crowd" with a "mix of individuals across many sectors of Libyan society." Talking points the next day, however, mention "demonstrations" in Benghazi -- something the State Department later said did not happen. Initial press reports also said the attacks stemmed from a mob protesting the video.

Cheney also said that the United States is prepared for such attacks, particularly since 9/11 and on the anniversaries of that day. "In my past experience when we got into these situations — especially after 9/11 — we were always on the step, locked and loaded, ready to go on 9/11," he said. "We have specially-trained units that practice this sort of thing all the time. They are very good at it and they are chomping at the bit to go.”

Cheney then asked why there were no forces available to counterattack the Benghazi attacks. Gregory Hicks, former deputy chief of mission in Libya and the top witness at a hearing on the Benghazi attacks held Wednesday by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said that he asked the same thing. Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who served with Cheney under President Bush and also for President Obama, said Sunday that the idea that a fighter jet could have been scrambled in response to the attacks shows a "cartoonish impression of military capabilities and military forces."

[deep]

Cheney - Rubio 2016

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Two, who changed the talking points to remove all mention of terrorism and plug in a completely false narrative about a youtube video that was repeated for weeks?

this must be so disappointing. but then, is The Weekly Standard right about anything, ever?

CNN exclusive: White House email contradicts Benghazi leaks
CNN's Jake Tapper reports:

CNN has obtained an e-mail sent by a top aide to President Barack Obama about White House reaction to the deadly attack last September 11 on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, that apparently differs from how sources characterized it to two different media organizations.

The actual e-mail from then-Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes appears to show that whomever leaked it did so in a way that made it appear that the White House was primarily concerned with the State Department's desire to remove references and warnings about specific terrorist groups so as to not bring criticism to the department.

Rhodes, White House communications director Jennifer Palmieri, and White House press secretary Jay Carney, could not be reached for comment.

In the e-mail sent on Friday, September 14, 2012, at 9:34 p.m., obtained by CNN from a U.S. government source, Rhodes wrote:

“All –

“Sorry to be late to this discussion. We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation.

“There is a ton of wrong information getting out into the public domain from Congress and people who are not particularly informed. Insofar as we have firmed up assessments that don’t compromise intel or the investigation, we need to have the capability to correct the record, as there are significant policy and messaging ramifications that would flow from a hardened mis-impression.

“We can take this up tomorrow morning at deputies.”

You can read the e-mail HERE.

ABC News reported that Rhodes wrote: “We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don’t want to undermine the FBI investigation. We thus will work through the talking points tomorrow morning at the Deputies Committee meeting.” The Weekly Standard reported that Rhodes "responded to the group, explaining that Nuland had raised valid concerns and advising that the issues would be resolved at a meeting of the National Security Council’s Deputies Committee the following morning."

ABC News notes in its report that it was provided summaries of White House and State Department emails.

Whoever provided those accounts seemingly invented the notion that Rhodes wanted the concerns of the State Department specifically addressed. While Nuland, particularly, had expressed a desire to remove mentions of specific terrorist groups and CIA warnings about the increasingly dangerous assignment, Rhodes put no emphasis at all in his e-mail on the State Department's concerns.

The context of the e-mail chain is important. Different officials from different agencies were going through iterations of talking points for Congress. But Nuland, sources who have seen the e-mails say, was not the only one expressing concerns. There were internal disagreements within the CIA about a number of issues, including whether the attack was a pre-planned act of terrorism, or the result of spontaneous demonstrations in Benghazi because of demonstrations in Cairo against an anti-Muslim video (a demonstration that, it turns out, never happened in Benghazi). FBI officials were also expressing concerns about how much to say about the investigation, and how much information should be shared at that time.

Previous reporting also misquoted Rhodes as saying the group would work through the talking points at the deputies meeting on Saturday, September 15, when the talking points to Congress were finalized. While the previously written subject line of the e-mail mentions talking points, Rhodes only addresses misinformation in a general sense.

Context here, too, is important. The e-mail chain was generally about the talking points for members of Congress, and a government source says Rhodes in his e-mail was talking principally about the talking points for members of Congress, but he was also discussing other items more broadly including the investigation into the attacks, related intelligence, and what administration officials would say to reporters and the public. The deputies’ meeting the next day was to focus on more than just the talking points, sources tell CNN, looking primarily at security at U.S. diplomatic posts around the world. The "wrong information" being disseminated that Rhodes was addressing would need to be addressed with more than just talking points for members of Congress, but also by trying to forge a general understanding of what the Obama administration was saying about the attack at Benghazi. In this, it’s hard to conclude that the administration succeeded, given the various and conflicting explanations and continued references to demonstrations in Benghazi against an anti-Muslim video, a demonstration that the intelligence community now concludes did not happen.

So whoever leaked the inaccurate information earlier this month did so in a way that made it appear that the White House – specifically Rhodes – was more interested in the State Department’s concerns, and more focused on the talking points, than the e-mail actually stated.

The e-mail was sent to former National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor, CIA spokeswoman Cynthia Rapp, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland, State Department official Jake Sullivan, spokesman for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence Shawn Turner and others whose names have been redacted from the copy of the e-mail obtained by CNN. The subject line of the e-mail is “Re: Revised HPSCI Talking Points for Review.”

CNN exclusive: White House email contradicts Benghazi leaks – The Lead with Jake Tapper - CNN.com Blogs

[Jive Turkey]

Indy was only ever interested in the semantics here. All this other stuff is being tacked on after the fact to make it look like he actually had a point.
I also love how the idea that this originally might've been connected with the movie keeps getting brushed off as a completely absurd idea. As if there weren't riots in the streets elsewhere over that very thing. "How could they have thought something so outlandish??!?"

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

this must be so disappointing. but then, is The Weekly Standard right about anything, ever?

There is nothing in what you posted as to why specifics concerning prior warnings and a responsible party were removed or to who pushed the notion of a spontaneous protest over a video. A notion that was pushed for weeks in the face of all the evidence from Libya.

Cover-up.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Cover-up.

Lindsay Graham doesn't want to be primaried.

[INDY500]

Exclusive: Dozens of CIA operatives on the ground during Benghazi attack – The Lead with Jake Tapper - CNN.com Blogs

July 31, 2013
CNN has uncovered exclusive new information about what is allegedly happening at the CIA, in the wake of the deadly Benghazi terror attack. Four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens, were killed in the assault by armed militants last September 11 in eastern Libya.

Sources now tell CNN dozens of people working for the CIA were on the ground that night, and that the agency is going to great lengths to make sure whatever it was doing, remains a secret. CNN has learned the CIA is involved in what one source calls an unprecedented attempt to keep the spy agency's Benghazi secrets from ever leaking out.

Since January, some CIA operatives involved in the agency's missions in Libya, have been subjected to frequent, even monthly polygraph examinations, according to a source with deep inside knowledge of the agency's workings.

The goal of the questioning, according to sources, is to find out if anyone is talking to the media or Congress.

It is being described as pure intimidation, with the threat that any unauthorized CIA employee who leaks information could face the end of his or her career.

In exclusive communications obtained by CNN, one insider writes, "You don't jeopardize yourself, you jeopardize your family as well."

Another says, "You have no idea the amount of pressure being brought to bear on anyone with knowledge of this operation."

"Agency employees typically are polygraphed every three to four years. Never more than that," said former CIA operative and CNN analyst Robert Baer.

In other words, the rate of the kind of polygraphs alleged by sources is rare.

"If somebody is being polygraphed every month, or every two months it's called an issue polygraph, and that means that the polygraph division suspects something, or they're looking for something, or they're on a fishing expedition. But it's absolutely not routine at all to be polygraphed monthly, or bi-monthly," said Baer.

CIA spokesman Dean Boyd asserted in a statement that the agency has been open with Congress.

"The CIA has worked closely with its oversight committees to provide them with an extraordinary amount of information related to the attack on U.S. facilities in Benghazi," the statement said.

"CIA employees are always free to speak to Congress if they want," the statement continued. "The CIA enabled all officers involved in Benghazi the opportunity to meet with Congress. We are not aware of any CIA employee who has experienced retaliation, including any non-routine security procedures, or who has been prevented from sharing a concern with Congress about the Benghazi incident."

Among the many secrets still yet to be told about the Benghazi mission, is just how many Americans were there the night of the attack.

A source now tells CNN that number was 35, with as many as seven wounded, some seriously.

While it is still not known how many of them were CIA, a source tells CNN that 21 Americans were working in the building known as the annex, believed to be run by the agency.

The lack of information and pressure to silence CIA operatives is disturbing to U.S. Rep. Frank Wolf, whose district includes CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.

"I think it is a form of a cover-up, and I think it's an attempt to push it under the rug, and I think the American people are feeling the same way," said the Republican.

"We should have the people who were on the scene come in, testify under oath, do it publicly, and lay it out. And there really isn't any national security issue involved with regards to that," he said.

Wolf has repeatedly gone to the House floor, asking for a select committee to be set-up, a Watergate-style probe involving several intelligence committee investigators assigned to get to the bottom of the failures that took place in Benghazi, and find out just what the State Department and CIA were doing there.

More than 150 fellow Republican members of Congress have signed his request, and just this week eight Republicans sent a letter to the new head of the FBI, James Comey, asking that he brief Congress within 30 days.

In the aftermath of the attack, Wolf said he was contacted by people closely tied with CIA operatives and contractors who wanted to talk.

Then suddenly, there was silence.

"Initially they were not afraid to come forward. They wanted the opportunity, and they wanted to be subpoenaed, because if you're subpoenaed, it sort of protects you, you're forced to come before Congress. Now that's all changed," said Wolf.

Lawmakers also want to know about the weapons in Libya, and what happened to them.

Speculation on Capitol Hill has included the possibility the U.S. agencies operating in Benghazi were secretly helping to move surface-to-air missiles out of Libya, through Turkey, and into the hands of Syrian rebels.

It is clear that two U.S. agencies were operating in Benghazi, one was the State Department, and the other was the CIA.

The State Department told CNN in an e-mail that it was only helping the new Libyan government destroy weapons deemed "damaged, aged or too unsafe retain," and that it was not involved in any transfer of weapons to other countries.

But the State Department also clearly told CNN, they "can't speak for any other agencies."

The CIA would not comment on whether it was involved in the transfer of any weapons.

Funny how this story slipped by without getting posted here (not really). But now we know the answer to several questions I've raised here in this thread:

1) Why a stand-down order was sent to our military forces in the area and no help ever arrived.

2) Why, as this story points out, GOP leadership in the House has resisted the type of investigation that would really expose what happened.

3) Why the ruse over the internet video was created when no one on the ground ever reported a protest.

4) Why no survivors have been interviewed in the press.

5) Why no arrested have been made in the case a year later.

A CIA operation, most likely illegal, was operating out of Benghazi and it all went wrong.

Another "phony scandal" says our president.

[nbcrusader]

Benghazi Talking Points Underwent 12 Revisions, Scrubbed of Terror Reference

The White House was too focused on Obama's image to worry about the Americans at the scene.

And just to keep the image clean, the CIA required agents to sign a non-disclosure agreement - or else.

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

The IRS scandal is actually an issue. This is bullshit.

You should have watched 60 Minutes last night.

[Jive Turkey]

Indy sure does get a boner for hating on Obama

[Jive Turkey]

Indy, you left your web cam on, brother

[LPU2]

Republicans want so desperately to find some wrongdoing on the part of the administration here. And it sounds like mistakes were indeed made. But this barely rises to the level of a controversy, let alone the "bigger than watergate" scandal they wanted it to be.

[U2DMfan]

Originally Posted by INDY500

You should have watched 60 Minutes last night.

I watched it. Pretty damning w/r/t to an incompetent reaction.

Is the "scandal" the incompetence or the fact that they covered up the incompetence because of the election? And what can be done about it now?

Just asking the questions. What, in your mind, is the big issue here?

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

Indy, you left your web cam on, brother

Enough with the insults, JT.

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by U2DMfan

I watched it. Pretty damning w/r/t to an incompetent reaction.

Is the "scandal" the incompetence or the fact that they covered up the incompetence because of the election? And what can be done about it now?

Just asking the questions. What, in your mind, is the big issue here?

Both but I certainly realize that no president can anticipate the terrible things that can happen when you have a presence in the shitholes of the world (Blackhawk down for Clinton, Marine base for Reagan, etc).

The scandal is the coverup (video protest), a covert CIA operation AND the president's lack of accountability.

[PhilsFan]

Originally Posted by INDY500

You should have watched 60 Minutes last night.

60 Minutes Benghazi Report Takes A Huge Credibility Hit | Blog | Media Matters for America

The Benghazi "witness" featured in a CBS 60 Minutes report that galvanized new discussion of the administration's response to the attack previously said he never got near the diplomatic compound on the night of the attack, according to a report from The Washington Post.

[Irvine511]

time to move on.

CBS correspondent Lara Logan apologized to viewers Friday for a disputed "60 Minutes" report on the Benghazi attack and said the program would issue a correction.

"Today the truth is that we made a mistake," Logan said on "CBS This Morning."

At the center of the dispute is Dylan Davies, a British security contractor who under a pseudonym gave "60 Minutes" a heroic account of his involvement in the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya. After the program aired, the Washington Post and the New York Times discovered contradictions between the account Davies gave "60 Minutes" and the descriptions of the attack the contractor gave to his employer and to the FBI.

Those reports raised questions about whether Davies was actually present at the Benghazi compound on the night of the attack, casting doubt onto the contractor's credibility as a source. CBS issued a statement Thursday that said the network had learned of "new information" undercutting Davies' account and was looking into the matter.

Logan told viewers that the program took Davies' vetting "very seriously," but that the contractor "misled" them.

"We were wrong to put him on air," Logan said.

"We will apologize to our viewers and we will correct the record on our broadcast on Sunday night," she added.

CBS Reporter On '60 Minutes' Benghazi Program: 'We Made A Mistake' (VIDEO)

[Jive Turkey]

You shouldn't have watched 60 Minutes the other night

[Irvine511]

putting this to bed:

(CNN) -- A New York Times report on the September 11, 2012, attack that killed four Americans -- including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens -- in Benghazi, Libya, calls into question much of what Republicans accusing the Obama administration of a cover-up have said about the incident.

The three main points of contention have been whether the attack was planned, whether it was sparked by an anti-Muslim video, and whether al Qaeda was involved.

However, the Times says, the administration's version, focusing on outrage over the inflammatory video, and first delivered by then-ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice on Sunday morning talk shows five days later, isn't exactly right, either.

"The reality in Benghazi was different, and murkier, than either of those story lines suggests. Benghazi was not infiltrated by Al Qaeda, but nonetheless contained grave local threats to American interests. The attack does not appear to have been meticulously planned, but neither was it spontaneous or without warning signs," according to David D. Kirkpatrick's article in the Times.

It's a conclusion that CNN has drawn in its previous reporting.

The attack at the Benghazi diplomatic compound has become a political flashpoint in a long-running battle between the White House and Republicans, who accuse the Obama administration of not bolstering security before the attack, of botching the response to it and of misleading the public for political gain less than two months before the November election.

The GOP suggests the administration removed specific terror references and stuck to the explanation advanced by Rice -- later proved untrue -- that the attack was the result of spontaneous demonstrations over the U.S.-produced film "Innocence of Muslims," which contained scenes some Muslims considered blasphemous.

The White House and its allies in Congress have said any confusion and conflicting information in the early hours and days after the assault stemmed from the "fog of war," not any deliberate effort to mislead the public.

The White House had no comment when CNN requested a response to the Times article.

After reading it, Obama's former national security spokesman Tommy Vietor unleashed a series of tweets, including these, condemning Republicans who've spent more than a year lambasting and investigating the Beghazi incident:

-- "If Rs spent 1/50th as much time as @ddknyt learning what really happened in #Benhazi, we could have avoided months of disgusting demagoguery."

-- "Republicans inflated the role of al Qaeda in #Bengazi to attack Obama's CT record. They were wrong, and handed our enemy a propaganda win."

-- "Credit to @ddknyt but also disconcerting that his #Benghazi article offered more insight into what happened than all Congressional hearings."

The Times' article, which includes interviews with several Libyan militia leaders who helped bring down Col. Moammar Gadhafi's dictatorship in 2012, says no evidence supports speculation about al Qaeda's involvement in the Benghazi attack. To the contrary, the Times reports that the diverse and fractured opposition militias, many of whom were at least somewhat friendly toward U.S. interests, most likely contributed to the attack.

That dovetails with the findings of the State Department investigative panel report on Benghazi.

"The Benghazi attacks also took place in a context in which the global terrorism threat as most often represented by al Qaeda (AQ) is fragmenting and increasingly devolving to local affiliates and other actors who share many of AQ's aims, including violent anti-Americanism, without necessarily being organized or operated under direct AQ command and control," the report said.

The Times report zeroes in on militia leader Abu Khattala as well as the like-minded Islamist militia Ansar al Sharia.

In a recent interview with CNN's Arwa Damon, Khattala acknowledged being at the Benghazi mission after the attack but denied any involvement.

Damon spent two hours interviewing Khattala at a coffee shop at a well-known hotel in Benghazi. He allowed Damon to use an audio recorder to tape the conversation, but refused to appear on camera.

Khattala's narrative of the events that night was sometimes unclear and, at times, seemed to be contradictory, Damon said.

He admitted to being at the compound the night of the attack, but denied any involvement in the violence.

Asked about allegations he may have masterminded the attack, Khattala and two of the men he brought with him to the interview "burst out laughing," Damon said.

Khattala told CNN that he had not been questioned by either Libyan authorities or the FBI.

The militia leader was one of those whom U.S. prosecutors charged in the attacks, as CNN first reported.

Ansar al Sharia is more a label than an organization, one that's been adopted by conservative Salafist groups across the Arab world. The name means, simply, "Partisans of Islamic Law."

In Benghazi, Ansar al Sharia was one of many groups that filled the vacuum of authority following the overthrow of Gadhafi.

The group's central belief is that all authority is derived from the Prophet Mohammed, that democracy is un-Islamic and that other branches of Islam, such as the Sufi, are heretical.

There do not appear to be organizational links between Ansar al Sharia and al Qaeda, but there is solidarity.

Among the group's Benghazi membership is Mohammed al-Zahawi, who fought to overthrow Gadhafi and praised al Qaeda leader Ayman al Zawahiri in a BBC interview. He said al Qaeda's statements "help galvanize the Muslim nation, maintain its dignity and pride."

A different Ansar al Sharia is affiliated with al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in Yemen, and budding franchises are said to exist in Tunisia, Morocco and Egypt.

New York Times report casts doubt on al Qaeda involvement in Benghazi - CNN.com

my takeaway: we have no idea what really goes on in these very complex societies, and we should think very carefully about messing with them.

and there is no low to which the GOP will not sink to smear this particular president.

[INDY500]

Down the Times’ Bengahzi Rabbit Hole | National Review Online

As for the Times’ exculpation of al-Qaeda, it doesn’t even comport with the Grey Lady’s own prior reporting. It is, more to the point, a continuation of what we’ve been arguing in this space for over a decade now: What knits together the global jihad is Islamic-supremacist ideology — mainstream Middle Eastern Islam, directly traceable to Koranic scripture. The organizational niceties and shifting loyalties of jihadist groups are a sideshow — including what it has become fashionable to call “core al-Qaeda” and its expanding array of franchises, tentacles, and wannabes.

So why do I say, “Mission Accomplished”? Because the objective of Kirkpatrick’s novella is not to persuade; it is to shrink the parameters of newsworthy inquiry to a punctilious debate over nonsense: The cockamamie trailer and the dizzying jihadist org chart.

We still don't know what the president was doing the night of the attacks do we?
We still haven't heard from survivors have we?
We still don't know what the CIA and the ambassador were even doing in Benghazi do we?
The only person "brought to justice" one year plus is the boneheaded producer of that video.

It's amazing to me what lengths the apologists will go to protect this particular president.