BREAKING: The president knew the truth about Benghazi

[The_Grand_Illusion]

http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ri...5445_blog.html


BREAKING: The president knew the truth about Benghazi

By Jennifer Rubin, Published: NOVEMBER 16, 5:18 PM ET


In a blockbuster report, John Solomon, the former Associated Press and Post reporter, has ferreted out the president’s daily brief that informed him within 72 hours of the Sept. 11 attack that the Benghazi attack was a jihadist operation.

Citing officials directly familiar with the information, Solomon writes in the Washington Guardian that Obama and other administration officials were told that “that the attack was likely carried out by local militia and other armed extremists sympathetic to al-Qaida in the region.”

He adds:

The details from the CIA and Pentagon assessments of the killing of Ambassador Chris [Stevens] were far more specific, more detailed and more current than the unclassified talking points that UN Ambassador Susan Rice and other officials used five days after the attack to suggest to Americans that an unruly mob angry over an anti-Islamic video was to blame, officials said.

Most of the details affirming al-Qaida links were edited or excluded from the unclassified talking points used by Rice in appearances on news programs the weekend after the attack, officials confirmed Friday. Multiple agencies were involved in excising information, doing so because it revealed sources and methods, dealt with classified intercepts or involved information that was not yet fully confirmed, the officials said.

Solomon cautions that there were bits of evidence pointing to a spontaneous attack but, as Eli Lake of the Daily Beast and others have reported, he writes: “Among the early evidence cited in the briefings to the president and other senior officials were intercepts showing some of the participants were known members or supporters of Ansar al-Sharia — the al-Qaida-sympathizing militia in Libya — and the AQIM, which is a direct affiliate of al-Qaida in northern Africa, the officials said.”

How could the president and his senior staff then have allowed (or rather, sent) Rice to go out to tell an entirely different tale to the American people on Sept. 16 on five TV shows?

This report indicates that the president certainly knew that Benghazi wasn’t a rogue movie review gone bad. He had information that plainly spelled out what was later confirmed by additional intelligence. If this information was too confidential to share with the public, at the very least the president and others should not have mislead voters.

This is a full-blown scandal, and in light of this information, the press corps’s slothful indifference to uncovering the truth at Wednesday’s news conference with Obama is all the more shocking. It is time for the president to come clean. The scandal has now enveloped the Oval Office and will define his second term, if not resolved satisfactorily.

The irony of this is that Rice may well have been used as a patsy, unaware that she was sent out to spin a misleading tale. My colleague Dana Milbank recounts Rice’s long-standing inability to get along with others and to be circumspect in her pronouncements:

It’s true that, in her much-criticized TV performance, she was reciting talking points given to her by the intelligence agencies. But that’s the trouble. Rice stuck with her points even though they had been contradicted by the president of the Libyan National Assembly, who, on CBS’s ‘Face the Nation’ just before Rice, said there was “no doubt” that the attack on Americans in Benghazi “was preplanned.” Rice rebutted the Libyan official, arguing — falsely, it turned out — that there was no evidence of such planning. . . . Obama can do better at State than Susan Rice.

Frankly the same could be said of many national security positions at this point. The American people made their choice in November on the president, but it now appears they were duped regarding the real facts concerning Benghazi. What are we going to do about that?

[Dick Bull]

Originally Posted by A Salt Weapon

Your reading comprehension is on par with a dyslexic four year old with down syndrome, yeah I know he was re-elected(although I still question the results) that's what my post was about.
Yeah I swapped the 2. I deserve the beating I get over that. You were doing good then you started going kooky with results questioning.
Look, congratulations, you socialists and communists have successfully taken over half our country, you have "won" it by promising free shit to the worthless in exchange for votes. Again, congratulations, you will have your utopia until you run out of the minorities (productive members of society, not racial) money. Enjoy it.
Posted via Mobile Device

You should probably give some credit to Mitt for writing the last portion of your reply.

[Dick Bull]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

Regardless of your politics, you can't even begin to pretend that nearly as big a deal was made of this as should have been.

If the media spent a fraction of the time investigating Benghazi as they did figuring out Romney's affiliation with Bain, this story would have broken ages ago.

Again... I don't care what conclusion you draw out of it. But it is absolutely outrageous how far the media went to keep critical domestic issues under wraps for the election campaign.

I disagree. What I see is some members of the right going off on their crazy conspiracy theories like birth certificates, student records, etc. I see the msm as viewing it as a non story. We saw Mitt bring it up once and got buttraped on it in a national debate and then it went away. If Mitt felt there was a story there don't you think he would have pressed a lot harder?

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by J Diddy

I disagree. What I see is some members of the right going off on their crazy conspiracy theories like birth certificates, student records, etc. I see the msm as viewing it as a non story. We saw Mitt bring it up once and got buttraped on it in a national debate and then it went away. If Mitt felt there was a story there don't you think he would have pressed a lot harder?

How can you disagree?

The day 60 Minutes had their interview with Romney and Obama, they have footage of Obama talking about Benghazi. They purposely cut it. And then they didn't release the transcripts until the 25th hour.

When it was alleged that e-mails acknowledged the attack, CNN deliberately said that obama declared it a terrorist attack right away.

I don't know why conservatives didn't pursue it. I don't know why Mitt didn't. What should drive anyone, regardless of party affiliation, crazy is the lackluster effort by the media to get to the bottom of it. Compared to the massive effort by the media to dig up records on Bain. Are you really going to tell me the MSM spent a fraction of the effort investigating Fast and Furious and Benghazi combined as they did with Bain alone?

[RINGLEADER]

Originally Posted by The_Grand_Illusion

Oh I agree, there is plenty to be concerned about before, during, and after the Benghazi attack. I posted the video of all those in the administration that went out with the false narrative, now we know that just wasn't true. You have to wonder why they did that. Administrations make mistakes all the time but to try to cover it up, you have to wonder why?

TGI

I think the choices are:

a) Politics
b) Bureaucratic confusion
c) Something else

The first two may be examples of bad leadership, to be true, but they're not necessarily nefarious (even the "we changed the talking points for political reasons" option). The third option of something that we don't know could be nefarious, but my limited imagination just can't seem to come up with that that would be...

[RINGLEADER]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

Go ask the CIA but the WH said they had nothing to do with it.

To be fair Dirk, everyone who testified said they didn't know who changed the talking points. The only group capable of knowing that has not been represented before congress so far has been the White House.

I just don't see why anyone is trying to blame/defend a position that the Obama administration has taken in the past? The real issue is why there was no protection for the facility and/or why the White House didn't provide independent security after it was requested.

[The_Grand_Illusion]

Originally Posted by RINGLEADER

I think the choices are:

a) Politics
b) Bureaucratic confusion
c) Something else

The first two may be examples of bad leadership, to be true, but they're not necessarily nefarious (even the "we changed the talking points for political reasons" option). The third option of something that we don't know could be nefarious, but my limited imagination just can't seem to come up with that that would be...

I understand your concern, with the disgusting lack of security before the attack, even when the administration had plenty of warning. Like I said, there is plenty to investigate what happened before during and after the attack. There is a lot of great info, even from those who have experience in security abroad, in the other Benghazi threads on the whole situation.

With the report coming out in the OP, we knew Obama knew the truth to what really happened within 72 hours but still went with the video narrative for almost 2 weeks. Also, with what Petraeus testified that the talking points were changed to de-emphasize terrorism, this all stinks to high heaven of playing politics for re-election purposes. Hillary stood over the bodies, with Obama close by, claiming the false narrative to the families of the victims of the attack, saying they would get the person responsible for the video that caused all the trouble.

I guess some of us don't care for this administration playing politics with dead Americans for re-election purposes but that is not the only thing that needs continued investigations

TGI

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

I know the story and what happened. I am not understanding what he lied about.

But someone has put it better than I can so point to which ones you agree with:

1. Obama sympathizes with terrorists and subscribes completely to the left-wing “blow-back” theory where Americans are morally culpable for terrorist attacks by courageous downtrodden Muslims. He is therefore predisposed to cover-up attacks on America. Partly because he blames America, and partly because he fears more blow-back. He is a radical, a coward, and a liar.

2. Obama tried to hide the terrorism aspect because he thought that a terrorist attack would hurt him in the polls. Obama’s political team is under the impression that one-off terrorist attacks produce a “rally AGAINST the flag” effect. The Commander in Chief is significantly weakened by these events, as we saw in the 3rd debate when Romney dressed down Obama, who cowered in the corner and wept on TV. David Axelrod feared that Obama’s poll numbers would collapse if the public saw him pounding his chest about murderers for a month. In order to avoid this outcome, he hatched a brilliant plan to increase his political fortunes: to cover up the terrorist attack for two weeks before eventually revealing it! When the GOP hauls David Axelrod in front of Congress, we’ll all learn more about the brilliant political plan that single-highhandedly reelected Obama.

3. Obama’s communications team doesn’t share information with public surrogates in a timely or efficient manner. This is worse than Watergate!

4. During the attack on Benghazi, Obama ignored a plea for help and denied assistance to the consulate. Because he’s a craven monster who sympathizes with violent murderers.

Where is "5. all of the above"?

And you forgot to add that his birth in Kenya and his Muslim background and beliefs, as influenced during his formative years by radical America-hating Reverend Wright, makes him completely unfit to be President in the first place.

[The_Grand_Illusion]

Originally Posted by J Diddy

I disagree. What I see is some members of the right going off on their crazy conspiracy theories like birth certificates, student records, etc. I see the msm as viewing it as a non story. We saw Mitt bring it up once and got buttraped on it in a national debate and then it went away. If Mitt felt there was a story there don't you think he would have pressed a lot harder?

This is easy to answer. It's because your liberal media was all in for their candidate, no matter what, so they failed you. Your liberal media has lost a lot of credibility over Benghazi and can no longer be trusted.

TGI

[|Zach|]

Originally Posted by The_Grand_Illusion

This is easy to answer. It's because your liberal media was all in for their candidate, no matter what, so they failed you. Your liberal media has lost a lot of credibility over Benghazi and can no longer be trusted.

TGI

Victim mentality.

[The_Grand_Illusion]

Originally Posted by |Zach|

Victim mentality.

I told you, you are such an arrogant ass and you are. Just because I called you out for your childishness, are you going to stalk me like you do ROYC75? I swear, you modern liberals are nothing more than children that never grew up, in adult bodies. This place has been full of you people since the beginning.

I have to laugh at you claiming I've got the victim mentallity and why it shows just how arrogant of an ass you are. I came from a poor minority family and never, ever asked for any help from anyone but maybe family. I took nothing and turned it in to something of a business for almost 17 years until the statism you libs believe in so much, that has killed our economy, and hurt the American dream for so many. So next time you decide to talk out your ass, think twice about it.

TGI

[Brock]

Originally Posted by The_Grand_Illusion

I told you, you are such an arrogant ass and you are. Just because I called you out for your childishness, are you going to stalk me like you do ROYC75? I swear, you modern liberals are nothing more than children that never grew up, in adult bodies. This place has been full of you people since the beginning.

I have to laugh at you claiming I've got the victim mentallity and why it shows just how arrogant of an ass you are. I came from a poor minority family and never, ever asked for any help from anyone but maybe family. I took nothing and turned it in to something of a business for almost 17 years until the statism you libs believe in so much, that has killed our economy, and hurt the American dream for so many. So next time you decide to talk out your ass, think twice about it.

TGI

Sounds like you're looking for a scapegoat for your own failure.

[The_Grand_Illusion]

Originally Posted by Brock

Sounds like you're looking for a scapegoat for your own failure.

No, I just understand statism never works, the government as the end all, the government utopia libs worship so much, never works. It just leads to misery and the huge debt, business closings, people losing employment, etc, like what we are witnessing now.

TGI

[Dick Bull]

Originally Posted by The_Grand_Illusion

This is easy to answer. It's because your liberal media was all in for their candidate, no matter what, so they failed you. Your liberal media has lost a lot of credibility over Benghazi and can no longer be trusted.

TGI

How does this answer why Mitt didn't press the issue further?

[The_Grand_Illusion]

Originally Posted by J Diddy

How does this answer why Mitt didn't press the issue further?

You said it yourself, this liberal media pounced all over him and would have diverted the attention to Mitt instead of the real issues on Benghazi. It's your liberal media that went all in for Obama instead of reporting what was right.

TGI

[Dick Bull]

Originally Posted by The_Grand_Illusion

You said it yourself, this liberal media pounced all over him and would have diverted the attention to Mitt instead of the real issues on Benghazi. It's your liberal media that went all in for Obama instead of reporting what was right.

TGI

The one time he did say something, it wasn't true, or for that matter, irrelevant in the scheme of things.

That's what he got pounced on for.