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?

[beer bacon]

Originally Posted by The_Grand_Illusion

Thanks for getting back on topic. Petraeus did come out and admit they downplayed the terrorism angle. They didn't have to say who but they still could have admitted it was terrorism, instead of a video, which is now a lie. He did have a political narrative that Bin Laden was dead and Al Quaeda was on the run. This would have gone against that narrative so you tell me if they played politics with the attack. It's not just what happened after, there are many isssues that need to be explained before and during the attack.

TGI

Can you please answer the specific questions I asked?

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by beer bacon

I'm confused by the Benghazi conspiracy nuts. So, you are all so outraged over four Americans being killed. You think Obama should have came out immediately and given us all the details, but he didn't, for political reasons. Now, conservative icon General David Petraeus has testified that the information on the attacks was classified and was withheld originally so it wouldn't impede efforts to catch the perpetrators of the consulate attacks, and you are upset Obama and other government officials didn't just spill the beans immediately on this classified information? You aren't concerned about getting justice for the Americans killed in Libya?

Is it the case where you are concerned about avenging those four dead Americans, but less so than scoring some political points on our newly re-elected President and our future Secretary of State? Those four Americans are important, but just not that important? How concerned were you when you found that Bush admin had lied to get us into war with Iraq, and that subsequently thousands of American soldiers died in that war?

Pretty much this. This Benghazi-gate is all so confusing and makes little to no sense.

I do agree though with Ringleader that what happened prior is much more important than what happened after and I think those are legitimate questions to ask.

[Brock]

Originally Posted by The_Grand_Illusion

I don't know what else to tell you. I've seen if first hand how the printing of money, devaluing the dollar causing higher prices for many households that has hurt people's spending power and how that impacts many businesses. I guess you'll just have to agree to disagree if you so please.

TGI

A lot of businesses are doing fine, probably a lot of them in the exact same business you were in. How do you account for that?

[ROYC75]

Originally Posted by Cave Johnson

Those two things are entirely, and by that I mean 100%, unrelated.

You clearly do not know what you are talking about.

Let me educate you here....

Pipeline crane mats > Used for pipeline jobs, the contracts my customer has is the Keystone Pipeline. The construction has came to a halt this year to the failure of the Obama administration to release the authority to continue to build it.

Firewood accounts > These accounts are generated to the white collar workers in the bigger cities, not smaller rural towns. With the economy bad or unstable right now, our customer (Kroger) has told that the expected sales will be smaller than previously thought.

We were geared up for a BIG year this year after picking up 4 more distribution centers, but the election came and went, people now are skeptical of the economy.

[|Zach|]

Originally Posted by ROYC75

Let me educate you here....

Quoted for awesomeness.

[The_Grand_Illusion]

Originally Posted by Brock

A lot of businesses are doing fine, probably a lot of them in the exact same business you were in. How do you account for that?

I guess if you say so. Although I know more that are not, than are. I've seen far more businesses close, many long-time, in the last few years than have opened but this is something I always try to observe where ever I go.

TGI

[ROYC75]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

Pretty much this. This Benghazi-gate is all so confusing and makes little to no sense.

I do agree though with Ringleader that what happened prior is much more important than what happened after and I think those are legitimate questions to ask.

Yep.

[ROYC75]

Originally Posted by |Zach|

Quoted for awesomeness.

Duly quoted by a CP Certified Ass.

[|Zach|]

Originally Posted by ROYC75

Duly quoted by a CP Certified Ass.

That is Mr. CP Certified Ass to you.

As long as I am on the clock that is!

[The_Grand_Illusion]

Originally Posted by beer bacon

Can you please answer the specific questions I asked?

Of course I want justice for those Americans. I wouldn't have posted in the Benghazi threads if I hadn't. It's just the libs don't care for where they might lead. There is a lot of good info in those threads if you really want to catch up on what we know. I tried to answer your questions in one reply. Susan Rice went out and spread the false narrative on national TV, when, if you read the OP, the president was briefed more on what really happened and it had nothing to do with a video. Like I said, they still could have put out that it was terrorism but there also was a political narrative to follow for the election.

TGI

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by The_Grand_Illusion

Of course I want justice for those Americans. I wouldn't have posted in the Benghazi threads if I hadn't. It's just the libs don't care for where they might lead. There is a lot of good info in those threads if you really want to catch up on what we know. I tried to answer your questions in one reply. Susan Rice went out and spread the false narrative on national TV, when, if you read the OP, the president was briefed more on what really happened and it had nothing to do with a video. Like I said, they still could have put out that it was terrorism but there also was a political narrative to follow for the election.

TGI

Why does a video being involved (and there were protests over that video elsewhere that day) preclude it being terrorism? The second someone fired at the building, it was terrorism--regardless of whether the shooter was mad about a video, a specific US policy, the US in general, or just woke up on the wrong side of the bed. I just don't see what practical difference it makes.

[Cave Johnson]

Originally Posted by ROYC75

You clearly do not know what you are talking about.

Let me educate you here....

Pipeline crane mats > Used for pipeline jobs, the contracts my customer has is the Keystone Pipeline. The construction has came to a halt this year to the failure of the Obama administration to release the authority to continue to build it.

Firewood accounts > These accounts are generated to the white collar workers in the bigger cities, not smaller rural towns. With the economy bad or unstable right now, our customer (Kroger) has told that the expected sales will be smaller than previously thought.

We were geared up for a BIG year this year after picking up 4 more distribution centers, but the election came and went, people now are skeptical of the economy.

Ah, you were stringing together two unrelated lines of business. Gotcha.

Can't speak to the firewood, but it certainly sucks that you're not getting the mats contract. From my perspective, thought, the Keystone Pipeline is an economic drain in perpetuity.

“The Canadian plan was to use their market power to raise prices in the United States (UNG) and get more money from consumers,” Philip Verleger , founder of Colorado-based energy consulting firm PK Verleger LLC, said in an interview. Prices may gain 10 to 20 cents in central states, he said.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...st-energy.html

[The_Grand_Illusion]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

Why does a video being involved (and there were protests over that video elsewhere that day) preclude it being terrorism? The second someone fired at the building, it was terrorism--regardless of whether the shooter was mad about a video, a specific US policy, the US in general, or just woke up on the wrong side of the bed. I just don't see what practical difference it makes.

Please read the OP.

Thanks,

TGI

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by The_Grand_Illusion

Please read the OP.

Thanks,

TGI

Done. Still don't know what practical difference it makes. The end result is the same. And the questions regarding appropriate security levels and the response all remain the same.

Somehow, mentioning the video (which was protested elsewhere that same day) turns this into "worse than Watergate?"

[ROYC75]

Originally Posted by |Zach|

That is Mr. CP Certified Ass to you.

As long as I am on the clock that is!

As long as you fail to answer 4 softball questions that were throw to you 2 times now, you will be looked upon as one who will not answer or will use his liberal spin, lie or deflect as you did the first time.

Your comments that had nothing to do with the questions.

The poll was a bad idea with most asshats here, voting before Slick Willie even answered.