Get PJ Media on your Apple

Faster, Please!

Memo Reading for Idiots: Missing Video Hidden in Third Edit

May 13th, 2013 - 8:14 am

It takes a special skill to read bureaucratic memos. When I was getting ready to work at the State Department way back in the last century, Henry Kissinger gave me good advice:

The only reason to write a memo is if you want it leaked.

The key decisions and the real motives are very rarely written down; most of the time the truth is hidden. Deliberately. Remember the “vanished” 18 minutes of Nixon’s tapes?

And of course, the Brits did it elegantly (h/t Jeff Warren, video embedded above).

The memos have to be read — not as accurate reflections of a policy debate, but as posturing for instant history. It’s what the author(s) want(s) the journalists — working on deadline, and not very eager to dig deeply enough to figure out what was really going on — to write for their readers.

So, Roger L. Simon is right (he is always right) when he flags “the mystery of the missing video.” Somebody must have said to somebody else: “Hey! Let’s blame it on the video.”

I think I know when that happened, even if I don’t know who said it or to whom: it happened between versions two and three of the 12 draft memos. The first two talk about “attacks” that were  “spontaneously inspired” by events in Cairo. However, number three edits out “attacks” … and replaces it with “demonstrations.”

It took about five and one-half hours to get from “attacks” to “demonstrations.”

That’s when the video became the deus ex machina, the soon-to-be-visible hand of the bag of lies dumped on the electorate to prevent us from seeing the catastrophe of the Obama appeasement of radical Islam — a.k.a. “leading with the behind.” Saying “attacks” would have automatically put the Benghazi events in the context of the (banned concept) war against terror, whereas  ”demonstrations” shifted the context — the whole Arab Spring thing consisted of lots of demonstrations, and the Obama crowd was basically pro-demonstration.

Indeed, Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice justified the demonstrations. How? By blaming them on the video. More evidence that the invisible video was hidden in the third edit.

More “memo reading for idiots,” apropos the CIA’s efforts to look good: again, the third version points the way. In it, we are told that CIA has been warning about nasty events for some time; they have produced several “pieces” and have referred to “social media” talking about “the threat of extremists” (you can’t say “terrorists,” remember). So this bad thing can’t be blamed on the spooks;  it’s the dips’ fault for ignoring that terrific intelligence.

Except that such “pieces” are worthless as guides to day-by-day action. They’re generic. They just repeat in spookspeak what everybody knew anyway: there were radicals and terrorists running around, attacking other diplomats and other diplomatic sites.  What we want from our intelligence mavens is specific information, like “al-Qaeda’s friends in Ansar al-Sharia are planning to attack us with RPGs and mortars on the anniversary of 9/11.”

We didn’t have that. The braggadocio was unwarranted.

But then, the point was not to learn lessons; the point was to cover their behinds. Having led with the derriere, it was now necessary to hide the black and blue marks.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
Let us know when you have the 67 votes in the Senate lined up to hold him ultimately responsible.

He is a god to his supporters and gods are infallible. Our object should be to wreak havoc on Hillary Clinton and the Democrat Party; Obama is untouchable.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"...and the Obama crowd was basically pro-demonstration.

Indeed, Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice justified the demonstrations."

That's what I took away from their speeches. They abhorred the killing, but the were sympathetic to the (false) motivation - Muslims' anger over the video.

It's like they were condemning the killers and apologizing to them at the same time. This is diplomacy carried to ridiculous extremes.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (22)
All Comments   (22)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Michael, the danger to over-reach is there.

Nonetheless, why perfidy exists has something to do with ego being abundant.

Niall Ferguson, a good guy, like you, nailed it, albeit in a different context: http://www.presseurop.eu/en/content/article/3757341-european-project-total-failure

1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Be Careful that you do not get led to the acceptable solution by the MSM and the administration..... This is what they did in the beginning and will again modify the story line to conn you again....
Take all of the facts leading up to the incident and I mean all of them. Take into account what Morsi was pushing for in Egypt, for he is a heavy hitter in the MB. Look at the security in Benghazi and when they were depleted. Now why was Stevens in Benghazi anyway? Was there any real reason for him to be there?
Put the time lines together
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
(Posted because my first attempt at this comment was not published) The very first CIA memo says the Benghazi attacks were spontaneously inspired by the Cairo violence. The Cairo violence was inspired - unless someone can provide real evidence to the contrary - by the video. It's not out of line for the President to say that, according to information available at the time, the Benghazi attacks were connected to the video. Does anyone have real evidence that the Benghazi attacks were planned in advance, independently of the Cairo violence? If so, then the CIA had it wrong in all memos.

It is, however, wrong for the President to apologize for the non-violent actions of a civilian US citizen which aren't a direct incitement to violence. It's an awful precedent to set. There is still the very real matter of the failure to heed CIA warnings and to protect our people in Benghazi, and there does appear to be a cover-up on that score.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Evidence that the Cairo riots were inspired by the video?

Cairo riots were planned, including with involvement of Morsi's own son, to push for US release of the Blind Sheikh.

There is some circumstantial evidence that the FBI and/or CIA may have been aware of the making of the video in the first place; might have even helped finance it. In that case, 'telling' rioters in Cairo about it might be part of the game. If so, the video becomes part of a great deception - directed against Americans.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
That wasn't evidence - it was a declarative statement from you with nothing to back it up. No link, not even a source mentioned. And now you're trying to say that, if the video actually did inspire the Benghazi attack, the FBI/CIA was behind it in the first place? Tinfoil hat time.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Yea!O(bama needs to be more pro American.Whish leads me again the question;Was he really from America,or like everything else will this always be hidden from us?????????????????????????Oh!I miss those days when everyone still loved freedom,or being patriotic(as did Reagan).Liz
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"...and the Obama crowd was basically pro-demonstration.

Indeed, Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice justified the demonstrations."

That's what I took away from their speeches. They abhorred the killing, but the were sympathetic to the (false) motivation - Muslims' anger over the video.

It's like they were condemning the killers and apologizing to them at the same time. This is diplomacy carried to ridiculous extremes.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
“leading with the behind”

Leading with the head up the behind.

"Saying “attacks” would have automatically put the Benghazi events in the context of the (banned concept) war against terror, whereas ”demonstrations” shifted the context..."

Obama vaguely referenced "act of terror" in the Rose Garden Sept. 12 and twice more at campaign gigs in Las Vegas and Colorado Sept. 13th.

The man stood on his head (the head that is you-know-where) for days to avoid saying "terrorism".

(Would probably have liked to call Benghazi "workplace violence", but that was even too preposterous for him and his crowd of word spinners).
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
On the contrary. The President went out of his way to use the phrase "act of terror", three times. We now know why he did that -- so that, if the video narrative failed to work, he would be on record as having used those words.

Does it really matter if he uttered a particular phrase out of context? Yes, it does... he won the second Presidential debate because of that (and because Mitt Romney was too much of a gentleman to look the President of the United States in the eye and call him a liar).

President Obama is a master of the weasel word. This is a textbook case of the master at work. Above all, he must not be held accountable for what he said... so he does his best to say either nothing, or everything.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I though it implicit that Obama saying "act of terror" 3X on Sept. 12 &13 was "cover".
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
It always worries me when we have to get so particular about *how* something was said in order to figure out *what* was said. There's something Clintonesque about it - like the meaning of "is."
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
A complex explanation had to be avoided,not worried about untidy loose ends but something simple and in comic book form.Timing was not on their side,just before the election,they had a Dandy to reelect.Lest we forget,remember the type of American who would be voting for him.Chess players they were not,but more the stay at home types,to put it nicely,and that takes a lot of shuffling!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Excellent perspective! Must go to work and write a few memos...
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Obviously, the person who wrote the original memo was not in on the plan to blame the video, but that was the plan from as far back as Sept. 10, 2012, when some "anonymous" diplomat apologized for the video in advance of the "demonstrations".
Too little consideration is given to the theory that Ben-Ghazi was all about freeing the Blind Sheik and that some in the Obama administration were working to that goal. It seems a bogus idea that the Ben-Ghazi fiasco was about the administration wanting to project the idea that Obama had defeated Al-Qaeda.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I think the video, at least the newly created Arabic translation of it, was a part of the legend for the demonstrations that were to hide a sham kidnapping of Amb. Stevens, whose life could be saved by swapping him for the "old, ill, blind Sheik" just in time to make Comrade Obama a hero going in to the election. The "security" guys at the Annex didn't get the memo and knuckle-dragging ex-military sorts that they were, tried to "save" the Ambassador. The jihadis thought they'd been double-crossed, killed the Ambassador and his sidekick and fought it out with the "security" guys, killing two of them. That's where it all got out of control for the WH and the lies and cover-up began.

Our Founders spent many years with the very expansive British definition of Treason hanging over their heads, so our definition is very narrow, but if conspiring with Morsi's governent and al Queda linked groups to stage a sham kidnapping of a US Ambassador and releasing a convicted murderer and terrorist as a political act ain't treason, it ought to be.

My experience with Democrats tells me that close staffers and cabinet officers act as a "force field" to shield the elected official from bad things, so it is unlikely Obama himself had much specific knowledge of what was being done. Somebody would have outlined generalities in a way that would give the President plausible deniability, but if something went wrong the cognizant secretaries or somebody very high and close to them would have to take one for the team. I think HRC may well have a "get out of jail free" card in the form of a memo to Obama endorsing the request for more security. Since she is chattel of the Soros Cabal, there must be something powerful keeping them from throwing her under the bus. If this gets too bad for the Cabal, she might be joining her old pal Vince Foster. I think Petraeus was going off the reservation, so they offed him with the long known affair; the lying to Congress session was to buy time to put his affairs in order and reach some rapprochement with his wife.

My only question is if the Soros Cabal weren't agents of a Middle Eastern power, what would they have done differently in the "Arab Spring" and its aftermath?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"My experience with Democrats tells me that close staffers and cabinet officers act as a "force field" to shield the elected official from bad things, so it is unlikely Obama himself had much specific knowledge of what was being done."

Obama made choices of who would surround him by making cabinet level appointments of politicians who held the same contempt of the constitution he has. He is ultimately responsible for every unethical, immoral, and criminal act by his administration.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Let us know when you have the 67 votes in the Senate lined up to hold him ultimately responsible.

He is a god to his supporters and gods are infallible. Our object should be to wreak havoc on Hillary Clinton and the Democrat Party; Obama is untouchable.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"Freeing the Blind Sheik"
Until the CIA is free to tell us why they were in Ben Ghazi our theories get long sexy legs so it seems
could it be our drones overhead see a UFO land near Benghazi. The "cavalry" descend to get new orders. The Mujahideen ,Reagan's freedom fighters finally see the movie THEY LIVE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKEtft8TGEo
All hell breaks loose on Cable 57
footnote
and with long memory suicide terrorist have 10 maybe here with nuke suitcases waiting for the command from UFO to take over USA so CIA can have permission to fly drones over our heads as well
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Rules For Radicals # 5 - Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.
You should be writing for Stuart and Colbert over at the Childrens' Network.
Obama may have been correct when he avoided referring to Ben-Ghazi as an "act of terror". If the theory is true, then it wasn't an act of terror, it was a kidnapping.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"So, Roger L. Simon is right (he is always right) when he flags “the mystery of the missing video.” Somebody must have said to somebody else: “Hey! Let’s blame it on the video.”"

That somebody probably got the idea from David Petraeus.

Diana West: "Spontaneous protest, unplanned attack: That was Petraeus' testimony as CIA director three days after U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in Benghazi, Libya. ... ... When committed knowingly, as former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy recently pointed out, such deception is a felony. ... ... On Nov. 12, Fox News reported that "congressional leaders," believing Petraeus lied to them in September, had "already considered charging Petraeus with perjury, but said they planned to withhold judgment until he testified this week." (Under oath or not, it is a crime to lie to federal officials.) We have heard no such tough talk since.

1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Pathetic Petraeus simply did what he was told. After all, he knew that Obozo was aware of his affair with Broadwell and was about to destroy him with that information. And so it came to pass. Anyhow, he still lied to Congress on orders from above, and nothing will come of it. Scooter Libby is probably incensed by the hypocrisy of the case. Oh well...Love, War, and Politics.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
View All