Get PJ Media on your Apple

Ron Radosh

This entire episode, which is getting so convoluted, needs clarity and, above all, careful assessments from commentators. If we get something wrong, it needs to be pointed out how we did. At Powerline, Scott Mirengoff argues that while Obama is likely to get out of any responsibility for Benghazi, Hillary Clinton will not be so lucky. He writes

If the CIA and the State Department disagreed, the administration should not have included State’s spin merely because that’s what Hillary Clinton wanted.

This notion is so basic that it casts serious doubt on the White House’s “deference to the State Department made us do it” explanation — an excuse that, it should be noticed, won’t warm the heart of Hillary Clinton. In all likelihood, Team Obama endorsed State’s spin because it presented the version of events that best suited the president’s campaign purposes.

Hillary, he has argued earlier, is possibly the most likely candidate to have orchestrated a cover-up.  It is clearly of great importance that she not be let off the hook, and that her underlings not be taken out to roast. Even though she is no longer in office, Hillary Clinton must not be allowed to escape any responsibility for what happened at Benghazi.

All this will hopefully be uncovered as the investigation continues.

Related: It Wasn’t ‘Necessary’ to Question Hillary for Benghazi Report: Pickering

<- Prev  Page 2 of 2   View as Single Page

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
During her press conference on September 17, 2012, Victoria Nuland told reporters that what Ambassador Rice said on the Sunday talk shows was “very clear, very precise, about what our initial assessment of what happened.” This means blaming the youtube video and the CIA talking points after removing all references to islamic terrorists. If I understand correctly Petraeus did not approve any of these changes. Maybe that is why his affair became public--to discredit him? In any case Nuland was acting as a lap dog for the administration (not just State). Jennifer Rubin's theory does not make sense.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
Why are Susan Rice's "talking points" more important than those used by Obama and Hilary in the Rose Garden on 9/12 and at Andrews on 9/14, by Obama on David Letterman on 9/18, by Obama at the UN on 9/25, or by the USG in the TV commercial aired in Pakistan? Didn't these public statements also require "talking points?" I'm not sure I understand the significance of Rice's talking points in comparison to the broader issue of how our security forces should and do respond to jihadist attacks, and how the US is positioned with regard to promoting Islamic speech codes in the West (blaming the movie trailer). Those actual policies, which I believe are well-established and very detrimental to a strong and free United States, need to be probed and exposed. The talking points should be viewed as evidence of whatever the standing policy is or is not.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
Eventually This episode will end up on The WH doorsteps. The bottom line is that BHO didn't want to repeat Carter's disastrous Iran rescue mission. He rather let people die and not take the chance of loosing an elelction.
He's nothing more than coward.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (36)
All Comments   (36)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
One thing that doesn't add up re WH & state dept actively setyting up anything against Assad is Valerie Jarrett's representation of Iran's interest right in the oval. Also runs against other evidence of Obama and Putin's budding synarchy. Makes me wonder about a double ruse, where WH is creating evidence (Benghazi, weapons to anti-Assad rebels) againbst accusations of having helped midwife the Iran bomb when it finally shows up ready to cudgel control of OPEC's freedom of price control --or worse, the sum of fears and what the mullahs routinely announce they plan to do --an airburst over Tel Aviv.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
Do Not Get Conned by the Administration or the MSM.
This was a scam gone bad, from start to finish. This was a scam to Kidnap Stevens with no one to be hurt. This was to do a trade of Blind Shiek for Stevens. The problem was the exSeals who heard the explosions and ignored the order to 'Stand Down' and came to the rescue of the compound, armed themselves at the compound and started the battle there.
Follow the time lines and the stories with this concept in mind, everything fits the story and I mean everything, including the later real attack on the annex.
Soon we will have Gen Ham on the stand and we will find out who gave the order to Stand Down to AfriCom and it better be Obama because he is the only one with the authority.... Hopefully this wil end this administration and we can get back to saving our Nation from the One Worlders and the Islamics.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
If you're right, and if we play our cards right from this point forward, Woods and Doherty will have saved the nation.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
This episode will end up on The WH doorsteps.

Particularly Valerie Jarrett's, and Tom Donilon's.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
No matter how this plays out, there is only one certainty. With the protocols in place there is only one person in the chain of command who can order a stand down when a diplomatic mission is under military attack.

That person is Barrack Hussein Obama.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
Diana West: "There is more at work here than a foundationally flawed strategy. In its drive to win Islamic hearts and minds, COIN doctrine has become an engine of Islamization inside the U.S. military. To win a Muslim population's "trust," U.S. troops are taught deference to Islam -- to revere the Quran; not to spit toward Mecca (thousands of miles away); and to condone such un- or anti-Western practices as religious supremacism, misogyny, polygamy, pederasty and cruelty to dogs. Our military has even permitted Islamic law to trump the First Amendment to further COIN goals, as when ISAF commander Petraeus publicly condemned an American citizen for exercising his lawful right to freedom of speech to burn a Quran.

This explains why the reports that CIA director David Petraeus went before the House Intelligence Committee in September and blamed a YouTube Muhammad video for the deadly attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, sounded so familiar. Whatever his motivation, it was all too easy for Petraeus to make free speech the scapegoat for Islamic violence. But so it goes in COIN-world, where jihad and Shariah (Islamic law) are off the table and the First Amendment is always to blame. If there is a lesson here, it is simple: A leader who will betray the First Amendment will betray anything.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
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.

Within 24 hours of the attack, however, the White House and top officials at the State Department, the Pentagon and the intelligence agencies knew that no protest, spontaneous or other, had taken place. They knew the U.S. had been hit on the 9/11 anniversary by a planned attack by al-Qaida affiliates. Ruppersberger's account, then, indicates Petraeus deceived the committee. When committed knowingly, as former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy recently pointed out, such deception is a felony.

This same phony story -- that "extreme groups" took advantage of a "spontaneous" protest over a YouTube video to mount an "unplanned" attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi -- would be repeated by the Obama White House for two weeks, climaxing in the president's U.N. address on Sept. 25. There, President Obama cited the video six times and declared to the world body, dominated by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (an Islamic bloc of 56 nations plus the Palestinian Authority): "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam."

Blaming the YouTube video for the violence was, in effect, blaming free speech, which is also OIC policy. Additionally, it denied the reality of the planned jihad attack, which, by extension, denied that al-Qaida-style jihad terrorism still exists at the vanguard of expansionist Islam.

To date, the media haven't asked President Obama and his top officials, why? Why the administration-wide cover-up? Why didn't military help get to Battleground Benghazi? Without coming clean, President Obama has been re-elected, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton mentioned as a 2016 presidential candidate, and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice floated as the next secretary of state.

And Petraeus? 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."

And BTW - Diana West: "Even though it appears the former CIA director lied to the House Intelligence Committee on Sept. 14, and may have lied again to the same committee on Nov. 16, he is starting to slip out of the inner ring of Benghazi cover-up suspects. We are losing sight of his official role in the deception as the media lens ossifies over a tawdry love triangle. For this, he must be thankful. Maybe to ensure the good fortune continues, Petraeus has hired Bob Barnett, the $975-per-hour Washington superlawyer to officials with issues and/or big book deals, to manage what reports call Petraeus' "transition to civilian life."
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
Don't you mean Bob Bennett, the brother of William Bennett, ex Sec of Education?
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
Now there's an interesting notion.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
The more time you give these people to deny only confuses the story. The more time you give them to invent excuses, deflect, or obfuscate the more confusing the story becomes.

The more time you give a scam artist to scam you, the more likely you will succumb to the scam.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
Well, either the CIA did warn the State Department prior to September 11, 2012, or it did not. If it did not, then witnesses from the State Department should be able to demonstrate this. I am guessing the original talking points are probably accurate, though, so Nuland's objections can't be so easily explained away as anything other than to coverup her department's own incompetence.

More witnesses need to be called, but I expect the White House to claim executive privilege from this point forward.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
Please don't leave National Securitry Advisor Tom Donilon out of the thinking. Here's a few URLs to refresh (in time sequence):

http://www.allgov.com/officials/donilon-thomas?officialid=29281 (critical staff work in the Balkan wars and the eastward expansion of NATO, precisely in the areas that got nationalist Vlad Putin elected and ruined the Yeltsin attempt at democracy)

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/13/obama-choice-helped-fannie-block-oversight/ (played a huge role in creating the conditions of the financial crash of 2008 --actually got sued by the gov't to provide some cover for what he did to shield Fannie from oversight, during the destruction run)

http://thetruthserumblog.blogspot.com/2009/09/my-letter-to-financial-services.html (scroll down a few paragraphs for Donilon working the deep external side of creating the crash)

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2012/06/11/report-white-house-leaker-national-security-advisor-tom-donilon/ (leaking away critical top secrets re among other things our info-gathering on what Iran's nuclear weapon intentions are --enormous aid to the mullahs)

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-25/donilon-to-visit-russia-in-april-for-missile-defense-discussions.html (right after, 'rot' was discovered in the Minot Minuteman III missile officer detachment --rest assured, this is only the beginning of a major attempt to destroy our strategic weapon structure)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_E._Donilon (note that even though his wiki is well-sanitized from the info above, it's still pretty hair-raising --yes there is perhaps a secret society involved, the evidence is just pouring out --what do Napolitano, Panetta, Brennan, Pickering, Mullen, and others in the top council on national security have in common, besides being wrapped up in Benghazi Gate?)
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
I have always suspected Donilon's involvement in this mess, as he is at heart, a political hack.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 Next View All