Jennifer Rubin at the Washington Post points to this article in the Washington Guardian by John Solomon, a former Post reporter, that highlights the President’s Daily Brief (PDB) on Benghazi, revealing what the administration knew in the immediate aftermath of the Benghazi attack:
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.
Whatever reason the administration had to cover up the involvement of terrorists in the attack — and not all of them are political — Rubin is right: the time is now for the administration to come clean.
If General Petraeus is right and the CIA talking points used by Susan Rice were altered to reflect the false claim that the anti-Muslim film was responsible for the attack, this, along with the PDB’s stressing a terrorist attack within hours of the assault, demands that the president or someone credible from the administration come forward and explain the discrepancies.
The pre-attack security measures were negligent, indeed incomprehensible. But the actions — or inactions — of the administration while our people were under fire are the sole responsibility of the commander in chief. And for that, we need a complete and honest accounting.
More basically, why was the UN ambassador speaking on this in the first place? I’ve never understood from the beginning why the UN ambassador was involved at all.
Easy.
Obama: “I need someone to go on the Sunday show circuit and lie to people about what happened. We need time to make this all go away. Hillary is on the way out. If you do this, I’ll nominate you for SecState.”
Rice: “I’m your girl.”
She volunteered for this gig. Quid pro quo.
IMO, this was Susan Rice’s debut on a National stage as the future SoS. Hillary had one foot out the door already and was in the midst of her around-the-world buh-bye tour. She didn’t want any of this to sully her chances for 2016, although I think she’s toast after this.
Rice, it was reported, was the one who in 1994 ordered the word “genocide” taken out of all accountings of the genocide in Rwanda and in 1996/97 it was she who was the final arbiter in declining Sudan’s offer to hand over bin Laden on a silver platter. Therefore, she has a history and fits right in with this crowd of buffoons.
Hillary was in the middle of a guilt ridden emotional meltdown because she missed a dozen mid-day calls. This crisis has exposed Clinton as grossly incompetent and Petraeus as a scoundrel. Obama is a liar, but we’ve known that for years.
“…the president or someone credible from the administration come forward and explain the discrepancies.”
Seriously?
Tell me ONE thing or person that is “credible” with this regime?
Bobby, exactly. It would be akin to asking career felons for advice on going straight!!
The fact of the matter is that liars always lie; cheaters always cheat, pyromaniacs always burn things; radicals always go for the jugular, and Islamists always cheer on jihadists.
With the above in mind, why in the world would anyone believe anything coming out of their surrogates, as anything BUT a lie?
So, whether in relation to Benghazigate or domestic issues – http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/10/13/the-liar-in-chief-his-many-tall-tells-end-game-purposefully-tearing-the-u-s-from-its-constitutional-roots-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki/
IF one internalizes the above, then ferreting out the truth becomes easier. One operates from the lying premise, and then pursues the hunt/truth from there.
meant to fill in the top part…oops…
Yes, it’s time for President Barack Obama to come clean, but IIRC, he’s never come clean about anything. It’s most likely that his narcissism will not even let him see an error of this magnitude, much less admit it.
It’s called a scotoma, a blind spot, it’s controlled by the self-image and every one of us has a multitude of them.
My money is betting that Obama’s current-dominant “reality” is telling him that the things he did regarding Benghazi are okay.
Oh yes, he knows that people will disagree and will even attack him for them, but deep in the gut of his self-image, he is quite certain that he’s right.
pre-boomer, I suspect you will find this relevant, and the poop and scoop is not yet fully revealed – http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/11/18/benghazigates-femme-fatales-not-just-smokin-hot-chicks-addendum-to-covering-up-benghazigate-exquisite-political-timing-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki/y revealed –
And regardless of the spinmeisters, the seepage is leaking through.
Whole load of questions concerning Benghazi except for one – the video. This administration is behind the efforts of the OIC, through the Human Rights Council at the UN, to have blasphemy criminalized globally. The video was manna from Heaven for them, as it gave them an opportunity to advance their agenda. This is why Rice, as UN ambassador, was trotted out, rather than someone from State.
Finally, the President stated at the UN, two weeks after the attack, that blasphemy and US law were incompatible. Why two weeks later? Well, a speech at the UN would have to be vetted at OLC – some mid-level lawyer finally pointed out to our ‘constitutional lawyer’ that free speech means free speech.
“The video was manna from Heaven for them, as it gave them an opportunity to advance their agenda.”
I may be way off base here, but the question’s occurred to me: Did the administration have anything to do with this video? Did they just stumble upon it, or did they in any way contribute to it?
The guy who made it was a known felon. What kind of deal could have been made with him? Maybe this is far-fetched but the way this gale is blowing, anything seems possible. How “manna-from-heaven” is his being incarcerated for the next year — and his court appearance happening three days after the election?
There seem to be just too many “coincidences” suggesting that Barack Hussein Obama lives a charmed life.
Charmed life or planned subterfuges?
A commenter on another board said a few weeks ago that the logo for the video was eerily similar to a logo for one of John Brennan’s companies. Isn’t he National Security Advisor or something? Anyway, he’s a Commie and a Muslim convert and he has at least one company that holds a government contract. Does he do documentaries for the government?
Can someone research this to see if there’s something there?
I don’t think that is too far fetched. I was also wondering if the video was set up in advance. There certainly was an effort to promote it just at the right time, as it sat unwatched by all but about 17 people until it was “discovered” and deliberately promoted just in time to give Obama a decoy for the Benghazi attack. It also seems a rather silly thing to do even for someone who dislikes Muslims, so its creation by the Copt makes no sense to me.
i wish judge Kennesaw “Mountain” Landis was here to decide the fate of those who intentionally put Americans in harms way. Judge Landis was the commisioner of baseball when the Chicago white sox players threw the world series in 1918.
Ambassador Rice was/is Hillary’s heir apparent. That’s why.
I doubt very seriously that anything at all is going to come of this. Affirmative action demands that we assign special standards. Obama is an historic POTUS who must be allowed to serve out his second term & leave office with an honorable legacy. Everyone around him up there in DC will see to this, Dems & Pubs alike. As descendents of slave owners, we owe him this, as is the narrative as our eyes & ears see & hear it.
Seems odd to me as he isn’t a descendant of slaves and also white, anyway. If he were an Indian or a descendant of slaves there would be some logic to this. His wife might be one, though.
The fact that he is merely an African black doesn’t matter to the shallow, fashion-oriented, soap-opera-The View-watching, low info voter, nor does it matter to the MSM or the dim-bulb Dems in Congress. It’s all about the skin color; besides, Obama has done his best to convince one & all that he is an “authentic” black man, a la Sharpton, Jackson & whomever else that is a race hustler. Obama has utilized divisive race-card tactics to the hilt. Believe you me, he has no use for white people beyond roles of useful idiots. So, all the facets of affirmative action apply to him just like any black person descended from slaves who some believe are owed & owed big time by us white Americans.
I thought he was 43% Arab?
Anyway, since none of my relatives arrived on these shores until the early 1900′s, I don’t feel guilty about any of it and don’t feel I owe him a thing. More than any black influences, his major ones were those of Commies and Marxists with apparently tremendous sympathies for Islam. Personally, I think he’s still one of them.
There was a guy on another blog who claimed to be former CIA. He said he asked contacts in the Pakistani ISI to investigate why The Won was in Pakistan in 1981. It took 2 1/2 years to get an answer, but the ISI told him that Bari spent almost 2 months in a Muslim Brotherhood training camp in Baluchistan, Pakistan. The alleged CIA guy considers him a sleeper cell.
Take it for what it’s worth.
First, Obama knew perfectly well that it was a terrorist attack. The current-time cameras and voice comments made IN the Consulate and the Annex both showed that there was no, repeat, no demonstration.
Indeed, the cameras showed that the scene outside the Consulate was quiet. The Libyan guards were there, in their truck. [Apparently Libya will not permit US forces to guard the OUTSIDE of the building.] But then…20 seconds before the attack, those same Libyan guards drove off in their truck! Hmmm. And then, the attacks began.
Again, there was no demonstration. The WH and Obama can try to blame it all on ‘hurt Muslims feelings caused by…AMERICA…with their silly video..but it wasn’t due to any American. The attack was terrorist.
Obama, since he self-defines himself as the Conqueror of Terrorism, and insists that he has decimated it to irrelevance, refused to have such a ‘blip’ just prior to his election, and days after his nomination when he was cheered as the Conqueror of Terrorism. So, the agenda was to: deny it and rewrite it as a ‘spontaneous demonstration’ that, ah, got out of hand with machine guns and heavy weapons and laser equipment and mortars. Sure.
Petraeus wrote the truth in his memo. It was changed by, one can only assume, the WH, because it was the only agency that REQUIRED such a change in reality. The other agencies: the State Department, the Dept of Defense, etc, have no ‘eggs in the basket’ that requires a change from fact to fiction. Only the White House and Obama have such an agenda.
Furthermore, Obama, in the second debate, insisted that he said, on the day after the attack, that it was a terrorist attack. [He didn't; he referred only generally to terrorism]. But, let’s take him at his insistence that he defined Benghazi, the day after the attack, as ‘terrorist’.
So, then WHY DID HE ALLOW Susan Rice, a week later, to go on five different prime time news shows, and tell the American public that it was due to a ‘spontaneous demonstration against an American video’. Why did he allow her to mislead Americans?
And if anyone, in the entire world, expects Obama to ever tell the truth, they do not understand that he is a clinical narcissist, a pathological liar who has absolutely no connection to reality and operates solely within HIS words. If you object to them, then, you are out in the street – as was Petraeus, who fought back against Obama. How?
When details emerged that the Benghazi had repeatedly asked for help during the attack, and none came, questions were asked: who refused help? The WH and Obama tried to pin such a refusal on the CIA. Petraeus instantly released a memo that the CIA had not been asked and had never refused aid. Obama fired him.
Now that Obama doesn’t have to campaign for his next term, watch him, he’ll become more dictatorial, more contemptuous of Congress (if that is possible) and more indifferent to the Laws and the Constitution…and the freedoms of the USA.
Please, it was not a terrorist attack.
It was a military operation conducted by enemy forces.
We are, and have been, at war since Novermber 4, 1979.
Agreed, but since these military forces are not under the authority of any specific nation but instead, self-organize within a militant ideology, the term used is ‘terrorism’. I do accept your point that it is military, with a militant agenda of destroying other governments.
But that is not the point of this discussion, which is that the original Talking Points memo, written by the CIA, defined causality for the Benghazi massacre as due to Al Qaeda or its affiliates. Not to a spontenous reaction to an American made video. Someone later changed this memo to remove the ‘military attack’ description and rewrote it to assign causality to the video.
In these cases, one has to consider WHO BENEFITS from such a changed description? Obviously, not the CIA, nor the State Department nor the DoD. It’s Obama who benefits, because the description of His Presence is that he Conquered Al Qaeda. To have an actual event occur which denied this image, is unwelcome to the Obama team.
Therefore, it was the WH that removed the original statement and changed it to assign blame to the video. Will Obama be blamed? Of course not. As noted, he is a pathological liar, and, using all the authority of intimidation, he will dare you to confront Him with his lies. And his aides will remove the topic from questions by saying ‘It’s under investigation’. That is, the WH and Obama will ‘take the Fifth’.
And that’s how they will continue to rule, as they move the US more and more into a cabal governed dictatorship.
For me, the deliberately misleading spin put on the terrorism reference in the Rose Garden speech — and the way it was used in the second debate to distort people’s perceptions — is very telling about the character of the current occupant of the White House and his wife. They are totally dishonest. Every time Obama speaks in public, I am looking for manipulation — much of the time it is very apparent.
More and more I’m thinking nothing will come of this. We have four dead Americans, one of the the first US ambassador killed since 1979, and people could care less. Why? Because you have a deadly combination of a mainstream media wanting to carry Obama’s water for him regardless of the cost AND you have worthless Democratic toadies in the Senate who refuse to look into this any further. Four dead Americans who were left to die in some rathole in the Middle East and nobody coming to their rescue because it wasn’t the politically correct thing to do.
Oh, and by the way, since now even the Obama administration admits this was a terrorist attack, has the United States done ANYTHING to kill the people responsible for this? Have we done ANYTHING to show the world that you can’t kill Americans with impunity? Not a single thing. THAT is the biggest tragedy in all of this, that now we can’t even defend our own people overseas.
I hope everyone out there who voted for Obama is happy with the results. But, if I were you, I wouldn’t leave the United States because if you ever got into any serious trouble overseas, thanks to Obama and Clinton you’re as good as dead.
It will be a cold day in Hell when Obama comes clean.
And why should he?
As bobbcat pointed out above, you have a system of liberals in power who are so in love with “the idea” that is Obama the perfect President, everyone is protecting him and nothing will ever be blamed on him no matter how bad he screws up.
And with a fawning press corps that is enamored with(and probably a little afraid of crossing) their beloved President to actually ask him a tough question, he’ll skate through this crisis without a scratch on him.
In one respect, even if the leftwing socialists understood that what they are engaging is is wrong, they won’t care because it’s “payback” for all the perceived evils foisted on them by the republicans. Everything Bush did was wrong, ergo, anything the left does that pisses of the right is, well, right and fair and just and “serves you right”.
This is how they see the world, not as a balance of what’s right and what’s wrong but as a game of move/countermove where the ends justifies the means. And they also assume that because they engage in really despicable actions that the right also does it, thus affording them a convenient rationalization to it all.
Takes some sick minds to rationalize the killing of Americans though. But, emotions trump all, especially unfounded anger. It’s the most dangerous of all and people act irrationally when they are pissed.
Add to the list of Obama advantages a Speaker of the House that won’t resist, won’t impeach, and won’t support TEA Party members. If one didn’t know better one might even think Boehner is working for Obama.
The other scandal/tragedy/outrage we have and that is getting little to no attention is that fact that some one told the military to “stand down” from their efforts to get to Benghazi in a timely fashion. In fact, General Carter Ham, then commander of USAfricom, was relieved of duty because he didn’t want to stand down. So, in addition to the editing of the brief for Rice, who ordered the U.S. military to “stand down?”
‘A tragedy of epic proportions.
It seems as though Obama’s going to get away with all of this murder and mayhem. However, there’s a saying: The wheels of God grind slow but exceedingly fine.
If not in this life, then the next, Obama will pay for his perfidy and calumny as POTUS. “To whom much is given much is expected.” Obama’s been given “much” but has failed to be a good steward.
The only two who have jurisdiction to give the call to either go in or stand down are POTUS and head of AFRICOM. Gen. Ham told Rep. Jason Chaffetz that he was never given any orders, yet we’ve heard that he was relieved of his command by his 2nd for giving the order to send help. So one would assume that he was disobeying orders to stand down by POTUS.
HE CAN’T UNDERSTAND THE TRUTH!
People here are finally starting to understand why Bengzai is a dead issue.
Obama could come out on national TV and say:
“Yeah sure I lied to get re-elected. It worked suckers. I allowed those deaths to happen because my re-election is so much more important to this country than a few worthless bumps in the road. You mad bro?”
And nothing would happen to him. His supporters would clap and cheer for “sticking it to the Republicans”. In fact it might even work to his advantage because it just might enrage house Republicans enough to throw caution to the wind and attempt an impeachment, a media wet dream. Without the votes in the senate it would end in failure, and by the end of it the media would’ve twisted the truth so thoroughly they’d have turned Obama into some sort of demented christ figure unjustly persecuted and crucified for the sins of racist America. You know they want to.
Obama could probably hold a press conference tomorrow and behead the film maker with a scimitar in the name of Allah, and you still wouldn’t find the 67 votes in the senate for conviction and removal. The press might even congratulate him on his cultural understanding and bold outreach to Muslims.
Perfect TPM. You have accurately analyzed every aspect of this debachcal and the motivation behind it. With the special touch of muslin outreach. There will be no repercussions from four dead Americans. Just as there were no repercussions from two dead border guards and a couple hundred dead Mexicans.
Impeach Obama now! Not sure why… but impeach him anyhow. Elections don’t matter, being right is all that matters.
I’ll tell you why – treason – forbidding the military to rescue Americans from terrorists. Elections override Constitutional duties? Tell that to Richard Nixon.
At this point in time we have only glimpses of what the divider in chief’s plans for America are and so far I do not like what I see. Again, I find it hard to blame obama, he is just being himself. Where the real blame lays is with those that put him back in power. It’s too bad there aren’t some requirements for voting beyond a chronological age and the ability to fog a mirror when it’s placed beneath one’s nose. Those two prerequisites do not make for informed and intelligent decisions.
Hillary has the survivors of Benghazi under embargo until the FBI finishes its investigation. Once they are permitted to speak, my guess is that all hell will break loose.
right after it started
and didn’t move to stop it
because he wanted
the whole place destroyed
and all the personnel killed
he had a good night’s sleep
took off for Las Vegas and
ran around raising money
grinning, laughing, and lying.
And the GOP is going to leave John, I can’t stop crying, Boehner as Speaker of the House. This means if Obama is recorded stomping on puppies, selling cocaine to communist terrorists, and ripping the tag off of a mattress nothing will come of it. There is nothing that Obama can do that will cause the weak and worthless House leadership to act like they have a pair. It’s nothing but political self-pleasuring to keep chasing these stories when Boehner and the other cowards will not impeach. Fast & Furious killed more people and what price has been paid? Obama illegally appoints and what price is paid?
If you don’t fix the Boehner problem you have no political threat any Democrat need fear, no matter what they do. If you support any Congressman that supports Boehner you can’t be serious about accountability in government. One wonders what John Boehner would have to do before he’s held accountable. He’s squandered a big House Majority. He’s worked to defeat TEA Party candidates, and he’s already agreed to give Obama more money to spend. What will he do once the Dems put pressure on him?
“The President knew the truth about Benghazi from the beginning”?. Really? Oh, dear, could that be true? No, no, I refuse to accept the thought that they knew the truth and didn’t tell it to the American people.
I think that America’s Chronicle piece, “The Dumbest Question of the Year: Who Changed The CIA Talking Points”, is absolutely pure imagination in their comparison to Manuel from Barcelona in the British sitcom “Fawlty Towers”.
FIVE QUESTIONS AFTER PETRAEUS HEARINGS. The testimony this week of former CIA director David Petraeus left a number of unanswered questions about his resignation and the deadly attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Petraeus was grilled by lawmakers behind closed doors on Friday, one week after he resigned as the nation’s … READ MORE: http://bwcentral.org/2012/11/five-questions-after-petraeus-hearings/
You would expect Dime a Dozen Dictators in far off tiny countries to delete / change the truth (Even from people in their own (sic) government)
But the White House etc ?
Unbelievable
I know they slant the truth and even twist the truth, like a pretzel
But, to flat out delete it, and lie
I had a relative like that one time
If he told you it was daytime – you would have to go outside and look for yourself.
Even if you knew it was daytime
Because if he said it was something, you knew 9 times out of 10 – it was total opposite.
The last two sentences contain the key points. While who said what, who know what and when, who redacted what, etc. are all valid questions, they pale in comparison to the issues raised regarding the actions or inactions of the Commander-in-Chief while our people were under fire. This is the first I have seen regarding this key issue. Where is the press? Some of us know too well – they don’t want to know the answer lest their hero be found lacking or worse. For them, there is no line Obama can cross. They support him no matter what. Meanwhile the public is denied a full accounting and offered mostly spin.