I’m still trying to get my head around a glaring issue related to the Benghazi attack. On the subject of who changed the CIA’s talking points regarding the attack, how can we not know who did it?
The attack occurred on 9-11-12, right? According to Gen. David Petraeus, the Central Intelligence Agency initially assessed the attack as a terrorist strike carried out by Ansar al-Sharia, a Libyan offshoot of al-Qaeda. But despite that initial assessment, Petraeus, then head of the CIA, told Congress on 9-14 that the attack had started with a protest about a movie. Why did Petraeus say that?
On 9-14, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton blamed the movie in her address at the transfer of remains ceremony. Why did she do that?
On 9-16, Ambassador Susan Rice blamed the attack on a protest when she appeared on five Sunday political shows. Why did she do that? Who changed both Rice’s and Petraeus’ talking points during the five days from the attack to Rice’s star turn?
For about ten days after Rice’s five-spot, President Barack Obama continued to blame a movie and dodge the possibility that Benghazi was a terrorist attack. He blamed the movie six times during his address at the United Nations on 9-26. Why did he do that?
We’re told now that someone within the office of Director of National Intelligence James Clapper changed the talking points. We’re told that that person was not Clapper himself. The DNI’s office is apparently at a loss to determine who did change the talking points.
How is this possible?
These are intelligence agencies and officers we’re talking about. They exist to investigate things. They exist to obtain information amid the most difficult circumstances in the most hostile places on earth. They also exist to sniff out and stop agents from within who are operating on our enemies’ behalf.
Supposing that the talking points weren’t changed to shore up the Obama campaign’s line that “al-Qaeda is on the run,” does not the changing of the talking points raise the possibility that we have an enemy agent working high up in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence? Is it not possible that this agent is so influential that their handiwork comes out of the mouth of no less than the president, his top diplomats, and his CIA chief?
In fact, isn’t the possibility that someone changed the talking points to help Obama’s re-election the most benign explanation available? Isn’t there a much darker and more dangerous possibility lurking behind the author of the changes?
Instead of looking at the possibility that we have a dangerous enemy mole lurking within the nation’s intelligence stovepipe, we’re told that the top intelligence office in the most powerful nation on earth cannot determine who changed a set of talking points in Washington, D.C., during a span of five days.
Is this a believable defense?
Shouldn’t we expect more capability than this from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence?
Disturbing indeed.
More important than who removed the references to Al Qaeda from the CIA memo, who decided that the blame would be placed on a movie? And who decided which movie they would blame?
There are so many questions not being asked by even FNC and other conservative media.
The mole hole goes deeper:
Q: Who decided that mere movie blame wasn’t enough and that this movie needed a worldwide state-sponsored publicity push?
Someone being paid lot of money? Saudi money or fresh al Qaeda millions from Khadaffi’s coffers?
Q: Who is pushing hard that we mustn’t ask any more questions about Benghazi even though the election is over and there’s ostensibly nothing to hide or to be alarmed about?
The same foreign agent who wants to remain as powerful as they are influencing U.S. war policy? The same person who created the infamous Bengazi “fog of war” that then was used to justify actions not taken and covered up. We can assume this person also crafted those talking points about the very fog they created.
Huma Abedin, Deputy Chief of Staff to Hillary Clinton, daughter of members of the Muslim Brotherhood and Muslim Sisterhood?
Valerie Jarrett, born in Iran, with the ear and at the elbow of Barry at every turn?
Jarrett *was* born in Iran, but to American parents then working there. Based on her (lack of) qualifications, she shouldn’t be filling the position she does. But Obama trusts her judgement, however much we don’t.
Awfully convenient to have that movie out there. We know that Dear Liar, like all progressives, is hostile to the notion of liberty, and the attendant Bill of Rights (“the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties”.)
I would go so far as to suspect the motives of the guy who made it — was he actually pressured into making it by someone with ties to the administration. The upshot being, there would be a bunch of riots, putting pressure on to pass in the UN an anti-blasphemy treaty, which if the US signed, would significantly reduce our First Amendment protection (and hey, if Fast & Furious was designed to put pressure on the US for gun control, gutting the Second Amendment, this sort of scheme does seem plausible.)
They quickly went with “blame the video” because they were anticipating and anti-video riot.
I wish someone would investigate that! Nothing has ever added up! The way they harped and harped about how vile, awful, disgusting, disgraceful, etc. the video was, was alarming overkill. Why? It was so strange, I felt like I was in the twilight zone. And they kept up the charade long after it had, time and time again, already been disproved and reported.
The guy, Walid Shoebat (sp?) who has a website bearing his name, did some articles about the video, but apparently no one in larger media picked it up or did any real digging of their own. (I did see one article circulating, about how the video guy in prison had no regrets, but it did not delve into ANY real actual questions.)
Questions:
Who exactly is the video guy, and what is his history/background?
Who exactly is the guy that was his partner in this video making, and what is his history/background?
What was he doing working for the feds?
Where is THAT guy now? (And maybe why is he there, or other followup questions.)
He said he got the money to make it from donors, but then recanted that, so where DID the money come from?
Who edited it and who put it on Egyptian television?
Were there any immediate riots? If not, when did they start? Where? Etc.
Why/how was the Florida paster approached/contacted, both by the video maker and by the feds, so what, if any, did he have to do with it?
How did the media ALL know to be at the video guys house to film the feds taking him away? Who told them to be there?
Why did Hillary tell one of the Benghazi victims father that they would prosecute the disgusting video guy when he did not break any laws? (Even AFTER it was proven the video had nothing to do with his sons death!)
Well there are MANY questions surrounding it that remain unanswered. Just as no one will go find witnesses to the attack and interview them, no one will ask about this video and the makers of it.
Oh yea, also a website (conservative treehouse ?) had an article about the video from, I think our Egyptian embassy, which included tweets to and from the embassy about the video. They were sent within a very short time of the Libya attack. Is that where this admin originally found out about the video? (I wonder if the ambassador was sent before or after these tweets, whether they were the idea for using the video and/or protests as cover.)
What WAS he doing there? Why was he sent there when it was already well established there was not real security there? When the one guy with him there posted on that video game that he may not live, was D.C. notified something was not right? What are all the timelines on all this stuff? What about when the hired security was taking pictures of the compound, was the admin notified of that also? What was their response? The seals that died were not there to provide security, so what were they doing there? What was the safe house for? How did the terrorists already know all about it? Where was the ambassadors body for four hours? What happened during that time? What was the admin doing to find out? Why did obama just go to bed that night, when the attack went on for hours and hours? What was happening at the time he went to bed? Did he give any instructions before he went to bed? What time did he get up the next day? What was happening then, and what did he do (before he flew off to Vegas)?
Then the “security” there has a ton of unanswered questions. The admin/state dept. already knew the local security was infiltrated with bad guys and was not reliable, so why did they use them anyway? What about that other hired security, that business I forgot the name of, why do we use them and not our own forces? Is this common? Do we use them elsewhere, often, etc.? How did this start and why? Do they go through thorough background checks as if they were our own, to make sure they are up to muster? What about the local hired people in Libya, did they get thorough background checks? What are the requirements for hired security when/where/if we use it? Is it enough? Is it safe?
There is the whole sex scandal questions, and questions into each of those players actual history/background, participation, reactions, etc. There is the whole issue of who gave the orders to stand down, and what happened to the people receiving those orders, and why hasn’t anyone interviewed them or dug into what happened surrounding them during and after the attack.
Look at all this, and let this be a monument to just how far the gov’t, the LSM and the left (cult) have fallen. Make no mistake, they have to actually WORK to cover such something with such magnitude as this. Think about that.
Last sentence should read:
Make no mistake, they have to actually WORK to cover UP something with such magnitude as this.
Brazen, aren’t they.
It’s the clanging bell that proves we have entered the post-USA world.
Most importantly, when the fish stinks from the head up, all manner of treason is not only likely, but it is the way they operate.
It is impossible to believe that the Director did not change the narrative, of course, on the orders of the Islamist-in-Chief but the surrogates are just as guilty – http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/11/29/benghazigates-stink-bombs-steadily-creeping-to-the-fore-regardless-of-the-regimes-spinmeisters-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki/
The answer to the question of just who changed those talking points has been staring us in the face this entire time.
Obviously it was Bil Keane’s character from the Family Circus comic “Not Me!”.
Reminds me of that Abbott & Costello shtick about Who’s on first base………
What? Steal an election?
It’s amateur hour in the US.
Philip Agee – Inside the CIA (the Intelligence Community)(1995)(1-9)(MODERN GOVERNMENT series)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WazXXeDeu8
What we can expect is that the Arabists in our diplomatic and intelligence corps litter the place with Islamists.
They just aren’t trying hard enough. How did the memo get to the DNI? Was it emailed(talk to the one it was first emailed to) or hand delivered(talk to who signed for it and or the delivery man). Once you find that, you will surprised at how willing whoever first got it is to tell you who they gave it to, cause they don’t want this hot potato. Next – when it left the DNI, how did it leave? Email(ask the emailer) or delivery service? Who was the sender from the DNI- if they didn’t change it, they will be very willing to tell you who handed them the completed document to send. Not hard. Just keep insisting…..
And I think they will. This won’t end even if Rice drops her name from the list…
There are two basic questions here. Who did it and, why?
There are two likely chains of evidence here as well. There is the flow of paper—documents composed, checked, discussed, signed off on, OK’d, and probably seen by a lot of people along the way.
Then, there are those very closely held, “no-paper” items that are handled by a very few people, strictly by word of mouth, leaving no paper trail behind.
Paper trail or no, either way, someone knows.
Hint: as to “whodunnit,” I think it is pretty safe to say that it wasn’t the typist, the guy in the mail room, or the guard out front.
Obama & Co. are playing a game of “hot potato,” and tossing the burning spud to the Intelligence community.
If, indeed, these talking points were changed by some entity/individual in Obama & Co.’s Administration, the question is, does anyone really want to know the answer that has the clout and/or is willing to spend the political capital to find out who the individual or individuals were who gave orders that the contents of the talking points be changed, or in what safe or file-drawer that incriminating paperwork or thumb drive rests and, then, to dig it out?
Bryan Preston and 1 2 7 8 9 10, you are on to something big.
These are the points to bring up in active House / Senate floor sessions. Get invited on CBS and CNN and ignore every question except To Say This Stuff Louder !
Then say it again. Ask the President if he didn’t give the Stand Down order to let the Americans die, then who did. But the Stand Down order is just details, a gateway to the larger questions. Thread 1 and thread 2 are the bright light.
Revolutions
For the past several hundred years – really since the late 18th century – intellectuals, priests, philosophers, academics and activists of every stripe and hue have been striving with all their considerable intellectual and moral might to place theoretical and practical limits upon the power of the state.
The original American experiment was at least intellectually founded upon the ideal of creating a government by and for the people, with the express knowledge that the state was a dangerous servant and a terrible master.
It was the Obama regime that changed the intelligence report and sent Susan Rice out there to spout the meme that it was the video. And Obama went to the U.N. and touted the same line. So does it really matter who actually crossed out the words?
What I would like to know is, what was the ambassador doing in Bengazi? Why were calls for extra security denied? Why did they order the guys to “stand down” and not help? Where was Obama during the assault? What did he know and what orders did he give? Where are the videos of the assault and why can’t we see them?
Clapper is a complete incompetent! Not only is he completely outside of his norrowly focused intel career and skill set, he never has a clue what is going on in his immediate presence, nor a clue what is going on outside his man cave. Don’t look to Clapper or his office for any answers unless sombodys guilt complex sets in and they cop out. Obama put the dumbest person to be found in the office — probably intentionally!
Clapper’s previous job was Director of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency. The inside joke is it’s not a hyphen between Geospatial and Intelligence. It’s a “minus” sign.
LOL
Clappers academic history after not having the mustard for the Marine Corps is that of political science. As an officer in the Air Force he followed the same boot licking, bum kissing track as Colin Powell did in the Army. Fast tracked promotions and job assignments well over their heads and we all know the rest of the story.
“Why did Petraeus say that?”
Because Lietraeus is his real name.
why has the issue of “who gave the stand-down order” completely disappeared from this blog?
did I miss something?
Not only that, how about the question of who reduced security prior to the attack – and why, when there had been previous attacks and pleas from the personnel to increase security. Changing talking points for political reasons is just ordinary Washington shenanigans. Making State Dept. personnel vulnerable shortly before an attack is something else, the question is what.
This actually becomes simple if enough people in America insist that the buck stops with Obama. That means it doesnt’ matter who changed the memo or who spoke the words “stand down”. Obama is responsible for everything that happened. He said “don’t come after Rice. Come after me.” He’s right-on every piece of this puzzle. He is the responsible party-especially since he hasns’t seen fit to fire anyone based on their failure to follow his orders.
11-29-12 Sen. Rand Paul speaks in support of Feinstein-Lee amendment to NDAA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Os5fEaT-vQ&feature=plcp
Maybe Huma snuck over from the State Department and done it! That makes as much sense as anything else!
Wow, just found these articles. EXTREMELY interesting (and scary) info surrounding Benghazi. Well worth the read.
What is clear, is that NOTHING is EVER clear! We deal with people who actually may be the jihadis out to kill us! They, radical islamist jihadis or whatever they are being called, can NEVER be trusted! EVER! We ACTUALLY NEVER know if someone is really a “moderate” or really just a bad guy pretending, or if/when they will be the one(s) killing us or helping to get us killed!
http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/americas-ally-osama-bin-laden-a-great-man/?cat_orig=us
“He never was “lucky enough” to fight alongside bin Laden, al-Hasadi explained, but he had frequently spent time with al-Zawahiri in Afghanistan. Asked about the aerial support that his forces were at the time receiving from NATO, al-Hasadi replied, “When a man is drowning, he’ll reach out to anyone, even to the devil.”
It is notable that a recent New York Times report portrays al-Hasadi as a moderate in contrast to Sufian bin Qumu, another Derna-based jihadist veteran. Bin Qumu’s name has been repeatedly evoked by the mainstream media in connection with the Benghazi attacks.
But many far more prominent Libyan militia leaders have ties to Islamic extremism that are at least equally clear. These include both al-Hasadi and Wisam bin Hamid, the leader of Deraa Libya or “Libya Shield,” nowadays the most powerful of the Eastern Libyan militias.
Libya Shield operates under the authority of the Libyan ministry of defense. As shown in a prior WND report, its units are known to fly the black flag of jihad. According to a biography that appears in Arabic on the Islamist website al-Fetn.com, Wisam bin Hamid is a veteran of jihad in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
According to the same al-Fetn.com post, in late October 2011 bin Hamid became the head of a newly formed “supreme board of the [Libyan] mujahideen.” In this capacity, he is reported to have declared that the application of the Shariah is a “red line” and that the Libyan mujahideen would “not cede one rule of it.” He also vowed that the mujahideen would use their weapons to protect Libyans from “foreign machinations.”
An unclassified U.S. diplomatic cable, which was released by the House Oversight Committee, shows that U.S. officials met with bin Hamid in Benghazi only two days before the Benghazi attacks. (Bin Hamid is misidentified in the cable as Wisam “bin Ahmed.”) Administration officials and Democratic members of Congress have criticized committee chair Darrell Issa for releasing Benghazi-related diplomatic cables without redacting the names of Libyans who met with U.S. officials. The ostensible grounds for their criticism is that the publication of the Libyans’ names could put them at risk of attack from radical groups.”
http://www.wnd.com/2012/10/benghazi-marines-supported-by-jihadists/
“BRUSSELS, Belgium – Video and documentary evidence shows that a Libyan-government-sponsored militia that reportedly provided support to American Marines on the night of the Sept. 11 Benghazi attacks is a radical Islamic militia that, like the presumed assailants, flies the black flag of jihad.”