Get PJ Media on your Apple

The PJ Tatler

Rick Moran


May 5, 2013 - 11:16 am
Page 1 of 2  Next ->   View as Single Page

The number-two diplomat in Libya at the time of the terrorist attack on our diplomatic mission reportedly told a congressional committee that they knew that it was a terrorist attack “from the get-go.”

The statement of Thomas Hicks, former deputy chief of mission in Libya, directly contradicts the explanation offered by the administration in the immediate aftermath of the attack — that it was a “spontaneous” demonstration in response to a YouTube video on Islam.

Hicks, disillusioned and bitter, let the administration have it, reserving his harshest criticism for Ambassador Susan Rice, whose five interviews on Sunday talk shows not only spread altered talking points on the attack, but hugely damaged our relations with the new Libyan government.

CBS News reports:

When he appears this week before the committee, chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., Hicks is expected to offer testimony at odds with what some American officials were saying in public – and on “Face the Nation” – just five days after the attack. Benghazi whistleblowers have rallied attention to discrepancies among the administration’s reaction to the attack, which The Weekly Standard suggests was frayed by ever-evolving talking points that sought to remove references to al Qaeda.

On Sept. 16, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice hit the media circuit, appearing on all five Sunday talk shows to dispel the notion that the strike was a premeditated terrorist act and to perpetuate the case that it began “spontaneously” out of protests in Egypt. Rice’s spot on “Face the Nation” that day was preceded by the new President of Libya Mohammed al-Magariaf, who said his government had “no doubt that this was preplanned, predetermined.”

“For there to have been a demonstration on Chris Stevens’s front door and him not to have reported it is unbelievable,” he said. “I never reported a demonstration; I reported an attack on the consulate. Chris – Chris’s last report, if you want to say his final report – is, ‘Greg, we are under attack.’

“…I’ve never been as embarrassed in my life, in my career, as on that day,” Hicks continued in his interview with investigators. “The net impact of what has transpired is, [Rice,] the spokesperson of the most powerful country in the world, has basically said that the president of Libya is either a liar of doesn’t know what he’s talking about. ….My jaw hit the floor as I watched this.”

Though the White House has said it was in contact with officials in Libya the night of the attack, Hicks said in the days following, he was never consulted about the talking points. One day after Rice’s Sunday show blitz, Hicks said he called Beth Jones, acting assistant secretary for near eastern affairs at the State Department, and asked, “Why did Amb. Rice say that?” The tone of her answer – “I don’t know,” he said – indicated that “I perhaps asked a question that I should not have asked.”

Stephen Hayes at the Weekly Standard has pieced together the story of how and why the Benghazi talking points were altered. And, according to Hayes, it wasn’t only the talking points that were changed. He writes that “it is clear that senior administration officials engaged in a wholesale rewriting of intelligence assessments about Benghazi in order to mislead the public.”

The Weekly Standard sought comment from officials at the White House, the State Department, and the CIA, but received none by press time. Within hours of the initial attack on the U.S. facility, the State Department Operations Center sent out two alerts. The first, at 4:05 p.m. (all times are Eastern Daylight Time), indicated that the compound was under attack; the second, at 6:08 p.m., indicated that Ansar al Sharia, an al Qaeda-linked terrorist group operating in Libya, had claimed credit for the attack. According to the House report, these alerts were circulated widely inside the government, including at the highest levels. The fighting in Benghazi continued for another several hours, so top Obama administration officials were told even as the fighting was taking place that U.S. diplomats and intelligence operatives were likely being attacked by al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists. A cable sent the following day, September 12, by the CIA station chief in Libya, reported that eyewitnesses confirmed the participation of Islamic militants and made clear that U.S. facilities in Benghazi had come under terrorist attack. It was this fact, along with several others, that top Obama officials would work so hard to obscure.


The talking points were first distributed to officials in the interagency vetting process at 6:52 p.m. on Friday. Less than an hour later, at 7:39 p.m., an individual identified in the House report only as a “senior State Department official” responded to raise “serious concerns” about the draft. That official, whom The Weekly Standard has confirmed was State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland, worried that members of Congress would use the talking points to criticize the State Department for “not paying attention to Agency warnings.”

In an attempt to address those concerns, CIA officials cut all references to Ansar al Sharia and made minor tweaks. But in a follow-up email at 9:24 p.m., Nuland wrote that the problem remained and that her superiors—she did not say which ones—were unhappy. The changes, she wrote, did not “resolve all my issues or those of my building leadership,” and State Department leadership was contacting National Security Council officials directly. Moments later, according to the House report, “White House officials responded by stating that the State Department’s concerns would have to be taken into account.” One official—Ben Rhodes, The Weekly Standard is told, a top adviser to President Obama on national security and foreign policy—further advised the group that the issues would be resolved in a meeting of top administration officials the following morning at the White House.

Who is Ben Rhodes?

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
When partisan politics, a thing I accept, goes insane and veers over into "I am doing it, ergo it is right," that is a thing I do not accept. That is a culture of insanity and it started before Obama even campaigned for President.

The entire political Left stinks of nobility by virtue of race and gender and identity is simply held to a completely different standard. I will say for the hundreth time that no white candidate who attended a racist cult as did Obama would be elected mayor to Podunkville let alone achieve the Presidency.

This sheen of identity politics has created the same pious bunker mentality that we have to go back to the pathologically unbalanced Nixon to find. What does that tell you about how insane the Left is today? The Left is not one person like Nixon, and that makes it all the more sick because of how many share this pathology. The Left is not one person but they are of one mind - a hive mind, repeating the same memes and buzzwords virtually word for word.

Reading the Daily Kos or HuffPo is like a more sophisticated, wary and clever upscale version of Stormfront. While whining about words like "Chicago" being the second return of Nathan Bedford Forest, these nitwits use their identities to literally get away with murder - murder in New York, murder in Boston and murder in Libya and that doesn't include the pitiful wailing of a child whose spine is clipped by the goddam Devil himself. What in the hell is wrong with us?

Imagine if the entire GOP excused McVeigh by claiming he went nuts watching "Life of Bryan," while ignoring the plain presence of thousands more McVeighs with a track record of thousands of attacks that never happened because a he was once startled by a neo-colonialist.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Oh, and one more thing.

I do NOT buy the current conventional wisdom that this entire scheme and the refusal to save our imperiled people was because of a need to continue the "al Qaeda is on the run" meme.

The linear logic of that political point is fact, a little too pat, neat and avoids deeper inquiry.

Why did we need to engage in Libya anyway? And why did Obama studiously avoid Congress.

Why Susan Rice...not Hillary...for the Propaganda Pentathlon?

If we were "leading from behind"...who was in front?

What did our people in the field also not know about the full operation we were running out of there? We were keeping things awfully "lean"...almost a "need to know" skeleton crew. Why?

Our people on the ground couldn't get answers...even in desperation. This stinks to high hell.

And...the No Pulitzer Unless It's A Republican Media...won't lift a finger to find out why. They will push the easy and convenient story and then bury it.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"The Agenda Media will do what it always does. Ignore it, reframe it...and find something to distract attention away from it. Cowards and traitors...the whole lot of them."

Generally, yes. But we are at an amazing teaching moment here - the lies are so transparent. On Face the Nation today, Bob Schieffer, of all standard issue libs, was agreeing with Issa about a coverup.

Is a dam breaking? I don't know. But it behooves us to try to kick it down.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (32)
All Comments   (32)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
A failed novelist whose only achievement is writing speeches for Obama becomes "a top adviser to President Obama on national security and foreign policy"? I am shocked and yet unsurprised at the same time. Why aren't there any adults involved in this administration?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"Issa wants to get to the bottom of the talking-points controversy,"
The Issa better get real about Obama's submission to the Muslim Brotherhood operatives plying their deceit "under the radar".
"Under the radar" = subversive. Rhodes did NOT write the entire Cairo speech; he had input from the MB of CAIR renown.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
In regard to the issue of massive national security leaks 12 to 18 months, the reason why Tom Donilon at the White House likely is involved (THEREBY OBAMA APPROVED) has to do with the way reporter Judith Miller was over and over again running at that time the idea (obviously fed by her friends in the Obama Admin) - that "well you know if the President first secretly declassifies something... and THEN leaks it, its really not a crime per se"

I saw her allude to this at least a dozen timesawaw

This is a telltale sign the Wihte House was involved in those (amazingly by coincidence) politically beneficial leaks, as they were worried about potential high crimes and misdemeanors. However, massive systemic across the board leaking for a political strategy to win an election and to be the theme at the Dem Natl Convention - would separately be deemed a crime sufficient for impeachment.

Of course then we had them leaving SEALs to die issue present - thus then the coverup had to go full tilt.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Note what Woodward said about why he didn't bother investigating Benghazi, that he didhh't find any suggestions of "criminality". Well how does he know that if he doesn't investigate?

He then talks of the Romney campaign entities meeting with him, but only saying "go to this guy, that guy etc" then complains they have nothing. But wasn't a roadmap what he was provided in Watergate where he was required to prove each step? Woodward being asleep at the switch is very sad here.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Connect the dots...... Massive and dangerous national security leaks (joint Israeli- USA Iranian nuke hacking, drone kill list and many more) 12 to 18 months back, with Obama disinteresed in finding leakers, all conveniently making Obama the strong Commander & Chief, such theme THE central theme at the early Sept 2012 Dem Natl Convention......... to slowing down or calling off an attack and leaving SEALS to die for a political changed talking points and Rice letting her prestigious high office being used as part of a cover up to assist in winning the election mere weeks away.

This is of a systemic nature (anything to win, high crimes? absolutely) and will make Watergate looks like a parking ticket.

Put White House Natl Security Advisor (Obama hack) Tom Donilon under oath and watch him plead the 5th. By the way, nothing Donilon does is ever done w/o the full approval of the President of the United States.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
An important point may finally have been reached. This was not FoxNews only, this morning. The dam is leaking, I don't know for sure if it has finally been breached.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I have not watched the news, but yes that would be a bellweather, however get ready for a furious counterattack. They will pull out all stops just as they had to on the Rice issue (sexism, racism, pure politics, redoing the election, old news, etc)

The issue is WHY they went to such coverup lengths in the process and it appears this goes far beyond Benghazi buck back into the Natl Sec leaks 12 to 18 months back and perhaps elsewhere.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I woke as from a dream and found myself entempled,
and there, attendent of the altar, stood a wraith.
Costumed was she in garb extraordinaire,
draped in skin asinus, proudly bore she the sceptre of her faith.
Crowned it was with crystal, therein magnified by clever optic, the symbol of her god,
On the proverse inscribed: In God We Trust; simpler the adverse: a likeness of a patriot.
As I beheld, she there sacrificed a seeming infant, it's cries stilled.
The chant, drifiting amongst the faithful could be heard: Unwanted!
Corruption filled the nostrils of the faithful, as they in unison chanted the names of their Saints:
Franklin, John, Lyndon, Jimmie, William, Barak...
The priestess turned to confront the faithful. Her prayer subdued, but clearly heard,
grant us this, that our enemies declare to impeach the President: Thus will we be delivered all from sin, and rule forever in the house of corruption.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Stephen Hayes has done some first rate reporting, as important as Berstein and Woodward's coverage of Watergate. Would like to see his name in consideration for the Pulitzer.

This is a serious story, perhaps the best example of Obama's incompetence and hubris--don't know why he and his lackeys thought there would be many takers for such a pack of lies. Susan Rice should also pay some penalty for her part in the coverup, suspect instead she'll get tenure somewhere, maybe she'll run for the senate.

PJ Media and TWS give me hope that the insane clown posse that is the Obama Administration will not be allowed to completely ruin this country.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
It's my understanding that the Pulitzer committee members are all very liberal, so I don't see any Pulitzer Prizes for Benghazi research/journalism, because it's a full blown Democrat Party scandal/geo-political-diplomatic tragedy rather than a mere Republican target of opportunity over domestic politics.

Sad commentary on journalistic priorities, if true.

Moreover, Bernstein/Woodward/ Ben Bradlee/ Washington Post - together made for a perfect storm of mutual support.

We don't seem to have that combination today.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
the fairytale concocted by the Obama administration, and shamelessly promoted by his lapdog media indicates the disdain they have for the American public. This was all about masking The incompetency of the white house and the state dept, and. Protecting O's reelection prospects. Shame on o Obama, shame on Hillary, and shame on the MSM.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
your intertrepatation of incompetence is charitable... we're clearly looking at criminal acts as i alluded to in my other posts starting with massive security leaks.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I don't think I'll be able to enjoy the rest of my day, hearing this.
And my hands are already raw from all the wringing.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 2 Next View All