Get PJ Media on your Apple

The PJ Tatler

by
Bryan Preston

Bio

May 7, 2013 - 8:26 am
<- Prev  Page 2 of 2   View as Single Page

4. Who changed the talking points, and who made the decision to blame a movie? Stephen Hayes reported last week that the CIA’s original talking points drafted after the attack made several references to al Qaeda and to the true nature and origins of the attack. State Department whistleblower Thomas Hicks was the mission deputy in Libya. Hicks says that the administration knew that Benghazi was a terrorist attack “from the get-go.” The CIA’s original talking points never mentioned a movie or a protest at all. But beginning on September 12, through Clinton’s speech before the coffins of the slain, through U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice’s infamous five-shot on Sunday talk shows on September 16, 2012, the administration said that the attack grew from a spontaneous protest of a movie. During her talk show appearances, Rice claimed that the attack was not premeditated and that it happened due to a spontaneous protest of a barely seen “hateful” movie that had been posted on YouTube months before the attack. Why did Rice mischaracterize the attack? Was she aware of the original talking points, and how they had been altered? Were Rice or Clinton the senior officials on whose behalf State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland had the talking points scrubbed of references to al Qaeda and terrorism? Why was Rice the face of the Obama administration that day, when she was the US ambassador to the UN, not Libya? Why did the president and other senior officials continue to mischaracterize the attack until the president’s address before the United Nations on September 26? During that address, President Obama said that “The world must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam,” in reference to the movie and the role that he and Rice and Clinton had insisted it played in Benghazi. By that point it was obvious that the movie had played no role in the attack. It’s now obvious that the CIA and the administration itself were aware, during the attack, that the movie played no role. Who changed those CIA talking points? Who decided to substitute the attack’s actual cause — al Qaeda, in a premeditated attack that we now know included operatives from as far away as Yemen — for a movie? When specifically was President Obama aware that the movie played no role in the attack? What role, if any, did he and Attorney General Eric Holder play in the arrest and incarceration of Nakoula Nakoula, the man behind the film that the Obama administration blamed for the attack? Why did President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton produce a public service announcement that ran in Pakistan, and denounced the movie that they blamed for the attack, when the administration knew from September 11 forward that the movie had played no role?

5. Where are the Benghazi survivors and why have we not heard from them? As many as 30 Americans survived the attack at Benghazi. Some of them have turned up, quietly, at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center. Where are the rest? Why have we not heard anything from them about the attack? Are they being silenced by threats and intimidation from higher up in the government, as several State Department officials claim is happening to them?

Also read: Dems Launch Preemptive Strikes on Benghazi Hearing

<- Prev  Page 2 of 2   View as Single Page
Bryan Preston has been a leading conservative blogger and opinionator since founding his first blog in 2001. Bryan is a military veteran, worked for NASA, was a founding blogger and producer at Hot Air, was producer of the Laura Ingraham Show and, most recently before joining PJM, was Communications Director of the Republican Party of Texas.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
The Top 5 questions are:

1)What was going on in Benghazi that this administration is DESPERATE to have us not find out?

2) Why did the FBI roll up into a ball like a hedgehog and completely evaporate, making absolutely no investigation whatsoever?

3) AFTER they arrested the YouTube video guy...KNOWING...that he had absolutely nothing to do with Benghazi...why did they keep him?

4) The military, the CIA, State and the White House ALL knew...that they were going to dummy up the reports on Benghazi...so....why send Susan Rice, who has NO operational or chain of command in ANY of them...out to be the face of the bald faced lies? What was the UN connection to what we had going on behind the scenes and beneath the radar?

5)When Hillary Clinton gets herself in White water...er...hot water...bodies tend to end up with toe tags. But that "really doesn't matter" to her, because...well, she's a leftist Democrat. But...somebody may have double crossed her and Obama. Here's where peeling the onion becomes an all hands on deck job. All things in the Middle East are connected. Obama and Hillary may have been playing footsie with people trained to negotiate like a medieval bazaar. THAT...is where the real story is. Well beneath the surface.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Months after film maker Nakoula Basseley Nakoula—whose inconsequential and little viewed homemade video “The Innocence of Muslims” was falsely cited by President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton, and UN Ambassador Rice as inciting and the reason for the Benghazi attack--and he was arrested in the middle of the night on a technicality—in making this film he violated one of the terms of his parole, that he not use computers--he remains in jail, and it is not clear just exactly who ordered him arrested and why, or why he still remains, rotting in confinement.

Thus, I think that another major focus of these hearings ought to be on just who the various actors were who orchestrated this action, in which this man was very publicly scooped up in the middle of the night by several police officers, slammed in jail, and still remains there to this day.

This whole action against an individual citizen is much more reminiscent of the police state tactics of Nazi Germany or the old USSR than it is of the United States, and raises the question--if they can do this to Nakoula, what is to prevent the government from doing this to any one of us, if it is convenient?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"...there have been reports that an AC-130 gunship was also overhead at some point during the prolonged battle. "

If you recollect, one of the SEALS had laser-designated targets though no permission to fire was ever given? Those designators, to my recollection, work only if they're synched to a receiving platform. E.g. there was, indeed, an AC-130 orbiting overhead at some point.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (38)
All Comments   (38)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Start working at home with Google! It's by-far the best job Ive had. Last Monday I got a new Alfa Romeo from bringing in $7778. I started this 9 months ago and practically straight away started making more than $83 per hour. I work through this link, Mojo50.com
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1. " Who gave the stand-down order, and why?"

Yes, that's an important question. The Dept. of State isn't in the chain of command. Neither, if I'm correct, is the JCS, they're advisory to the President. The question is, who in the chain gave the stand down order. I have a feeling that when the dust clears from this, we're all going to know. Moreover, that will effectively end that officer's military career. Not because he'll be fired. Oh no, it's because nobody from PV1 up will follow such an officer.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
No soldiers and Obama's comin'
We're finally on our own,
This summer I hear the drummin'
Four dead in Ben-gha-zi
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Something was going on in Libya that the administration doesn't want the American public to know about. My speculation is that it was gun-running to the Syrian rebels, and the administration didn't want comparisons made to Fast and Furious, which might have hurt Obama's reelection campaign. As for his involvement, he needed his sleep because he had a fund-raising campaign in Las Vegas the next day. I can only speculate that Clinton was either passed out after the fifth white wine, or she saw an opportunity to stab Obama in the back. I loathe them all.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"Any person in the chain of command above can quash an operation."

There are times when an operator can abort a mission if there is no hope of success. But an order to stand-down the QRF (they where in theater) would only come from the CinC. Again, if a subordinate made the call not to deploy the QRF, the CinC concurred in that decision by not negating it. Google "Command by Direction" and "Command by Negation".

"The thing is, the Africa Commanding General was for intervention. It is one of the top commands. There are only a few people above him."

AFRICOM is a Combatant Command (COCOM). COCOMS report directly to the CinC (through the SECDEF who is Deputy CinC). Obama claimed during the Presidential debates that he "ordered" all available assistance be rendered to the Benghazi consulate. If he gave that order it went to Panetta then AFRICOM.

Obviously Obama is lying because if he had ordered a response, I guarantee you that response would have occurred. US servicemen and women do not disobey orders.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1) Why was there substandard 9/11 security in the Benghazi consulate to begin with?

2) Why were repeated requests by Ambassador Stevens for increased security disregarded?

3) What is being done by the State Dept. so this doesn't happen again?

4) Were Navy SEALS/CIA contractors Woods and Doherty definitively told to stand down?

5) If Woods and Doherty were told to stand down...why?

6) Was anyone else at the CIA annex told to stand down?

7) If stand down decisions were made... who made the stand down decisions?

8) Why did they get no backup support despite repeated requests?

9) Were air assets really too far away to respond?

10) If they were to far to respond...why were they so far away?

11) Did Doherty or Woods laser a mortar as reported?

12) Did they assume they would have air cover when they lasered the mortar?

13) Were there commands to stand down on air support for Doherty and Woods?

14) If there were commands to stand down...who made those commands?

15) How many State Dept officials did Woods and Doherty save from terrorist attack?

16) Why has there been no coverage of the State Dept officials that Woods and Doherty saved?

17) What was the CIA doing in Libya?

18) Why has nobody done an interview w/ the accused filmmaker?

19) Who made the decision to have the filmmaker arrested?

20) Were the filmmaker's free speech rights infringed upon?

21) Why was the president unaware of Petraeus affair until 5 pm election day?

22) Was there political timing in Petraeus' resignation decision Friday evening 3 days post election?

23) Were the president, vice president, Secretary of State Clinton and UN Secretary Rice aware of editing of Petraeus intelligence memo?

24) Was National Security Advisor Thomas Donilon involved in the decision to redact "Al Qaeda affiliate" and replace with "extremist" in the CIA memo?

25) Was Petraeus sign off on edits to the intelligence memo compromised by his affair?

26) Was the CIA intelligence memo edited for national security purposes or to support a projected political narrative of the attack that would be favorable to the administration?

27) If it was edited for national security reasons why was this necessary for cabinet members (president, vice president, sec of state, UN secretary) who have the highest level of national security clearance?

28) Was the CIA intelligence memo edited because of concern of leaks within the administration?

29) Is there any merit to CIA Libya to Syria gun running rumors?

30) Did the president mean terrorism in Libya on his initial post Benghazi address or was he just giving a vague platitude on terrorism?

31) If Obama was implying terrorism in Libya (as both he and Candy Crowley said during the debate)...why did the administration then spend several days redirecting attention to the cause of the 9/11 attack as a natural spontaneous response to the film?

1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
http://www.voanews.com/content/more-protests-expected-over-anti-islam-film/1507751.html

The Voice of America report from Friday, September 14, 2012. Concludes with:

(begin quote)

A trailer for the anti-Islamic video was posted on YouTube in July. An Arabic-language translation began circulating in the Middle East in recent days. Clips from the movie depict the Prophet Muhammad as a villainous, homosexual, child-molesting buffoon, among other overtly insulting claims.

The film has been widely condemned across the globe and in the United States.

Called "The Innocence of Muslims," the film was said to have been produced by a man named Sam Bacile, who told news media he is Israeli-American. A consultant on the film says that name is a pseudonym, and there are suggestions that the man behind the film is an Egyptian Coptic Christian who lives in California. There is no record of the film or its producer in Hollywood reference sources.

Several news organizations have linked the inflammatory film to an Egyptian American, 55-year-old Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, who lives in California and once was convicted of bank fraud. Nakoula says he handled logistics for the production.

Another California man who says he served as a consultant, Steve Klein, has given conflicting accounts of the film's origin and funding. Klein is the founder of anti-Muslim and other hate groups.

(end quote)

To a 't' the admin's position at the time. Note the perp is a Jew AND a Christian.

===

PJM readers know oft-commenter Adina Kutnicki. I noticed this URL

http://adinakutnicki.com/tag/northeast-intelligence-networkcanada-free-press-too/

...in a search for a wrap to this 'origin of the video' story as it stands. In the middle of the text you'll find the name "Montagraph" hyperlinked. Please go there, and watch the sleuthing story lead through a youtube channel called 'NewsPoliticsNow' right to The Stanley Corporation and The Analysis Corporation, CEO at the time, John O. Brennan.

The Stanley Corp was awarded a nearly $600 million passport file reorganization contract by the state dept three days after the date of the breach --during which candidate Obama's file could've been altered, items added or removed, so say the reports you can find still on the web. CNN had a great three part series on the scandal, i read it only a couple weeks ago. Oddly (i noticed just now, in writing this comment) all those URLs are scrubbed --"internet explorer cannot find the website" message comes up. See fo' yo'self:

http://www.bing.com/search?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2008%2FPOLITICS%2F03%2F22%2Fpassport.files%2Findex.html%3F_s%3DPM%3APOLITICS&form=IE8SRC&src=IE-SearchBox

In the passport-breach spring of 2008, of course, Obama was vying with Hillary for the nomination, so CNN was lavish with Obama-tainting stories. Someone very recently has decided that CNN position ought to go down the good old memory hole. Outrageous news organization behavior, at least 'twas in other times.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
All sensible important questions, Bryon, but they will never be answered. We may get a squint of the truth here or a glimmer of something real over there, but most of what happened will remain a mystery forever. Why? Because they all lie all the time about everything and even they let down their guard a bit they merely obfuscate. They do it because THEY CAN. They can lie without a care because they know the media will carry all the lies forward until Obama is out of office and hailed as Our Greatest President Ever and Madam Clinton is installed in the WH. They have no morals, no scruples, no conscience and no desire except a greed for power.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The Top 5 questions are:

1)What was going on in Benghazi that this administration is DESPERATE to have us not find out?

2) Why did the FBI roll up into a ball like a hedgehog and completely evaporate, making absolutely no investigation whatsoever?

3) AFTER they arrested the YouTube video guy...KNOWING...that he had absolutely nothing to do with Benghazi...why did they keep him?

4) The military, the CIA, State and the White House ALL knew...that they were going to dummy up the reports on Benghazi...so....why send Susan Rice, who has NO operational or chain of command in ANY of them...out to be the face of the bald faced lies? What was the UN connection to what we had going on behind the scenes and beneath the radar?

5)When Hillary Clinton gets herself in White water...er...hot water...bodies tend to end up with toe tags. But that "really doesn't matter" to her, because...well, she's a leftist Democrat. But...somebody may have double crossed her and Obama. Here's where peeling the onion becomes an all hands on deck job. All things in the Middle East are connected. Obama and Hillary may have been playing footsie with people trained to negotiate like a medieval bazaar. THAT...is where the real story is. Well beneath the surface.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
During the Viet Nam war, every carrier in the gulf, regardless of where it was in the strike cycle, had both an alert CAP bird full of fuel with the crew strapped in ready to launch (until they were replaced by the next watch) and an alert tanker with a ready crew able to be airborne in minutes.
Having F-16's in Aviano with no alert tankers ready to roll is like inserting combat troops into a fight without ammunition.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 Next View All