Get PJ Media on your Apple

The PJ Tatler

by
Bryan Preston

Bio

May 22, 2014 - 11:32 am
Page 1 of 2  Next ->   View as Single Page

While Ambassador Chris Stevens was missing on September 11, 2012, and while Tyrone Woods, Sean Smith and Glen Doherty were fighting for their lives, with military assets within a quick flight to provide aid, the Obama White House decided to call…YouTube.

A still-classified State Department e-mail says that one of the first responses from the White House to the Benghazi attack was to contact YouTube to warn of the “ramifications” of allowing the posting of an anti-Islamic video, according to Rep. Darrell Issa, the Republican chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

The memo suggests that even as the attack was still underway — and before the CIA began the process of compiling talking points on its analysis of what happened — the White House believed it was in retaliation for a controversial video.

The subject line of the e-mail, which was sent at 9:11 p.m. Eastern Time on the night of the attack, is “Update on Response to actions – Libya.” The was written hours before the attack was over.

Issa has asked the White House to declassify and release the document. In the meantime he has inserted a sentence from the e-mail in the Congressional Record.

“White House is reaching out to U-Tube [sic] to advice ramification of the posting of the Pastor Jon video,” the e-mail reads, according to Issa.

U-Tube?

What did the White House want YouTube, a privately-owned website, to do?

Wouldn’t a call to the military have been more appropriate?

The White House spin on this is that the memo shows that senior officials genuinely believed that the video had caused the attack. Giving them the benefit of the doubt, it was always obvious that the attack was pre-planned. It was also obvious that the movie was being used by terrorists who had major plans for the unrest they were causing.

None of that excuses anyone at the White House for continuing to blame the video for weeks after the attack. It doesn’t excuse Hillary Clinton for blaming the movie with the bodies of the dead resting behind her, on September 14, 2012, and vowing to jail the filmmaker. It doesn’t excuse Ambassador Susan Rice blaming the movie, and it doesn’t come within a country mile of excusing Barack Obama for saying this to the UN on September 26.

YouTube Preview Image

“The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

He has certainly made good on that.

Issa has a different take on the memo.

Top Rated Comments   
Well, let me posit this: and take it from a guy who has uncovered hundreds of attempts to defraud.

Here is how guilty people act when their plot implodes.

1) they are desperate for distance...EVERY act is an attempt to create separation

2) they look for a plausible fall guy to take the heat off

3) they get nervous, edgy, angry and hyper-defensive at any inquiry

4) they abandon anyone and anything tied to the plot

AS this plot was imploding...ONLY those deeply involved would know...they had been double-crossed.

The plotters would be the ones NOT wanting to rush INTO the fire, but to prevent discovery of its root cause.

They called YouTube to set up the alibi. Not because they believed it. In fact, THEY WERE THE FIRST TO KNOW IT WASN'T TRUE.

They didn't wait for anyone to tell them differently...and when they were told differently....THEY KEPT THE SAME COVER STORY.

An innocent person doesn't "believe" a mistaken cause of tragedy after the fact. An innocent person doesn't sell a cover story THAT THEY ORIGINATED.

It simply is not how innocent people behave ...and EVERYTHING points to precisely how guilty people behave.

Understand the walk-through step by step here and ask yourself each step of the way...is this how an innocent person would react or how a guilty person would react. Keep the elements above in mind.

Then, to back to the beginning. I mean the very beginning.

They KNEW. They had to know. The minute the first bullet was fired. Maybe before.
9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
"...standing in front of the coffins of her employees and repeating the bullcrap about the video."

Also in front of the family members of those killed in Benghazi, promising to get the maker of that "awful internet video" that "we had nothing to do with."
9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
“The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

Why not ? The prophet of Islam is infinitely worthy of slander.

The future must REALLY not belong to those who describe the single document they are sworn to uphold as a "charter of negative liberties".
9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (50)
All Comments   (50)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
What the youtube call shows is that the first thought in their tiny little lefty brains was: Cover-up. Saving American lives was probably not even in the first 10.
8 weeks ago
8 weeks ago Link To Comment
Let's not forget the main point, for which 'blame the video' was just the coverup:

When the attack was going on, the White House (and State Dept) did NOTHING to provide military support. That, IMHO, is the primary outrage.
8 weeks ago
8 weeks ago Link To Comment
You have this say this for Obama, leftists, and of course the media, they know who their friends are and show them due respect. Sadly because of little things like 9/11 and about 1400 years of islamic war they have to tread carefully.
But you always know where their hearts lie.
I doubt very much this pack of filth believed the idiotic video story, but you grab the first lie you can. What filth !
8 weeks ago
8 weeks ago Link To Comment
American society has reached an Orwellian stage. The Talking Heads, including on Fox, continue to advertise the US as basically the only true free society in the world. O'Reilly refers to the people who post here as 'hard right' (by implication), and dares his 'hard right' guests to come out as Hard Right (they generally don't). Instead, strange-acting people like Gutfield just sing the 'America is the greatest' tune again and again...(Israel, by the way, is also miles away from being a 'free' society - or one in which the rights of its majority Jewish population are truly protected by the political elites).

But about Benghazi - most of the evidence supports 'paranoid conspiracy theories' like those advanced by people such as Walid Shoebat. Most of the Admin's behavior points to a plan in place to use the video, which points to awareness of the video's existence before Benghazi. If I recall, it was the Public Affairs or another official in the Cairo Embassy who first called attention to the video - and that would have been a day before Benghazi. It is Shoebat's contention that John Brennan was involved in the creation of the video itself. If so, then Obama almost certainly signed off on the whole production, which would dovetail with Hilary Clinton's promise to the parent of one of the dead heroes that they would be prosecuting Nakoula (or whatever his real name is). They did. They made a show trial of his arrest and return to prison.

The wild thing? The Video as Scapegoat theory never had a chance of gaining traction with millions upon millions of truly informed Americans or others. It was absurd and farcical from the start, whether the video was a CIA production from the inception. The committee that Gowdy now chairs might look at all this, and truly investigate whether the White House knew something bad was going to happen to Christopher Stevens.
9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
I don't believe Brennan made the movie, but one thing you said is true. The administration knew of the video before the attack as just one of many random bits of news going on in the region. The administration has a checklist of "Arab Street" grievances. This was just one. Somebody in the White House just decided to grab on to the phoniest dead end "positional good" excuse possible.

The sad thing about this whole affair is the key question Gowdy is expected to answer is nearly impossible to prove without a confession or a betrayal. Somebody between the hours 730pm and 10pm on the night the attack was still under way decided this Youtube narrative was what would be the best lie to fend off the MSM.

Gowdy may never get that confession, he can trace it pretty close to its source, but a better question is to play along with Obama's game. How is it possible, while the battle is ongoing, to know that they were motivated by the video. Did Ambassador Stevens see banners flying over the gunman about the video? Did an American embassy guard walk over and interview the Al Qaeda mortar team as they were firing on us? Did a reporter embed with Ansar Al Sharia and report this on a blog while the battle was still raging, but forget to mention it was terrorists not a protest? No, the very idea that this was knowable during the battle is ludicrous.

The youtube narrative was a lie, that is for sure. The GOP wants to show who invented the lie and who knew it was a lie. The Democrats defense lately seems to be "If the youtube narrative was a lie, at least those of us who were fed the lie believed it at the time". That doesn't wash. The Rhodes memo and others show cover up. Rice, Carney and Nuland all claimed "No evidence of pre-planned attack exists" and that Youtube is the best intel. We know now, each of those individuals was discussing the evidence they claimed did not exist. Everybody knew.

The Democrats latest defense does one thing. It puts the 12 member commitee in agreement on one fact. The Youtube video story was false. Its source is either incompetence or malevolence. Take your pick. The Dems seem to be choosing the former. The GOP will prove both.
9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
"the memo shows that senior officials genuinely believed that the video had caused the attack."
There is another possibility here. It could well be that Obama was preoccupied with, “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” and merely saw the attack in Benghazi something to blame on the video.
9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
Look,as we have seen from the blown healthcare roll out, the IRS and the VA, this administration is constantly ill-prepared to confront events, and then improvises. They will use any subterfuge imaginable (and frankly some that aren't) to deflect any responsibility for what is transpiring. Frankly, I'm almost surprised that they didn't blame Benghazi on "the prior administration".
9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
Is that guy who made the movie still in jail?
9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
He got out of La Tuna not too long ago...

In fact, I wish I had known he was in La Tuna - its only a few miles away and I would have tried to interview him.
8 weeks ago
8 weeks ago Link To Comment
I see only three possibilities:

1. This email is forged. They made it up later to provide "evidence" that they really did believe the attack was about a video.

2. They had this cover story ready beforehand, which means they knew this attack was coming. Ponder the implications of that.

3. When the attack happened, they recognized the political implications, and scrambled to find some cover story. Somebody came up with the idea, and a search was made on Youtube. Not surprisingly, they found something. This one seems a bit too convenient, however. They just happened to find a guy who was on probation and shouldn't be posting videos? A very convenient fall guy who can be silenced very quickly? I'm not buying it.



9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
Precisely! Looking real convenient for Dems to not comply with requests for emails, etc pertaining to Benghazi. Now an info dump can be conjured that can create whatever narrative Dems want. Gowdy should ensure an IT expert is on board to authenticate timing of all computer or other info exchanges.

And wow! Had never heard Brennan suspected in production of video. If Ambassador Stevens, et al, were running weapons, having an inflammatory anti-Islamic video handy to trot out "just in case" is not difficult to fathom.
8 weeks ago
8 weeks ago Link To Comment
All due respect for the continuing hunt for more damning information against the president and sec'y of state for the tragedy of Benghazi; however, it seems a bit like beating a dead horse to continue to defame those who are already known traitors and should be in prison for their crimes. Just sayin'
9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
You need to get acquainted with the meaning of the word, "defame".

9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Defame"?
9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
One question I'd like to see answered is the view history on that video. How many people had actually seen it at the time the White House first started claiming it was the cause? If is was in the dirt at that time (as I suspect) then that's a sure sign they were looking for a convenient goat and just used the one the terrorists offered themselves.
9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 Next View All