White House has now been directly linked to Benghazi cover-up

Easy. The CIA.

 

The investigation has revealed something!!!: republicans LOVE to spend tons of tax-payer's $$$ on investigations.

 

So you are saying your government is lying?

 

... especially on investigations that lead to our leaders being exposed as the liars they are. Remember Bill Clinton? IMO, that was worth every penny. He was exposed as a perjurer and subsequently impeached. All anyone is asking for is the truth which, even you will probably admit, has not been forthcoming from this administration.

 

Playing word games is all you have?

 

Yep! Here are 20 of them;
"When she talked about the video, my reaction was, that's not something that the analysts had attributed this attack to."
Play all you want with them.

 

So, you make an accusation but can't back it up? Typical.

 

No responses?

 

I usually just ignore your pesky insertions into actual conversations but when you're this wrong, I can't resist. Now you said that you'd drop Benghazi forever. Let's see how you choose to weasel out of it.


CIA documents supported Susan Rice’s description of Benghazi attacks
By David Ignatius, Published: October 19, 2012

The Romney campaign may have misfired with its suggestion that statements by President Obama and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice about the Benghazi attack last month weren’t supported by intelligence, according to documents provided by a senior U.S. intelligence official.

“Talking points” prepared by the CIA on Sept. 15, the same day that Rice taped three television appearances, support her description of the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate as a reaction to Arab anger about an anti-Muslim video prepared in the United States. According to the CIA account, “The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.”

U.S. ambassadors killed in the line of duty: U.S. Ambassador to Libya John Christopher Stevens is the eighth American ambassador to die in the line of duty since 1950.

The CIA document went on: “This assessment may change as additional information is collected and analyzed and as currently available information continues to be evaluated.” This may sound like self-protective boilerplate, but it reflects the analysts’ genuine problem interpreting fragments of intercepted conversation, video surveillance and source reports.

The senior intelligence official said the analysts’ judgment was based in part on monitoring of some of the Benghazi attackers, which showed they had been watching the Cairo protests live on television and talking about them before they assaulted the consulate.

“We believe the timing of the attack was influenced by events in Cairo,” the senior official said, reaffirming the Cairo-Benghazi link. He said that judgment is repeated in a new report prepared this week for the House intelligence committee.

Here’s how the senior official described the jumble of events in Benghazi that day: “The attackers were disorganized; some seemed more interested in looting. Some who claimed to have participated joined the attack as it began or after it was under way. There is no evidence of rehearsals, they never got into the safe room . . . never took any hostages, didn’t bring explosives to blow the safe room door, and didn’t use a car bomb to blow the gates.”

The Benghazi flap is the sort of situation that intelligence officers dread: when politicians are demanding hard “yes” or “no” answers but evidence is fragmentary and conflicting. The political debate has focused on whether the attack was spontaneous or planned, but the official said there’s evidence of both, and that different attackers may have had different motives. There’s no dispute, however, that it was “an act of terror,” as Obama described it the next day.

“It was a flash mob with weapons,” is how the senior official described the attackers. The mob included members of the Ansar al-Sharia militia, about four members of al-Qaeda in the Maghreb, and members of the Egypt-based Muhammad Jamal network, along with other unarmed looters.

The official said the only major change he would make now in the CIA’s Sept. 15 talking points would be to drop the word “spontaneous” and substitute “opportunistic.” He explained that there apparently was “some pre-coordination but minimal planning.”

The intelligence community obviously feels burned by having its tentative assessments become a political football in this campaign and, in truth, one obvious lesson is that the United States could use much better real-time intelligence from places such as Libya.

The Benghazi attack produced a swirl of intelligence reporting, some of it contradictory. The Associated Press reported Friday that within 24 hours of the assault, the CIA station chief in Libya cabled headquarters that eyewitnesses said the attack had been carried out by militants. But the analysts evidently didn’t feel that they had any single report that allowed them to make a definitive determination about the nature of the attack.

A memo prepared by the National Counterterrorism Center on Sept. 14 illustrates the fragmentary nature of the evidence: “As time progresses, we are learning more, but we still don’t have a complete picture of what happened,” noted the analysts. “At this point, we are not aware of any actionable intelligence that this attack was planned or imminent. . . . We are very cautious about drawing any firm conclusions at this point with regard to identification and motivation of the attackers.”

The analysts seem confident that al-Qaeda’s new leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, played no direct role in the Benghazi events, even though he called on Sept. 10 for revenge attacks against the United States. “He’s not a manager, he’s not a planner, he’s not an operator. He’s a theologian, and that doesn’t have much resonance now. He’s almost irrelevant, he’s so concerned about his security, so hunkered down,” said the senior official.

Ironically, the Sept. 15 talking points that were the basis for Rice’s televised comments were requested by the House intelligence committee. Ideally, the congressional oversight committees would provide bipartisan support for intelligence officials who are probing the attack. But in the heat of the final pre-election weeks, the murky details of what happened in Libya have instead become political assault weapons.

davidignatius@washpost.com

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...ad82ae-1a2d-11e2-bd10-5ff056538b7c_story.html

 

Morell is being very careful with his language, knowing that this topic has become such an obsession with certain elements of the right.

The Sept. 15 email from the CIA said, "The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. diplomatic post and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations." Nobody, not even Representative Issa, is disputing the fact that the protests in Cairo were a response to the video. So yes, though the CIA didn't mention the video directly, they did implicitly link the Benghazi attack to the video.

This attempt to blame the Obama administration for what happened, and to create a narrative in which there was a cover-up of some sort of malfeasance, is nothing more than politically motivated showboating for the gullible crowd who'll latch onto anything which they think supports their hatred for the president. These facts have been known for over a year, but facts don't matter to the obsessed.

ETA: Ah well, I took my time writing this post, and now I see that JoeNation has covered essentially the same ground while I was musing about how deluded a person needs to be to buy into this phony scandal. I'll just leave it as is.

 

So 2 years ago "senior U.S. intelligence official" (aka, unknown source) said thus and such. But now the chief preparer says: "When she talked about the video, my reaction was, that's not something that the analysts had attributed this attack to." And you choose to believe the unknown source as opposed to the sworn testimony. It figures.

 

At the risk of irritating clembo, it is my opinion that responding to anything the radical right-wing accuses others of is like baby-sitting spoiled-rotten children who do nothing but throw tantrums.

Listening to their constant whining isn't going to solve any issue we, as adults, have and any attempt we make to calm them down isn't going to work, as it is clear they are resolute in not behaving properly.

Beating them physically isn't an option, as that's unacceptable under almost all circumstances (if they attempt to kill you, allowing them to do so is idiotic, so some allowances are acceptable).

Our only real option is to keep an eye on them, but not respond to their idiocies. The majority of our attention should be on improving the lives of everyone that has legitimate needs.

Let them fuss and whine all they want, but we need to keep focus on the true troubles of our day. They'll never tire themselves out, but there's no sense in tiring ourselves out with foolish attempts to sooth the little bastards.

 

Take your medication... please.

 

Everyone should check their shoes, some filthy animal has been shitting EVerywhere around here.

If you see it, don't approach it, as it's as mangy as it gets.

PETA may not like this but, sometimes it's better to just put the thing down, rather than let it run around spreading it's diseases. With that in mind, I've set-up some traps, and have more than enough ammunition to take care of the beast.

 

WOW! You don't like the messengers. So what else is new? But the sworn testimony remains;
"When she talked about the video, my reaction was, that's not something that the analysts had attributed this attack to."

 

Really?

Former CIA official: No politics in Benghazi memo

AP Photo: Manuel Balce Ceneta
Former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morrell is sworn-in on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, April 2, 2014, prior to testifying before the House Intelligence Committee.
4/2/14 By DONNA CASSATA of Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — The CIA's former deputy director said Wednesday he deleted references to terrorism warnings from widely disputed talking points on the deadly 2012 Benghazi attack to avoid the spy agency's gloating at the expense of the State Department.
Mike Morell faced more than three hours of questioning from the House Intelligence committee in a rare open session that examined who changed the talking points —and why — in the politically-charged aftermath of the deadly Sept. 11 assault on a U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya.
Four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, were killed in two separate attacks over a chaotic period of several hours. Multiple independent and congressional investigations have largely faulted the State Department for inadequate security at the mission.
Morell, a 33-year veteran of the agency who has served six Republican and Democratic presidents, insisted that politics had no bearing on the revisions to the talking points and said he was under no pressure to protect either President Barack Obama or then Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.
"I never allowed politics to influence what I said or did. Never," he said.
The White House, wrapped up in a fierce presidential campaign, made only minor editorial changes to the talking points, according to the onetime CIA official.
The intelligence community's talking points, compiled for members of Congress, suggested the Sept. 11 attack stemmed from protests in Cairo and elsewhere over an anti-Islamic video rather than an assault by extremists.
Republicans have accused the Obama administration of trying to mislead the American people about an act of terrorism in the final weeks before the November election.
Morell deleted references to extremist threats linked to al-Qaida in versions of the talking points that were used by Susan Rice, then U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, in a series of Sunday talk show appearances. Morell said his actions were driven by the information provided by intelligence community analysts and the Defense Department.
He said the CIA knew that some of the individuals involved in the attack were al-Qaida from classified sources, information that couldn't be included unless it was declassified. The talking points were provided to members of the committee for dissemination to the American people.
Morell said he removed references to the warnings based on previous CIA analysis. Otherwise, he said, the talking points would have been a "way for CIA to pound its chest and say 'we warned,' laying all the blame on the State Department."
Morell said there would be plenty of time later on to figure out what went wrong.
In his prepared testimony, Morell said he was deeply troubled by allegations made by lawmakers and some in the media "that I inappropriately altered and influenced CIA's classified analysis and its unclassified talking points about what happened in Benghazi, Libya in September 2012 and that I covered up those actions."
"These allegations accuse me of taking these actions for the political benefit of President Obama and then Secretary of State Clinton. These allegations are false," Morell said.
He said he and the agency could have done a better job, but he dismissed suggestions that the CIA "cooked the books" in the assessment of the attack.
Morell said he had no idea that Rice would use the talking points on the Sunday shows.
Morell described his step-by-step actions, from the first time he saw the talking points on Friday, the 14th, to his concerns about the inclusion of warning language. He said an intelligence analyst on the 13th had said the attack evolved spontaneously from a protest.
Morell said he believed his analyst that there had been a protest but he also believed it was a terrorist attack. He said he never considered them mutually exclusive.
A year and a half after the assault, multiple congressional committees and an independent review have investigated and reported on the attack. The hearing underscored that the assault remains highly politicized, with no signs of abating as Clinton is frequently mentioned as a possible presidential candidate in 2016.
Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., the chairman of the committee, said the White House used the talking points "to perpetuate its own misguided political agenda."
"The White House wants to ignore reality and perpetuate the fallacy that al-Qaida and other Islamic extremists are on the verge of defeat," Rogers said.
Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., complained about a "partisan smear campaign."
The panel's top Democrat, Rep. C.A. "Dutch" Ruppersberger of Maryland bemoaned the fact that months after the attack, Congress was still discussing the talking points when the focus should be on catching those who carried out the attacks.
His voice rising, Rep. Frank LoBiondo, R-N.J., defended the congressional investigations, saying he wants retribution for the killing of four Americans and even wants to "pull the switch" on the attackers.
He angrily complained that the perpetrators have not been caught and remain at large "sipping mai-tais."
Morell said he agreed with the congressman. "Nobody wants to bring these guys to justice more than I," he said.

 

Please point out where Morrell has sworn that the CIA talking points blamed the video for the attacks in Benghazi. If it is there I missed it. And if it is there, Morrell should be charged with perjury.

 

Here is a better idea... Instead of me doing your homework for you and wasting my time, why don't you Google anything that isn't FOX and we can watch the latest "smoking gun" fizzle out like all the rest. Will that work for you? Good!

 

Drip...drip...drip...the WH will only be able to stonewall this (and fool the ozombies) for so long before it's determined the cover-up leads straight to BO & Hillary.
...and why didn't BO send help during the hours our people were under attack?

drip...drip...drip...