A-HA Gotcha Hillary: Turn out the Lights, The Party is Over!

[US Conservative]

The OP and fearandloathing have nearly half the posts in this thread, pumping and bumping it up.

There's not a whole lot of interest even here, a site filled with conservatives. Sure, some diehards will keep pounding it, but after the looooooooooooong, deep and numerous congressional reactions and investigations going on for nearly 2 1/2 years now, with most all outcomes coming to mostly the same conclusion: Nothing there, most thoughtful people have moved on.

Yes, recommendations for improving in the future and some mistakes were made, but nothing that's going to find what these investigations didn't uncover:


• House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, “The Security Failures of Benghazi , ” October 10, 2012

• Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, “Attacks in Benghazi , ” November 13 to December 13, 2012

• Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, “Attack on the U.S. Mission in Benghazi , ” November 14 – 29, 2012

• House Committee on Foreign Affairs, “Benghazi and Beyond, Part I: What Went Wrong on September 11, 2012 and How to Prevent It from Happening at Other Frontline Posts , ” November 15, 2012

• House Committee on Foreign Affairs, “Benghazi Attack, Part II: The Report of the Accountability Review Board , ” December 20, 2012

• Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, “Benghazi: The Attacks and the Lessons Learned , ” December 20, 2012 to January 23, 2013

• Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, report, “Flashing Red: A Special Report on the Terrorist Attack at Benghazi , ” December 30, 2012

• House Committee on Foreign Affairs, “Benghazi: The Secretary of State’s View , ” January 23, 2013

• Senate Committee on Armed Services, “Department of Defense’s Response to the Attack on U.S. Facilities in Benghazi, Libya, and the Findings of Its Internal Review Following the Attack ,” February 7, 2013

• House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Stat e, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations, “State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations for 2014, part 5 , ” February 13 to April 24, 2013

• Senate Committee on Armed Services, “U.S. Africa Command and Transportation Command , ” March 7, 2013

• House Committee on Foreign Affairs, “Securing U.S. Interests Abroad: The FY2014 Foreign Affairs Budget , ” April 17, 2013 Interim Progress Report for the Members of the House Republic Conference on the Events Surrounding the September 11 , 2012 Terrorist Attacks in Benghazi, Libya , ” April 23, 2013

• House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, “Benghazi: Exposing Failure and Recognizing Courage , ” May 8, 2013

• House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade, Subcommittee on Middle East and North Africa, “The Terrorist Threat in North Africa: Before and After Benghazi , ” July 10, 2013

<cont>

The popularity of a thread in a political forum has not a thing to do with the threat topics validity. Are you suggesting otherwise?
Im a conservative, I didn't see this thread until recently because I dont usually look at this sub-forum.

The more we dig, the more we find on Hillary. This means things have changed. The elections in november mean things have changed.
This isn't over-this isn't going away. You can continue to cry about how many investigation there are but I suspect you know deep down that hillary and other dems are doing their best to not cooperate-and that theres a reason for that.

Thats fine, she wants to do it the hard way-so be it.

 

[US Conservative]

Hillary, right now, is a dog best left sleeping ...for them.

She is caught between a rock and a hard place. She cannot come out and defend Obama as the party requires her to do, she was part of it. And she cannot attack what he is doing because that would alienate the base of the party.

This is when you need an aggressive reporter to go after her....'Madam Secretary as president would you support jobs for terrorists when so few are working in the US?'? "Mrs. Clinton, it now appears the ACA is less than mediocre, what changes would you bring...?

Those are the ligitimat 'gotcha' questions that need be asked of her now,,,that sitting on the fence post needs to made uncomfortable

This is one reason she's in hiding right now (outside of fundraising events). That and the fact that her approval ratings drop everytime she steps into the spotlight.

 

[US Conservative]

What I really enjoy is when they try to tell us that what we heard wasn't really what he said, and we're the ones who are wrong! Naturally, being the gullible souls that we are when someone flat out says "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor," as an example, we tend to take that as fact. Where we err is neglecting to look at the fine print for the numerous exceptions, which always come to light after the fact, BTW, so it's a deficiency we apparently need to remedy, because it's certainly not their problem if we need to have our hearing checked out by an audiologist! :doh:

That will go down in history as one of the calling cards of the Obama presidency. He didn't mean what he said or did, he meant what his supporters tell you or you are racist n stuff.

 

[Fearandloathing]

The OP and fearandloathing have nearly half the posts in this thread, pumping and bumping it up.

There's not a whole lot of interest even here, a site filled with conservatives. Sure, some diehards will keep pounding it, but after the looooooooooooong, deep and numerous congressional reactions and investigations going on for nearly 2 1/2 years now, with most all outcomes coming to mostly the same conclusion: Nothing there, most thoughtful people have moved on.

Yes, recommendations for improving in the future and some mistakes were made, but nothing that's going to find what these investigations didn't uncover:


• House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, “The Security Failures of Benghazi , ” October 10, 2012

• Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, “Attacks in Benghazi , ” November 13 to December 13, 2012

• Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, “Attack on the U.S. Mission in Benghazi , ” November 14 – 29, 2012

• House Committee on Foreign Affairs, “Benghazi and Beyond, Part I: What Went Wrong on September 11, 2012 and How to Prevent It from Happening at Other Frontline Posts , ” November 15, 2012

• House Committee on Foreign Affairs, “Benghazi Attack, Part II: The Report of the Accountability Review Board , ” December 20, 2012

• Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, “Benghazi: The Attacks and the Lessons Learned , ” December 20, 2012 to January 23, 2013

• Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, report, “Flashing Red: A Special Report on the Terrorist Attack at Benghazi , ” December 30, 2012

• House Committee on Foreign Affairs, “Benghazi: The Secretary of State’s View , ” January 23, 2013

• Senate Committee on Armed Services, “Department of Defense’s Response to the Attack on U.S. Facilities in Benghazi, Libya, and the Findings of Its Internal Review Following the Attack ,” February 7, 2013

• House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Stat e, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations, “State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations for 2014, part 5 , ” February 13 to April 24, 2013

• Senate Committee on Armed Services, “U.S. Africa Command and Transportation Command , ” March 7, 2013

• House Committee on Foreign Affairs, “Securing U.S. Interests Abroad: The FY2014 Foreign Affairs Budget , ” April 17, 2013 Interim Progress Report for the Members of the House Republic Conference on the Events Surrounding the September 11 , 2012 Terrorist Attacks in Benghazi, Libya , ” April 23, 2013

• House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, “Benghazi: Exposing Failure and Recognizing Courage , ” May 8, 2013

• House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade, Subcommittee on Middle East and North Africa, “The Terrorist Threat in North Africa: Before and After Benghazi , ” July 10, 2013

<cont>

One, if you are going to talk about me, have the balls to do it as a reply.

I have to ask so what?

If you don't like reading what the OP and I have to say, don't ****ing read it.

But don't ****ing try to hijack it with illiterate irrelevant gibberish like the above, either address the topic as per the rules and traditions of this forum or get out.

While you bitch about two posters hogging a forum, you contribute nothing to the debate, just cowardly whining about who has anything to say...not even what they say.

GO back to that time of "hope and change" when you could still feel good about things

 

[Mycroft]

The OP and fearandloathing have nearly half the posts in this thread, pumping and bumping it up.

There's not a whole lot of interest even here, a site filled with conservatives. Sure, some diehards will keep pounding it, but after the looooooooooooong, deep and numerous congressional reactions and investigations going on for nearly 2 1/2 years now, with most all outcomes coming to mostly the same conclusion: Nothing there, most thoughtful people have moved on.

Yes, recommendations for improving in the future and some mistakes were made, but nothing that's going to find what these investigations didn't uncover:

~snipped the space filler stuff to save that space~

<cont>

Okay...you are on record for the following:

1. Whining about the activities of a couple of forum members in this thread.

(cry me a river, dude)

2. Asserting a lack of interest in a topic and an event that keeps on generating interest...not only in this forum, but in the public media as well.

(wishful thinking won't make this go away, dude)

3. Maintaining that no new information will come out.

(the OP's post belies that, dude...sorry about that)

I don't think you need to continue if this is all you got, dude.

 

[Objective Voice]

The only Spin is you trying to help Hillary and Her crew save face.


The documents were produced as a result of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the State Department (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State ((No. 1:14-cv-01511). The documents make no reference to a spontaneous demonstration or Internet video, except in an official statement issued by Hillary Clinton.

On September 11, 2012, 4:38 PM, State Department Foreign Service Officer Lawrence Randolph forwarded Mills, Sullivan and McManus an email from Scott Bultrowicz, who was the former director of the Diplomatic Security Service (ousted following review of the attack), with the subject line, “Attack on Benghazi 09112012”:.....snip~

Judicial Watch FOIA: State knew Ansar al-Sharia claimed Benghazi attack in first hours « Hot Air


You did note all those links to the material that the Judicial Watch and a Judge.....Forced.....that's called using force. TO make Team Hillary do what they didn't want to do..

Have you figure out that part about Hillary and her Team fighting with DESPERATION in trying TO PREVENT the Emails from even being released. What happened?????

In other words, you haven't bothered to read any of the actual emails themselves but opted instead to cut-n-paste the same information posted on the Judicial Watch website. I've already quoted content from specific emails that go contrary to what Judicial Watch and yourself are claiming. Read the emails for yourself. I'm sure what you'll find is the initial reporting was true that no U.S. officials believed the attack on either U.S. facility were pre-planned or coordinated. It took time for things to get sorted out.

Now, I can agree that the State Dept/Obama Administration should have changed their talking points away from "spontaneous attack sparked by an anti-Islam video" sooner instead of allowing the same inaccurate storyline to linger in the public domain days after it was confirmed that the attacks at both U.S. facilities abroad were, in fact, pre-planned terrorist attacks. But to continue suggesting they knew the attacks from the onset were pre-planned is akin to believing that FDR knew when and where the Japanese would attack on 12/07/1941 or that GWB knew 9/11 was coming and neither did anything to stop it.

 

[US Conservative]

In other words, you haven't bothered to read any of the actual emails themselves but opted instead to cut-n-paste the same information posted on the Judicial Watch website. I've already quoted content from specific emails that go contrary to what Judicial Watch and yourself are claiming. Read the emails for yourself. I'm sure what you'll find is the initial reporting was true that no U.S. officials believed the attack on either U.S. facility were pre-planned or coordinated. It took time for things to get sorted out.

Now, I can agree that the State Dept/Obama Administration should have changed their talking points away from "spontaneous attack sparked by an anti-Islam video" sooner instead of allowing the same inaccurate storyline to linger in the public domain days after it was confirmed that the attacks at both U.S. facilities abroad were, in fact, pre-planned terrorist attacks. But to continue suggesting they knew the attacks from the onset were pre-planned is akin to believing that FDR knew when and where the Japanese would attack on 12/07/1941 or that GWB knew 9/11 was coming and neither did anything to stop it.

The compounds in Benghazi were attacked by teams, including pre-sighted mortars.
I'd call that pre-planned and coordinated.

 

[Meadowlark]

Heya USC. :2wave: Oh I can't wait for him to get Cheryl Mills, and Gloria Nuland on the stand. Then Hillary herself.....lets see her pull that stunt where she thinks she can get upset.

I want Gowdy to ask her under oath. Why she didn't even try and call back to see if her people made it out alive. Then don't you think, you should have being the Head of State? You knew their lives were in direct danger.

Then ask her directly......did you send Stevens to Benghazi on the Anniversary of 911 to meet a Turk Envoy? What was a Turk Envoy doing in Benghazi when they had closed their Embassy and sent their people home? Did you send Stevens to meet the Turk Envoy. There are only 2 people that could have given him a directive. Answer the question now or plead the 5th until that information is released. Oh.....and it will be released. So think about your Answer Ms Clinton, real carefully!.

This time people want to see her Humiliated lets hope Gowdy does it in a Professional way.

The emails lead to important information -

So this is what I'm looking forward to watching, Trey Gowdy in action asking his well planned questions of all of them and in particular Hillary Clinton under oath this time. He is a superior lawyer knows America is waiting for the truth to come out of the mouths of these people. And Gowdy has class so expect the best of him.

 

[MMC]

In other words, you haven't bothered to read any of the actual emails themselves but opted instead to cut-n-paste the same information posted on the Judicial Watch website. I've already quoted content from specific emails that go contrary to what Judicial Watch and yourself are claiming. Read the emails for yourself. I'm sure what you'll find is the initial reporting was true that no U.S. officials believed the attack on either U.S. facility were pre-planned or coordinated. It took time for things to get sorted out.

Now, I can agree that the State Dept/Obama Administration should have changed their talking points away from "spontaneous attack sparked by an anti-Islam video" sooner instead of allowing the same inaccurate storyline to linger in the public domain days after it was confirmed that the attacks at both U.S. facilities abroad were, in fact, pre-planned terrorist attacks. But to continue suggesting they knew the attacks from the onset were pre-planned is akin to believing that FDR knew when and where the Japanese would attack on 12/07/1941 or that GWB knew 9/11 was coming and neither did anything to stop it.

Maybe you should check out the links they provided. Moreover it doesn't change the fact of what Hillary infused into the works.

Also, it doesn't help your case with all that came out over the emails. Yet one you failed to notice.....was getting Hillary's Email and Cheryl Mills. These Emails were not released before.

But just to prove some points and bring out some more of BO peeps, lost sheep's incompetence. Lets take a look see.



Over the five days between the attacks and the now-infamous Sunday show appearance by U.N. Ambassador Susan E. Rice, senior officials from the Central Intelligence Agency and the State Department argued over how much information to disclose about the assault in which four Americans, including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, were killed. That internal debate and the changes it produced in the Obama administration’s immediate account of the attack have revived Benghazi as a political issue in Washington six months after the presidential election in which it played a prominent role. Friday’s revelations — ABC News published 12 versions of the talking points — produced the latest round of Benghazi post-mortems in the eight months since the attacks. Senior administration officials said in a briefing for reporters that none of Obama’s political advisers were involved in discussions around the original talking points, only national security staff officials.

CIA officials said in the weeks after the Benghazi attack that Ansar al-Sharia, a group affiliated with al-Qaeda, was not mentioned in the final talking points because the information was classified — even though the early versions made public this week showed that the agency initially intended to name the group. On Thursday, House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) called on the White House to make public e-mails and other information about the talking points that are among tens of thousands of pages of documents the administration turned over to lawmakers months ago. White House officials continue to assert that they have provided all the information congressional leaders have asked for. <<<<< What happened? How did new emails held and fought against to be released just find its way thru a court order and out into the public.?

White House officials have said previously they made only one change to the CIA-drafted talking points, changing U.S. “consulate” to “diplomatic post” in the final version. But White House officials were directly involved in developing the talking points through discussions with the CIA, the State Department, the FBI, the Justice Department, and elements of the Pentagon.....snip~

Benghazi e-mails show clash between State Department, CIA - The Washington Post



Also, did you forget that Ansar al Sharia has already attacked the Embassy and left a calling card. While then going after the Brits Ambassador. Then chasing the Red Cross out of Libya.

So to say that the Administration didn't know when the CIA knew and when State knew they were attacked before. Is just another deflection away from their Lies.

 

[MMC]

The emails lead to important information -

So this is what I'm looking forward to watching, Trey Gowdy in action asking his well planned questions of all of them and in particular Hillary Clinton under oath this time. He is a superior lawyer knows America is waiting for the truth to come out of the mouths of these people. And Gowdy has class so expect the best of him.

Heya ML.

Which we already have their lies with the stories over all the emails that were released up until they get Hillary's and Cheryl Mills. Starting with Gloria Nuland doing what she could to protect State.


New Benghazi Emails – “Penultimate” Concern was Hiding Warnings from Congress and the People.....


The main argument being put forward by the apologists today will be that other agencies decided to erase certain aspects of the official story as it was developing for various reasons. Even the Huffington Post’s own article makes that clear… they lied for OTHER REASONS. Nothing in the emails supports theories that the talking points were changed in order to influence the 2012 election.”

“Separate from Wednesday’s document release, the CIA recently conducted an internal review of how and why the talking points were changed — a move that also came in response to the continuing questions from Congress. That review showed that many changes were made to the original talking points — drafted by a senior officer — over concerns about accuracy, an FBI investigation and other bureaucratic matters. A U.S. intelligence official told The Huffington Post the review was completed “early this year.””

At the time when they were massaging the message, there was no FBI investigation into the Benghazi attacks, so what FBI investigation did they change the talking points to protect? Well, that FBI investigation would have been the investigation into “Sam Bacile” and the fact that the administration was trying to use the “Innocence of the Muslims” video as the explanation for why it happened and the fact that the film itself was in FBI custody before it was released as a honey-pot trap they created and it had been called the “Innocence of bin Laden”....snip~

https://willyloman.wordpress.com/20...hiding-warnings-from-congress-and-the-people/

Btw ML......I sent Gowdys people everything I had on it.....and I do mean everything.

 

[Meadowlark]

Heya ML.

Which we already have their lies with the stories over all the emails that were released up until they get Hillary's and Cheryl Mills. Starting with Gloria Nuland doing what she could to protect State.


New Benghazi Emails – “Penultimate” Concern was Hiding Warnings from Congress and the People.....


The main argument being put forward by the apologists today will be that other agencies decided to erase certain aspects of the official story as it was developing for various reasons. Even the Huffington Post’s own article makes that clear… they lied for OTHER REASONS. Nothing in the emails supports theories that the talking points were changed in order to influence the 2012 election.”

“Separate from Wednesday’s document release, the CIA recently conducted an internal review of how and why the talking points were changed — a move that also came in response to the continuing questions from Congress. That review showed that many changes were made to the original talking points — drafted by a senior officer — over concerns about accuracy, an FBI investigation and other bureaucratic matters. A U.S. intelligence official told The Huffington Post the review was completed “early this year.””

At the time when they were massaging the message, there was no FBI investigation into the Benghazi attacks, so what FBI investigation did they change the talking points to protect? Well, that FBI investigation would have been the investigation into “Sam Bacile” and the fact that the administration was trying to use the “Innocence of the Muslims” video as the explanation for why it happened and the fact that the film itself was in FBI custody before it was released as a honey-pot trap they created and it had been called the “Innocence of bin Laden”....snip~

https://willyloman.wordpress.com/20...hiding-warnings-from-congress-and-the-people/

Btw ML......I sent Gowdys people everything I had on it.....and I do mean everything.

Heya ML.

Which we already have their lies with the stories over all the emails that were released up until they get Hillary's and Cheryl Mills. Starting with Gloria Nuland doing what she could to protect State.


New Benghazi Emails – “Penultimate” Concern was Hiding Warnings from Congress and the People.....


The main argument being put forward by the apologists today will be that other agencies decided to erase certain aspects of the official story as it was developing for various reasons. Even the Huffington Post’s own article makes that clear… they lied for OTHER REASONS. Nothing in the emails supports theories that the talking points were changed in order to influence the 2012 election.”

“Separate from Wednesday’s document release, the CIA recently conducted an internal review of how and why the talking points were changed — a move that also came in response to the continuing questions from Congress. That review showed that many changes were made to the original talking points — drafted by a senior officer — over concerns about accuracy, an FBI investigation and other bureaucratic matters. A U.S. intelligence official told The Huffington Post the review was completed “early this year.””

At the time when they were massaging the message, there was no FBI investigation into the Benghazi attacks, so what FBI investigation did they change the talking points to protect? Well, that FBI investigation would have been the investigation into “Sam Bacile” and the fact that the administration was trying to use the “Innocence of the Muslims” video as the explanation for why it happened and the fact that the film itself was in FBI custody before it was released as a honey-pot trap they created and it had been called the “Innocence of bin Laden”....snip~

https://willyloman.wordpress.com/20...hiding-warnings-from-congress-and-the-people/

Btw ML......I sent Gowdys people everything I had on it.....and I do mean everything.

Hi Ya MMC..

Very interesting, it has taken time to finally get most of the information we are getting there....the next couple steps are going to provoking to the people who have being hiding behind those emails. And I hope the show gets on the road soon.

Great link

I knew we could count on you to help out Gowdy and his crew..

 

[MMC]

Hi Ya MMC..

Very interesting, it has taken time to finally get most of the information we are getting there....the next couple steps are going to provoking to the people who have being hiding behind those emails. And I hope the show gets on the road soon.

Great link

I knew we could count on you to help out Gowdy and his crew..

Well I wasn't the only one. Quite a few from Salem Broadcasting were in on it. Plenty of Right leaning bloggers etc.

They had them back then and especially over what had taken place with prior attacks on the same Consulate....Then the New Yorker brought more over the Emails and what was known even Prior to the Anniversary of 911. Since then its all about getting classified information to be unclassified and released to the public.

Another answer we need is who at the State Dept. Hired Ansar al Sharia. The AQ affiliate that was mentioned but not by name. The same group that spread from Yemen to Libya. Long before ISIS sprung up and the one that Hillary's Team ignored.







Spinning Benghazi....

It’s a cliché, of course, but it really is true: in Washington, every scandal has a crime and a coverup. The ongoing debate about the attack on the United States facility in Benghazi where four Americans were killed, and the Obama Administration’s response to it, is no exception. For a long time, it seemed like the idea of a coverup was just a Republican obsession. But now there is something to it.

But the mere existence of the edits—whatever the motivation for them—seriously undermines the White House’s credibility on this issue. This past November (after Election Day), White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters that “The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility’ because ‘consulate’ was inaccurate.”....snip~

Spinning Benghazi - The New Yorker

 

[Meadowlark]

Well I wasn't the only one. Quite a few from Salem Broadcasting were in on it. Plenty of Right leaning bloggers etc.

They had them back then and especially over what had taken place with prior attacks on the same Consulate....Then the New Yorker brought more over the Emails and what was known even Prior to the Anniversary of 911. Since then its all about getting classified information to be unclassified and released to the public.

Another answer we need is who at the State Dept. Hired Ansar al Sharia. The AQ affiliate that was mentioned but not by name. The same group that spread from Yemen to Libya. Long before ISIS sprung up and the one that Hillary's Team ignored.



Spinning Benghazi....

It’s a cliché, of course, but it really is true: in Washington, every scandal has a crime and a coverup. The ongoing debate about the attack on the United States facility in Benghazi where four Americans were killed, and the Obama Administration’s response to it, is no exception. For a long time, it seemed like the idea of a coverup was just a Republican obsession. But now there is something to it.

But the mere existence of the edits—whatever the motivation for them—seriously undermines the White House’s credibility on this issue. This past November (after Election Day), White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters that “The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility’ because ‘consulate’ was inaccurate.”....snip~

Spinning Benghazi - The New Yorker

I appreciate the information, this has intrigued me from the beginning because nothing made logical sense when 4 Americans lost their lives and considering one was an Ambassador. His death was brutal as well as the others and to place blame on a video that no one ever hear of, turned my stomach.

I do remember Jay Carney and his lie, GRRR!

To think Hillary is actually thinking about running for president, is laughable...

As I said before looking forward to Trey Gowdy bringing all of this to the forefront, perhaps then people will pay attention.

Until then I'll be watching for your updates..

 

[Objective Voice]

The compounds in Benghazi were attacked by teams, including pre-sighted mortars.
I'd call that pre-planned and coordinated.

Does any of the emails Judicial Watch publicized from their FOIA discovery make it clear that State Dept (CIA) personnel knew of these attack "teams" or that the mortars they used were "pre-sighted" before or after the attacks?

 

[US Conservative]

Does any of the emails Judicial Watch publicized from their FOIA discovery make it clear that State Dept (CIA) personnel knew of these attack "teams" or that the mortars they used were "pre-sighted" before or after the attacks?

US facilities had been attacked there several times before 9/11. Most other nations pulled out. Ambassador Stevens repeatedly asked for more security. amd was denied them. We know from his own diary, found after the attacks that he knew how bad the security situation was, and that the state department had refused to send more security or withdraw from the region. He of course worked for the State department.

Some of the survivors have stated that it was immediately clear that the mortars were already sighted in. Normally they have to be "walked in". Spontaneous protestors dont assemble and pre-sight crew served weapons.

 

[MMC]

Does any of the emails Judicial Watch publicized from their FOIA discovery make it clear that State Dept (CIA) personnel knew of these attack "teams" or that the mortars they used were "pre-sighted" before or after the attacks?

That will be discovered when we know who Hired Ansar al Shariah as security for Benghazi. As there is no getting around the fact.....that's exactly what State did.


According to Joan Neuhaus Schaan, a fellow in Homeland Security and Terrorism at Rice University's Baker Institute for Public Policy in Houston, the February 17th Brigade, which provided security for the U.S. Mission in Benghazi, was founded by Ismail Sallabi, who is a known member of al Qaeda and the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG). A Brookings Doha Center policy briefing dated May 2012, entitled "Libyan Islamists Unpacked: Rise, Transformation, and Future," also reports that Sallabi heads the February 17th Brigade based in Benghazi.

This means that the group that led the attack on the mission, Ansar al-Sharia, led by Abu Sufian bin Qumu, a former Al-Qaeda Guantanomo detainee; the Libya Shield, which met the marines who came from Tripoli at the airport and accompanied them to the CIA annex, led by Wisam ben Hamid, identified by the Library of Congress as possibly the head of Al-Qaeda in Libya; and the February 17th Brigade, which provided security for the mission, led by Ismail Sallabi, were all Al-Qaeda and LIFG.

In fact, the LIFG officially merged with Al-Qaeda in 2007. In the September 11, 2012, unclassified memo sent from the U.S. Embassy under the signature of Ambassador Stevens, it reports that Wisam ben Hamid and al-Garabi told U.S. officials that if the Muslim Brotherhood candidate for Prime Minister, Alwad al Barasi, should win, he would appoint the commander of the February 17th Brigade, Fawzi Bukatif, as Minister of Defense. "Bukatif's appointment," the memo says, "would open the MOD and other security ministries and offices to plum appointments for his most favored brigade commanders — giving February 17 and Libya Shield tacit control of the armed forces.".....snip~

February 17th Brigade in Benghazi also Al-Qaeda

 

[Objective Voice]

Maybe you should check out the links they provided. Moreover it doesn't change the fact of what Hillary infused into the works.

Also, it doesn't help your case with all that came out over the emails. Yet one you failed to notice.....was getting Hillary's Email and Cheryl Mills. These Emails were not released before.

...

CIA officials said in the weeks after the Benghazi attack that Ansar al-Sharia, a group affiliated with al-Qaeda, was not mentioned in the final talking points because the information was classified — even though the early versions made public this week showed that the agency initially intended to name the group. On Thursday, House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) called on the White House to make public e-mails and other information about the talking points that are among tens of thousands of pages of documents the administration turned over to lawmakers months ago. White House officials continue to assert that they have provided all the information congressional leaders have asked for. <<<<< What happened? How did new emails held and fought against to be released just find its way thru a court order and out into the public.?

First off, it's not my case. I have nothing to win or lose here. All I'm trying to do is keep the facts straight as they present themselves. To that...

Pay very close attention to what Spkr Boehner asked for...emails and "other information about the talking points". The Secretary of State's "Prepared Statement" to the public covering events that unfolded that day have nothing to do with a group of officials within the CIA/State Dept/WH sitting down and discussing among themselves the specifics of how they plan to present said "talking points" to the public.

So to say that the Administration didn't know when the CIA knew and when State knew they were attacked before. Is just another deflection away from their Lies.

I don't know what these three agencies/departments knew beforehand, but I do know that per the emails Judicial Watch has made public they don't prove that any of the aforementioned agencies/departments knew who were attacking the U.S. Embassy/Consulate offices prior to said militant/terrorist attacks taking place. Show me an email between any two of these agencies/departments that speak directly to how they would purposely talk down the attacks and I'm in your corner. Until then, I see this as nothing more that :spin: ahead of the 2016 presidential election cycle in an attempt to keep Benghazi relevant and discredit a Democratic presidential candidate.

 

[MMC]

First off, it's not my case. I have nothing to win or lose here. All I'm trying to do is keep the facts straight as they present themselves. To that...

Pay very close attention to what Spkr Boehner asked for...emails and "other information about the talking points". The Secretary of State's "Prepared Statement" to the public covering events that unfolded that day have nothing to do with a group of officials within the CIA/State Dept/WH sitting down and discussing among themselves the specifics of how they plan to present said "talking points" to the public.



I don't know what these three agencies/departments knew beforehand, but I do know that per the emails Judicial Watch has made public they don't prove that any of the aforementioned agencies/departments knew who were attacking the U.S. Embassy/Consulate offices prior to said militant/terrorist attacks. Show me an email between any two of these agencies/departments that speak directly to how they would purposely talk down the attacks and I'm in your corner. Until then, this is all just :spin: ahead of the 2016 presidential election cycle in an attempt to keep Benghazi relevant and discredit a Democratic presidential candidate.

Except for the Fact of Petraeus testifying the CIA knew and so to did BO. Which would include State. They also knew going back to March of that year that Ansar al Sharia attacked the Consulate. This was all out with news sources both domestic and overseas.

Again....check out the Libya Timeline from the BBC. It doesn't just show what was just taking place with Benghazi.

 

[Objective Voice]

Does any of the emails Judicial Watch publicized from their FOIA discovery make it clear that State Dept (CIA) personnel knew of these attack "teams" or that the mortars they used were "pre-sighted" before or after the attacks?

That will be discovered when we know who Hired Ansar al Shariah as security for Benghazi. As there is no getting around the fact.....that's exactly what State did.

I'll take that as a "No".

 

[Objective Voice]

Except for the Fact of Petraeus testifying the CIA knew and so to did BO. Which would include State. They also knew going back to March of that year that Ansar al Sharia attacked the Consulate. This was all out with news sources both domestic and overseas.

Again....check out the Libya Timeline from the BBC. It doesn't just show what was just taking place with Benghazi.

Do you have a link to a transcript of their testimony making such statements?

 

[MMC]

Do you have a link to a transcript of their testimony making such statements?

As far as General Petraeus' testimony today was, that from the start, he had told us that this was a terrorist attack or that there were terrorists involved from the start. I told him in my questioning that I have a very different recollection of that. The clear impression that we were given was that the overwhelming evidence was that it arose out of spontaneous demonstrations," said King.....snip~

Petraeus Testifies on Benghazi Attack


Ex-CIA chief Petraeus testifies Benghazi attack was al Qaeda-linked terrorism.....

Former CIA Director David Petraeus testified on Capitol Hill Friday that the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, in September was an act of terrorism committed by al Qaeda-linked militants. Ansar al Sharia is more of a label than an organization, one that's been adopted by conservative Salafist groups across the Arab world.

The former CIA chief has said there was a stream of intelligence from multiple sources, including video at the scene, that indicated Ansar al Sharia was behind the attack, according to an official with knowledge of the situation. Meanwhile, separate intelligence indicated the violence at the consulate was inspired by protests in Egypt over an ostensibly anti-Islam film clip that was privately produced in the United States. The movie, "Innocence of Muslims," portrayed the Prophet Mohammed as a womanizing buffoon.

There were 20 intelligence reports that indicated that anger about the film may be to blame, the official said. The CIA eventually disproved those reports, but not before Petraeus' initial briefing to Congress when he discussed who might be behind the attack and what prompted it. During that briefing, he raised Ansar al Sharia's possible connection as well as outrage about the film, the official said.....snip~

Ex-CIA chief Petraeus testifies Benghazi attack was al Qaeda-linked terrorism - CNN.com

 

[Objective Voice]

Repeated verbiage from both linked articles you posted above:

"He (Petraeus) ... stated that he thought all along he made it clear that there was significant terrorist involvement, and that is not my recollection of what he told us on September 14," King said.

"The clear impression we were given (in September) was that the overwhelming amount of evidence was that it arose out of a spontaneous demonstration, and was not a terrorist attack," he said.

So, Gen. Petraeus either changed his tune or he wasn't very clear about what transpired from the start. In any case, I'll ask again, do you have a link to the actual transcript where Gen. Petraeus states that THE CIA KNEW in advance of the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi was pre-planned and NOT some rehashed article stating who Gen. Petraeus himself believes were at fault? Because what you've asserted is...

Except for the fact of Petraeus testifying the CIA knew...

 

[MMC]

Repeated verbiage from both linked articles you posted above:

"He (Petraeus) ... stated that he thought all along he made it clear that there was significant terrorist involvement, and that is not my recollection of what he told us on September 14," King said.

"The clear impression we were given (in September) was that the overwhelming amount of evidence was that it arose out of a spontaneous demonstration, and was not a terrorist attack," he said.

So, Gen. Petraeus either changed his tune or he wasn't very clear about what transpired from the start. In any case, I'll ask again, do you have a link to the actual transcript where Gen. Petraeus states that THE CIA KNEW in advance of the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi was pre-planned and NOT some rehashed article stating who Gen. Petraeus himself believes were at fault? Because what you've asserted is...

Are you saying now that General Petraeus didn't testify before Congress in a Closed Door Session? While asking for the transcript of what he said behind closed doors? When every MS media outlet reported what he testified too.

Whats so funny is the Libyan President said they knew to. Yet you didnt pick up on that part. I gave you a couple of links that showed Petraeus testified. If you want to look for an actual transcript to look for some word or terminology to play with be my guest and look for it. As it is.....its shows what Petraeus testified to.

Moreover is says nothing of the Libyans giving Team BO 3 days advance warning with Benghazi and 911.

 

[Objective Voice]

You're missing the point, MMC. So, let me bring this issue back around for you.

Judicial Watch claims to have evidence based on emails they received through FOIA that proves that the State Depart (SoS Hillary Clinton) (along with the CIA) knew in advance that the attack on the Consulate Office in Benghazi, Libya was pre-planned.

You said that Gen. Petraeus gave testimony NOT of what he believed about the attack - that he believe it was a a terrorist attack from the start - but rather that he, too, informed Congress that the CIA/State Dept knew the attack in Benghazi was, in fact, pre-planned. Again, your own words, not mine:

Except for the fact of Petraeus testifying the CIA knew...

So, I'm asking you to back up your claim with a link to the transcript showing where Gen. Petraeus actually made such a claim. Not even the news articles you've linked to make such a statement. They only state that Gen. Petraeus made the claim that he informed certain CIA/State Dept. officials that in his opinion the attacks weren't some random act of violence, but rather he stated up front that it was a terrorist attack. Thus, not even the articles you've presented support your claim of having known of the attacks in advance. They may speak of folks within the Obama Administration changing the talking points. They may even speak to how confused alot of people where about what really happened on that day. But they don't support your claim of advance notification.

 

[MMC]

You're missing the point, MMC. So, let me bring this issue back around for you.

Judicial Watch claims to have evidence based on emails they received through FOIA that proves that the State Depart (SoS Hillary Clinton) (along with the CIA) knew in advance that the attack on the Consulate Office in Benghazi, Libya was pre-planned.

You said that Gen. Petraeus gave testimony NOT of what he believed about the attack - that he believe it was a a terrorist attack from the start - but rather that he, too, informed Congress that the CIA/State Dept knew the attack in Benghazi was, in fact, pre-planned. Again, your own words, not mine:



So, I'm asking you to back up your claim with a link to the transcript showing where Gen. Petraeus actually made such a claim. Not even the news articles you've linked to make such a statement. They only state that Gen. Petraeus made the claim that he informed certain CIA/State Dept. officials that in his opinion the attacks weren't some random act of violence, but rather he stated up front that it was a terrorist attack. Thus, not even the articles you've presented support your claim of having known of the attacks in advance. They may speak of folks within the Obama Administration changing the talking points. They may even speak to how confused alot of people where about what really happened on that day. But they don't support your claim of advance notification.

Look I know you are reaching for anything.Something, that can help you out with your spin. Petraeus and CIA knew about all the attacks Prior to the 911 date. Even the Libyan President stated it was pre planned.

How many times did Ansar al Sharia attack leading up to the 911 Anniversary date? Was there an attack in May on the Same Consulate? Did they attack the UK Brits Ambassador Motorcade? Did they force the Red Cross to close their Offices?


November 16, 2012: In testimony before the House and Senate intelligence panels, General Petraeus states that the CIA sought to make clear from the outset that an al Qaeda affiliate was involved in the deadly attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi. Petraeus also says that references to “Al Qaeda involvement” were stripped from his agency's original talking points, but he does not know by whom. Following Petraeus's testimony, Republican Representative Peter King confirms that according to Petraeus, “the original [CIA] talking points were much more specific about Al Qaeda involvement. And yet the final ones just said [there were] indications of extremists.”.....snip~


In Benghazi testimony, Petraeus says al Qaeda role known early......

Former CIA Director David Petraeus told Congress on Friday that he and the spy agency had sought to make clear from the outset that September's deadly attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, involved an al Qaeda affiliate, lawmakers said.

Petraeus told lawmakers that "there were extremists in the group" that launched the attack on the diplomatic mission, describing them as affiliates of al Qaeda and other groups, said Representative C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger, the top Democrat on the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee. "The fact is that he clarified it," Ruppersberger said.....snip~

In Benghazi testimony, Petraeus says al Qaeda role known early - Reuters News 11/15/2012 8:48 PM