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

[Objective Voice]

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

Again, you're talking about the "talking points" - how members of the Obama Administration tried to "cover their tracks" after the fact as to how the Benghazi attack occurred and by whom. I'm not disputing whether or not the talking points were changed. What I'm asking is "WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE THAT CIA/STATE DEPT/WH OFFICIALS KNEW FROM THE ON-SET THAT THE ATTACK ON THE BENGHAZI CONSULATE OFFICE WAS, IN FACT, A TERRORIST ATTACK" based on the emails Judicial Watch claims they've uncovered? That is the entire premise of this thread YOU started, towit:

Judicial Watch announced today that on February 11,2015, it uncovered documents from the U.S. Department of State revealing that top aides for then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, including her then-chief of staff Cheryl Mills, knew from the outset that the Benghazi mission compound was under attack by armed assailants tied to a terrorist group.

Using the very emails Judicial Watch obtained, I've quoted excerpts that state that "the situation on the ground [in Benghazi] was fluid...that their were 'conflicting reports' initially....that the attacks [in Cairo, Egypt and] Benghazi, Libya were believed to be 'in response to an Internet video [inflammatory material]'". (See my post #78, page 8). Even a segment of your own post (#146) indicates that there was conflicting intelligence on the situation as it unfolded.

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.

All of this goes contrary to Judicial Watch's claim that "U.S. Dept of State (State Dept) top aides knew from the outset that the Benghazi mission compound was under attack by armed assailants tied to a terrorist group". There's no evidence in those emails at all that support such a claim.

EDIT: Moreover, except for perhaps 1 email, none of the emails that were sent were from Hillary Clinton's chief of staff, Cheryl Mills. If anything, they were sent TO her notifying her of the situation in Benghazi as it unfolded. But nothing she received per Judicial Watch's claim makes it known that the attacks were, in fact, a pre-planned terrorist attack.

As an aside, Gen. Petraeus may have tried to convince people in the WH that the attacks were, in fact, a terrorist attack, but making such a case during discussions of how to portray events to the public "after the fact" is a long way from claiming that State Dept/CIA personnel knew from the moment the first shots were fired that it was a terrorist attack which is exactly what Judicial Watch is trying to get people to believe.

 

[MMC]

Again, you're talking about the "talking points" - how members of the Obama Administration tried to "cover their tracks" after the fact as to how the Benghazi attack occurred and by whom. I'm not disputing whether or not the talking points were changed. What I'm asking is "WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE THAT CIA/STATE DEPT/WH OFFICIALS KNEW FROM THE ON-SET THAT THE ATTACK ON THE BENGHAZI CONSULATE OFFICE WAS, IN FACT, A TERRORIST ATTACK" based on the emails Judicial Watch claims they've uncovered? That is the entire premise of this thread YOU started, towit:



Using the very emails Judicial Watch obtained, I've quoted excerpts that state that "the situation on the ground [in Benghazi] was fluid...that their were 'conflicting reports' initially....that the attacks [in Cairo, Egypt and] Benghazi, Libya were believed to be 'in response to an Internet video [inflammatory material]'". (See my post #78, page 8). Even a segment of your own post (#146) indicates that there was conflicting intelligence on the situation as it unfolded.



All of this goes contrary to Judicial Watch's claim that "U.S. Dept of State (State Dept) top aides knew from the outset that the Benghazi mission compound was under attack by armed assailants tied to a terrorist group". There's no evidence in those emails at all that support such a claim.

As an aside, Gen. Petraeus may have tried to convince people in the WH that the attacks were, in fact, a terrorist attack, but making such a case during discussions of how to portray events to the public "after the fact" is a long way from claiming that State Dept/CIA personnel knew from the moment the first shots were fired that it was a terrorist attack which is exactly what Judicial Watch is trying to get people to believe.

Again, I like how you avoided the prior attacks on the Consulate. Do you think that might have something to do with it.....even before what you showed. That this is more than just the issue of the attack on that day?

Why did you avoid what the Libyans said? Which was Fact Checked. Even NPR carried the Libyan Presidents statement.


After initially saying the attack may have been spontaneous, US authorities now say it was a pre-planned strike. Libyan authorities have said militants probably used an anti-US protest as cover for the attack, and may have had help from inside the country's security services.

BBC News - Benghazi US consulate attack: Timeline


Benghazi Timeline

The long road from "spontaneous protest" to premeditated terrorist attack. ......

There were no protesters at the Benghazi consulate prior to the attack, even though Obama and others repeatedly said the attackers joined an angry mob that had formed in opposition to the anti-Muslim film that had triggered protests in Egypt and elsewhere. The State Department disclosed this fact Oct. 9 — nearly a month after the attack.

Libya President Mohamed Magariaf insisted on Sept. 16 — five days after the attack — that it was a planned terrorist attack, but administration officials continued for days later to say there was no evidence of a planned attack. Magariaf also said the idea that the attack was a “spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous.” This, too, was on Sept. 16. Yet, Obama and others continued to describe the incident in exactly those terms — including during the president’s Sept. 18 appearance on the “Late Show With David Letterman. Matt Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, was the first administration official to call it “a terrorist attack” during a Sept. 19 congressional hearing. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did the same on Sept. 20. Even so, Obama declined opportunities to call it a terrorist attack when asked at a town hall meeting on Sept. 20 and during a taping of “The View” on Sept. 24.

Sept. 12: Citing unnamed “U.S. government officials,” Reuters reports that “the Benghazi attack may have been planned in advance” and that members of Ansar al-Sharia “may have been involved.” Reuters quotes one of the U.S. officials as saying: “It bears the hallmarks of an organized attack.”....snip~

Benghazi Timeline