interesting ... but a couple of things jumped off the screen.
"And the culprit is not a White House adviser or State Department bureaucrat. It’s the intelligence community’s reliance on the media."
and
"It’s tucked inside the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report on Benghazi, which reveals a key source of the bad intelligence that made it into Ambassador Susan Rice’s famous talking points: the media incorrectly reported that before the attack on Sept. 11, 2012 there were protests outside the U.S. facilities in Benghazi when there weren’t.
And the CIA believed those reports, resulting in talking points that were delivered to Ambassador Susan Rice, ..."
We are expected to believe that despite the actual report from the CIA/Benghazi which is claimed to have ID'ed a flavor of AlQaeda as the culprits right off while the media (someone somewhere) blamed or kind of hinted at the video although the CIA itself never said so but the CIA believed the media.
The CIA has to be pretty bush league to have done that ... or pretty much in the tank.
I'm not denying that version but it sounds more likely that it was really the WH who believed the media story because it was most serendipitous.
It want's the left to learn from the experience, and its going to.
No one covered up the fact that Americans died.
So again, take these two hypothetical situations:
1). Protesters take advantage of security lapses to kill 4 Americans.
2). Terrorists take advantage of security lapses to kill 4 Americans.
What's the difference? The problem isn't who did it; the problem is that security wasn't good enough in the first place.
I'm confused. How does saying the attacks sprang out of a protest cover up failures in security? Is it somehow okay if protesters kill Americans, but not al Qaeda?
Because than its a random event that would have been hard to plan for, vs the culmination of months of attacks and denied pleas for help from the Presidents own representative, from his boss-the sec of state.
That would have looked bad in the election season, wouldn't it?
It appears that you progressives are getting very nervous about the Benghazi hearings.
Ah yes, the Hillary defense. What difference does it make? The difference between life and death, apparently.
I invite both you and Hillary to keep up with the defense-because its not really a defense at all.
Let me be the first to notify you-that defense is going to be toxic for the dems.
No . . . the clamor over Benghazi is the diversion.
how did you get that, from this:
Does it really matter if the republicans try to exploit that event for political purposes; since, it merely opens them up to criticism regarding their future, potential, political strategy to position themselves as the party of fiscal responsibility when it comes to our War on Terror.
Unfortunately for you, the ones who resort to the most fallacies, seem to be on the right.
Is the right going to, lead the way, through fiscal forms of responsibility?
Baloney, here is the whole conversation:
Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Madam Secretary. I'd like to join my colleagues in thanking you for your service sincerely, and also appreciate the fact that you’re here testifying and glad that you’re looking in good health.
Clinton: Thank you.
Johnson: Were you fully aware in real time -- and again, I realize how big your job is and everything is erupting in the Middle East at this time -- were you fully aware of these 20 incidents that were reported in the ARB[State Department Accountability Review Board] in real time?
Clinton: I was aware of the ones that were brought to my attention. They were part of our ongoing discussion about the deteriorating threat environment in eastern Libya. We certainly were very conscious of them. I was assured by our security professionals that repairs were under way, additional security upgrades had taken place.
Johnson: Thank you. Did you see personally the cable on -- I believe it was August 12th -- specifically asking for, basically, reinforcements for the security detail that was going to be evacuating or leaving in August? Did you see that personally?
Clinton: No, sir.
Johnson: OK. When you read the ARB, it strikes me as how certain the people were that the attacks started at 9:40 Benghazi time. When was the first time you spoke to -- or have you ever spoken to -- the returnees, the evacuees? Did you personally speak to those folks?
Clinton: I‘ve spoken to one of them, but I waited until after the ARB had done its investigation because I did not want there to be anybody raising any issue that I had spoken to anyone before the ARB conducted its investigation.
Johnson: How many people were evacuated from Libya?
Clinton: Well, the numbers are a little bit hard to pin down because of our other friends --
Johnson: Approximately?
Clinton: Approximately, 25 to 30.
Johnson: Did anybody in the State Department talk to those folks very shortly afterwards?
Clinton: There was discussion going on afterwards, but once the investigation started, the FBI spoke to them before we spoke to them, and so other than our people in Tripoli -- which, I think you’re talking about Washington, right?
Johnson: The point I’m making is, a very simple phone call to these individuals, I think, would’ve ascertained immediately that there was no protest prior to this. This attack started at 9:40 p.m. Benghazi time and it was an assault. I appreciate the fact that you called it an assault. But I’m going back to then-Ambassador [Susan] Rice five days later going on the Sunday shows and, what I would say, is purposefully misleading the American public. Why wasn’t that known? And again, I appreciate the fact that the transparency of this hearing, but why weren’t we transparent to that point in time?
Clinton: Well, first of all, Senator, I would say that once the assault happened, and once we got our people rescued and out, our most immediate concern was, number one, taking care of their injuries. As I said, I still have a DS [Diplomatic Security] agent at Walter Reed seriously injured -- getting them into Frankfurt, Ramstein to get taken care of, the FBI going over immediately to start talking to them. We did not think it was appropriate for us to talk to them before the FBI conducted their interviews. And we did not -- I think this is accurate, sir -- I certainly did not know of any reports that contradicted the IC [Intelligence Community] talking points at the time that Ambassador Rice went on the TV shows. And you know I just want to say that people have accused Ambassador Rice and the administration of misleading Americans. I can say trying to be in the middle of this and understanding what was going on, nothing could be further from the truth. Was information developing? Was the situation fluid? Would we reach conclusions later that weren’t reached initially? And I appreciate the --
Johnson: But, Madame Secretary, do you disagree with me that a simple phone call to those evacuees to determine what happened wouldn’t have ascertained immediately that there was no protest? That was a piece of information that could have been easily, easily obtained?
Clinton: But, Senator, again—
Johnson: Within hours, if not days?
Clinton: Senator, you know, when you’re in these positions, the last thing you want to do is interfere with any other process going on, number one—
Johnson: I realize that’s a good excuse.
Clinton: Well, no, it’s the fact. Number two, I would recommend highly you read both what the ARB said about it and the classified ARB because, even today, there are questions being raised. Now, we have no doubt they were terrorists, they were militants, they attacked us, they killed our people. But what was going on and why they were doing what they were doing is still unknown --
Johnson: No, again, we were misled that there were supposedly protests and that something sprang out of that -- an assault sprang out of that -- and that was easily ascertained that that was not the fact, and the American people could have known that within days and they didn’t know that.
Clinton: With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator. Now, honestly, I will do my best to answer your questions about this, but the fact is that people were trying in real time to get to the best information. The IC has a process, I understand, going with the other committees to explain how these talking points came out. But you know, to be clear, it is, from my perspective, less important today looking backwards as to why these militants decided they did it than to find them and bring them to justice, and then maybe we’ll figure out what was going on in the meantime.
Johnson: OK. Thank you, Madame Secretary.
In Context: Hillary Clinton's 'What difference does it make' comment
No one covered up the fact that Americans died.
So again, take these two hypothetical situations:
1). Protesters take advantage of security lapses to kill 4 Americans.
2). Terrorists take advantage of security lapses to kill 4 Americans.
What's the difference? The problem isn't who did it; the problem is that security wasn't good enough in the first place.
Exactly. The U.S. Ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens request beefing up security at the Benghazi consulate and Hillary Clinton ignores the request while spending hundreds of millions of dollars on remodeling embassies in Europe, purchasing green cars and building charging stations for these cars, purchasing enough booze for embassy parties than the sailors of the entire Pacific Fleet could consume on a week long shore leave. Then to say there was no money for beefing up security ??? State Department security spending comes from the same State Department maintenance funding.
Then you have the majority of those serving in the U.S. military asking why didn't Obama issue an order to at least try to save these Americans in Benghazi during the attack ? And those Navy and Army flag officers who went on the record were purged from the military by the Obama administration.
As for if they were protesters or terrorist with links to Al Qaedas. It defiantly made a difference to the Obama White House because Obama reelection platform for being given a second chance in 2012 was that "Al Qaeda was being decimated and was on the run" which was a complete lie.
Maybe; how many times did the senior diplomat present, request that his mission be downsized due to a lack of sufficient staff?
The people after the administration on this do indeed condemn Obama and Clinton for inadequate security. One important fact that many people overlook is that Benghazi was pretty much a war zone at the time. Since the Libyan government was unable/unwilling to do much of anything to defend the facility, you would have needed a fairly large number of Marines to do so. Stevens didn't want that kind of presence — he felt he couldn't do his job under those circumstances.I'm confused. How does saying the attacks sprang out of a protest cover up failures in security? Is it somehow okay if protesters kill Americans, but not al Qaeda?
Very official-sounding. Where's the impeachment article?Right now it looks like … Obama as CnC was in violation of Article 92 of the UCMJ, dereliction of duty.
"'In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, the IC received numerous reports, both classified and unclassified, which provided contradictory accounts that there were demonstrations at the Temporary Mission Facility. In some cases, these intelligence reports--which were disseminated widely in the Intelligence Community--contained references to press reports on protests that were simply copied into intelligence products. Other reporting indicated there wete no protests." — U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, "Review of the Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Facilities in Benghazi Libya, September 11-12, 2012," Jan 15, 2014, p. 33the media (someone somewhere) blamed or kind of hinted at the video
What wasn't known? What is now known that wasn't known when that debate took place on Oct 17? In fact, what has come out since the beginning of October?If most people knew what happened in Benghazi during the debates he would have gutted Obama. But most didnt-the media was dragging its feet, and there was still much information being obscured by the whitehouse.
Not all that much really. You just see the same lame nonsense repeated over and over.there is a lot of BS floating around
No . . . the clamor over Benghazi is the diversion.
The difference between life and death?
So..... if Ambassador Stevens was killed by protesters, maybe he'd still be alive????
What is the difference between an ambassador killed by protestors due to bad security and one killed by al Queda due to bad security?
Exactly. The U.S. Ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens request beefing up security at the Benghazi consulate and Hillary Clinton ignores the request while spending hundreds of millions of dollars on remodeling embassies in Europe, purchasing green cars and building charging stations for these cars, purchasing enough booze for embassy parties than the sailors of the entire Pacific Fleet could consume on a week long shore leave. Then to say there was no money for beefing up security ??? State Department security spending comes from the same State Department maintenance funding.
Then you have the majority of those serving in the U.S. military asking why didn't Obama issue an order to at least try to save these Americans in Benghazi during the attack ? And those Navy and Army flag officers who went on the record were purged from the military by the Obama administration.
As for if they were protesters or terrorist with links to Al Qaedas. It defiantly made a difference to the Obama White House because Obama reelection platform for being given a second chance in 2012 was that "Al Qaeda was being decimated and was on the run" which was a complete lie.
Because than its a random event that would have been hard to plan for, vs the culmination of months of attacks and denied pleas for help from the Presidents own representative, from his boss-the sec of state.
That would have looked bad in the election season, wouldn't it?
Are Republicans Exploiting Benghazi?
OK, one last one:What wasn't known? What is now known that wasn't known when that debate took place on Oct 17? In fact, what has come out since the beginning of October?Not all that much really. You just see the same lame nonsense repeated over and over.
And there you have the source of all the conservative rage. The real scandal isn't that four Americans died, or that security wasn't tough enough. The REAL scandal is that Obama didn't take enough of a political hit before the '12 election.
Politically speaking, they'd be foolish not to.... but it is also a real issue and a real question as to why this happened and why help wasn't sent in time.
I seriously doubt the Republicans who keep harping about Benghazi care about the four people who died September 11, 2012. They are in my opinion using their deaths for political gain, they want to use this tragedy to weaken the chances of Hillary Clinton should she decide to run for president in 2014. They misquote what Clinton said during the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Jan. 23, 2013, they say she said "What difference does it make?" Here is what she actually said:
"With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator."
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?