Tag Archives: Benghazi

Benghazi In The News This Week.

Call me a cynic, but even if Obama came out and said they lied nothing would happen. So with that being said let me give you the gist of this story and refresh your memory on Benghazi.

4 Brave Americans died, Admin blamed it on some funky video that had insulted that dude from that “religion of peace”  Oh yea Ahhckmedpatui, sumpin like that.Anyway about 4 people saw the vid, but that’s what they said.They said a protest began because of it and it went bad. OK, so Susan Rice the U.N. Ambassador at the time goes  on like every news  talk show, even the “Muppet’s” I think, and this is what she says over and over. Admin stuck to these talking points.

Well this story by the Washington Times says they knew otherwise. Well the CIA did anyway.Seems the station chief in Benghazi sent then-Deputy CIA Director Michael J. Morell an email telling him there was no demonstration. So kiddo’s Mr Morell is set to Testify Wed. 4-2-14 in front of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence . In the story it says he’ll address it. We’ll see.                                             

I'm mad as Hell, and I'm not gonna take it anymore.

I’m mad as Hell, and I’m not gonna take it anymore.

 

————————————————————————————————–

CIA officer confirmed no protests before misleading Benghazi account given

Information on ground rejects protest account

By Guy Taylor  The Washington Times   Monday, March 31, 2014

Before the Obama administration gave an inaccurate narrative on national television that the Benghazi attacks grew from an anti-American protest, the CIA’s station chief in Libya pointedly told his superiors in Washington that no such demonstration occurred, documents and interviews with current and former intelligence officials show.

The attack was “not an escalation of protests,” the station chief wrote to then-Deputy CIA Director Michael J. Morell in an email dated Sept. 15, 2012 — a full day before the White House sent Susan E. Rice to several Sunday talk shows to disseminate talking points claiming that the Benghazi attack began as a protest over an anti-Islam video.

Michael J. Morell

Michael J. Morell

That the talking points used by Mrs. Rice, who was then U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, were written by a CIA that ignored the assessment by its own station chief inside Libya, has emerged as one of the major bones of contention in the more than two years of political fireworks and congressional investigations into the Benghazi attack.

What has never been made public is whether Mr. Morell and others at the CIA explicitly shared the station chief’s assessment with the White House or State Department.

Two former intelligence officials have told The Washington Times that this question likely will be answered at a Wednesday hearing of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence during which Mr. Morell is scheduled to give his public testimony.

Mr. Morell, who has since left the CIA, declined to comment on the matter Monday. He now works at Beacon Global Strategies, a Washington insider strategic communications firm.

One former intelligence official close to Mr. Morell told The Times on the condition of anonymity that “the whole question of communication with the station chief will be addressed in his testimony.”

“We’re confident that it will clarify the situation in the minds of many who are asking,” the former official said.

Another former intelligence official told The Times that Mr. Morell did tell the White House and the State Department that the CIA station chief in Libya had concluded that there was no protest but senior Obama administration and CIA officials in Washington ignored the assessment.

( OK, If That is not a smoking gun then what the hell do we need?)

Why they ignored it remains a topic of heated debate within the wider intelligence community.

A third source told The Times on Monday that Mr. Morell and other CIA officials in Washington were weighing several pieces of “conflicting information” streaming in about the Benghazi attack as the talking points were being crafted.

“That’s why they ultimately came up with the analysis that they did,” the source said. “The piece that was coming out of Tripoli was important, but it was one piece amid several streams of information.”

One of the former intelligence officials said the Libya station chief’s assessment was being weighed against media reports from the ground in Benghazi that quoted witnesses as saying there had been a protest. Analysts at the CIA, the source said, also were weighing it against reporting by other intelligence divisions, including the National Security Agency.

“The chief of station in Tripoli who was 600 or 700 miles away from the attacks wouldn’t necessarily have the only view of what actually went on in Benghazi,” that former official said.

U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the attack.

~Steve~

Story Continues →

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/31/cia-ignored-station-chief-in-libya-when-creating-t/#ixzz2xd3MpL45

-

The Boombox…

comic

comic2

comic3

comic4

comic5

comic6

h/t Laura

DCG

What Scandal???? LET THE TRUTH BE TOLD

Just saying, That's all.

Just saying, That’s all.

Bob: “Did you hear about the Obama administration scandal?
Jim: “You mean the Mexican gun running?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “You mean SEAL Team 6?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “You mean the State Dept. lying about Benghazi?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “You mean voter fraud?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “You mean the military not getting their votes counted?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “You mean that 3 or 4 of Obama’s GAY friends were mysteriously MURDERED when they came forward with claims he was gay too?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “The NSA monitoring our phone calls, emails and everything else?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “You mean the drones in our own country without the benefit of the
law?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “Giving 123 Technologies $300 Million and right after it declared
bankruptcy and was sold to the Chinese?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “You mean the president arming the Muslim Brotherhood?”
Bob: “No the other one:.
Jim: “The IRS targeting conservatives?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “The DOJ spying on the press?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “Sebelius shaking down health insurance executives?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “Giving SOLYNDRA $500 MILLION DOLLARS and 3 months later they declared bankruptcy and then the Chinese bought it?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “The president’s ordering the release of nearly 10,000 illegal
immigrants from jails and prisons, and falsely blaming the sequester?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “The president’s threat to impose gun control by Executive Order in
order to bypass Congress?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “The president’s repeated violation of the law requiring him to submit a budget no later than the first Monday in February?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “The 2012 vote where 115% of all registered voters in some counties
voted 100% for Obama?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “The president’s unconstitutional recess appointments in an attempt to circumvent the Senate’s advise-and-consent role?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “The State Department interfering with an Inspector General
investigation on departmental sexual misconduct?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “Clinton, the IRS, Clapper and Holder all lying to Congress?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “I give up! … Oh wait, I think I got it! You mean that 65 million
low-information voters who don’t pay taxes and get free stuff from taxpayers and stuck us again with the most pandering, corrupt administration in American history?
Bob: “THAT’S THE ONE!”

~ Steve~                                                             H/T   Miss May

Report Says Valerie Jarrett Gave The Order To Stand Down In Benghazi

I’m thinking skippy doesn’t even scratch without Broom Hilda‘s permission. Yikes, she’s scary.   

She eats Children. She is Evil Personified. Yikes!!!

She eats Children. She is Evil Personified. Yikes!!!

http://www.examiner.com/article/report-says-valerie-jarrett-gave-the-order-to-stand-down-benghazi

August 8, 2013

A post at the Conservative Report Online made the shocking claim that Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett gave the order to stand down in Benghazi during the Sept. 11 terror attack that saw four Americans killed, citing only unnamed “confidential sources.” The report was discussed by Rush Limbaugh on Tuesday and an editorial at the Investor’s Business Daily said Wednesday that it would not have been the first time Jarrett issued such an order.

“The military-order, not to initiate action, saving our men in Benghazi, was issued by the President’s Advisor, Valerie Jarrett,” Chip Jones wrote.

Limbaugh said that if the story is true, it would explain “all of the serial lies and the cover-ups and the obfuscation and all of the efforts that were made to distract people’s attention from this.”

“Somebody had to give the order, and Obama was off the grid. That has always, to me, been one of the most interesting aspects of Benghazi. Five o’clock he tells Panetta and whoever else — we were originally told that Hillary, secretary of state, was there, too,” he added.

Naturally, the ultra-left wing Media Matters weighed in, attacking Limbaugh for mentioning the story.

Others also reported on Jones’ account, but did not get scrutinized by Media Matters.

The Blaze said the allegations are worth noting for two main reasons:

  1. The White House hasn’t been forthcoming with details about the deadly terror attack. In fact, the administration has gone out of its way to craft blatantly false narratives involving a YouTube video; and
  2. It’s been widely reported that Jarrett’s influence has shaped our management of international crises, specifically her role in convincing President Obama to call off the planned raid on Osama bin Laden’s Pakistani hideout three separate times.

Meredith Jessup said she is taking the report with a grain of salt, but added that the burden of proof is on the White House, since it “has worked overtime to muddy the water and obfuscate the truth.”

Now the administration is claiming the entire scandal is “phony,” a mere distraction cooked up by Republicans to keep Congress from acting on Obama’s economic plans.

“Until the Obama administration is forthright and truthful with the American people, the rumor mill will continue churning out reports from unnamed sources,” Jessup added.

Video of Limbaugh’s on-air segment can be seen http://www.examiner.com/video/rush-limbaugh-did-valerie-jarrett-issue-the-order-to-stand-down-benghazi

~Steve~

Former Ambassador: Benghazi “Stand Down” Order Came from Obama .

Ho Hum, Let’s just pound our head against the wall some more. 

———————  Steve —————–

Posted on July 30, 2013    http://conservativebyte.com

Was there ever any doubt?
Check it out:

Ann Wagner, a former US ambassador and current congresswoman from Missouri, was interviewed about what the protocol would be for a “stand down” order in the event of a consulate being under attack, and she answered what many have suspected already: that’s an order that would come from Obama himself.

Bama in his Tighty Whity's

Bama in his Tightey Whitey’s

 

This is one of the reasons that the Obama administration has essentially refused to provide where Obama was at or what he was doing during the attack. This is because we know exactly what he was doing — ignoring the cries for help for political reasons.

Being wrong about policy is one thing. But ignoring the screams of those who work for you because you’d rather them die

( I’m sorry, but did you get that? He would rather they DIE!!)

than accept that your foreign policy is creating more terrorists is a level of treason rare, even for the most despotic tyrants.

 Here’s a summary of the important part of the interview, courtesy of Special Operations Speaks:

Congresswoman and former United States Ambassador to Luxembourg Ann Wagner (R-MO) appeared on The Dana Loesch show and placed the blame, of the stand down order to those that could have offered assistance to Americans under attack, on none other than Barack Obama.

Loesch asked Wagner, ‘Because you have been an ambassador, you have been overseas with similar responsibilities and similar missions – who gives such an order to stand down? Where does that come from?’

‘The President of the United States,’ the Missouri congresswoman affirmed.

As top diplomat in Libya Gregory Hicks testified to on Wednesday before the House Oversight Committee, ‘The Libyans that I talked to, and the Libyans and other Americans who were involved in the war have told me also, that Libyan revolutionaries were very cognizant of the impact that American and NATO airpower had with respect to their victory.’

‘They are under no illusions that American and NATO airpower won that war for them,” Hicks continued. “And so, in my personal opinion, a fast mover flying over Benghazi at some point, you know, as soon as possible might very well have prevented some of the bad things that happened that night.’

Here’s the specific line itself from the radio interview:

~Steve~                   H/T  http://www.capitalisminstitute.org/stand-down-orders/

 

DHS Insider: It’s About To Get Very Ugly. If This Is True..Way beyond Ugly

OK, I need a big heads up on this one. If this is true we’ve just been painted into a corner. Any ideas?

OK, Either it is.

Tinfoil hat time for me and Mr Kitty Klaws

Tinfoil hat time for me and Mr Kitty Klaws :lol:

!!Attention!!

it has just been brought to my attention that the writer of this story ( Doug Hagmann ) tends to write these doomsday stories. Umm, and his track record is not that good. So pls accept my APOLOGY and take the story with a grain of salt. I do hope he’s wrong on this.

Or this story is true. if it is true it should make your head hurt,  , sorry

Canada free press

—————————————————————————————————-

Seriously dangerous times ahead. Deadly times. War, and censorship under the color of authority and under the pretext of of national security

http://canadafreepress.com

By Doug Hagmann (Bio and Archives)  Saturday, June 8, 2013

Washington, D.C.Something quite unexpected happened just hours ago, in the dark of night, during a two-day layover in Washington, DC. My son and I are scheduled to take part in a seminar outside of Raleigh, North Carolina this weekend, so we combined our travels to include a side-trip to DC for a business meeting we had previously arranged. It was during this layover that something seemingly ripped from the pages of a spy novel took place.

While I was in the middle of a perfectly good and well needed sleep in the very early hours of this morning, I received a message. I cannot disclose how I received this message, at least not now. The discerning reader will understand why, which, by the way, would make a very interesting story alone. The message was extremely clear and precise. I was to meet my high level DHS insider at a very specific location in Washington, DC, at a time when most ‘normal’ people, except third-shift workers are still asleep. And, I was to come alone and make certain that I was not being followed, and I was to leave any cell phone or electronic device behind.

Seriously? I thought, as I was still trying to make sense of it all. Is all this really necessary? Is this really happening? I considered waking my son to accompany me, but opted to follow the instructions to the letter. Besides, I thought, he’s not the most affable middle-of-the-night person. I left a hastily written but detailed note in my hotel room before my departure in the event something happened. I looked at the digital clock on my rental car (my personal car would never survive our long distance trip). It was 3:20 a.m.

The meeting

I felt like I was part of a spy movie set in our nation’s capital. A chill rose up my spine as I waited in the dark of a chilly, misty and foggy pre-dawn morning. I was to meet with my DHS insider source at a time when most of the nation is asleep, at a place I could swear was featured in the movie All the President’s Men. No one and I mean no one knows I’m here, I thought, as I could see one of the most recognizable national landmarks in the distance.

My source appeared out of nowhere, or so it seemed, and handed me a cup of coffee with the astute observation that I looked like I needed it. So tell me, I asked impatiently, why do we have to meet at this time, at this location, and under such specific circumstances? ‘Because this might be our last meeting,’ he stated.

Maybe it was the lack of sleep, the time, the place, or the chill of the misty rain that caused my sense of foreboding. “Explain,” I asked in an almost demanding tone. So he did, without mincing words.

The details

“If anyone thinks that what’s going on right now with all of this surveillance of American citizens is to fight some sort of foreign enemy, they’re delusional. If people think that this ‘scandal’ can’t get any worse, it will, hour by hour, day by day. This has the ability to bring down our national leadership, the administration and other senior elected officials working in collusion with this administration, both Republican and Democrats. People within the NSA, the Department of Justice, and others, they know who they are, need to come forth with the documentation of ‘policy and practice’ in their possession, disclose what they know, fight what’s going on, and just do their job. I have never seen anything like this, ever. The present administration is going after leakers, media sources, anyone and everyone who is even suspected of ‘betrayal.’ That’s what they call it, ‘betrayal.’ Can you believe the size of their cahones? This administration considers anyone telling the truth about Benghazi, the IRS, hell, you name the issue, ‘betrayal,’” he said.

“We know all this already,” I stated. He looked at me, giving me a look like I’ve never seen, and actually pushed his finger into my chest. “You don’t know jack,” he said, “this is bigger than you can imagine, bigger than anyone can imagine. This administration is collecting names of sources, whistle blowers and their families, names of media sources and everybody they talk to and have talked to, and they already have a huge list. If you’re not working for MSNBC or CNN, you’re probably on that list. If you are a website owner with a brisk readership and a conservative bent, you’re on that list. It’s a political dissident list, not an enemy threat list,” he stated.

“What’s that exactly mean, being on that list, that is,” I asked, trying to make sense of it all.

“It means that there will be censorship under the color of authority of anyone in the U.S. who is attempting to expose what’s going on in our name. It’s about controlling any damning information from reaching epidemic proportions. It’s damage control to the extreme. It’s about the upcoming censorship of the internet in the name of nationalsecurity. The plans are already in place. These latest reports about ‘spying eyes’ have turned this administration and others connected to it into something very, very dangerous. They feel cornered and threatened, and I’m hearing about some plans they have to shut down the flow of information that is implicating them of wrongdoing. Time is short,” he stated.

“How are they going to do this? How is it even possible” I asked.

“First, they intend to use the Justice Department to silence journalists like in the Rosen case, but they won’t stop there. They will use a host of national security policies, laws, letters, whatever to take out the bigger threats,” he stated.

Next, they will use some sort of excuse, an external threat, and I believe it will be a combination of the economic collapse and a Mid-East war that will begin in Syria to throttle the information that is accessible on the Internet. And you know what? People will believe it!”

Based on what I’ve seen, most of which I should not have seen, the DHS is co-ordinating efforts with other federal agencies to begin to threaten American citizens with incarceration for non-compliance. You know the old talk of color coded lists? Well, this is what they will be using. People exposing the truth about Benghazi, killing the U.S. Dollar, even those questioning Obama?s legal status and eligibility to be President are the current targets. And they’ve had five long years to get to this point. The ugly truth is that these policies and practices did not start under Obama, but long before. This is about the killing of our Constitutional Republic. The murder of our country and the stripping of our rights. While many have been preoccupied with one issue, few have seen the bigger issue. This is the ‘end game,’ for all the marbles,” he stated.

More to come

“Please,” pleaded my source, “get this information out while you can. Tell people what I’m saying, that we don’t have much time, that after the latest exposure of spying, Obama, Jarrett, Axelrod, and others, including members of Congress, have put their plans into high gear. This is about the Marxist takeover of America. This is about our country being able to survive another July 4th holiday. This is about a world war about to break out that will kill millions of people, all because of the agenda of this administration.”

“They are very dangerous and will do anything and everything to stop the onslaught of negative information that’s being reported by the main stream media. But only about one quarter of the real information is being reported. The other three quarters will be the game changer. But first, tell people what I’ve said. Let them know that more will follow but get this information out right now while the internet is still relatively free. Do it today.”

My source provided additional information, but I am abiding by his wish to get this much out. I am writing now to let people know that we are in for seriously dangerous times ahead. Deadly times. War, and censorship under the color of authority and under the pretext of of national security. It’s about to get a lot uglier. Stay tuned..

H/T       http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/55749

~ Steve~

Ex-Diplomats Report New Benghazi Whistleblowers with Info Devastating to Clinton and Obama

ok, by now i hope we all know ambassador Stevens was not in Benghazi to build schools and do WHATEVER it is ambassadors do. nope he was there doing some kind of shady biz which I’m sure goes on all around the world all the time. according to this story you’re about to read , this seems like a really stupid thing to have done. wanna guess where it leads.?  ———— ~ steve ~————

——————————————————————————————–

http://pjmedia.com              by Roger L Simon         May 21st, 2013 – 12:05 am

More whistleblowers will emerge shortly in the escalating Benghazi scandal, according to two former U.S. diplomats who spoke with PJ Media Monday afternoon.

These whistleblowers, colleagues of the former diplomats, are currently securing legal counsel because they work in areas not fully protected by the Whistleblower law.

According to the diplomats, what these whistleblowers will say will be at least as explosive as what we have already learned about the scandal, including details about what really transpired in Benghazi that are potentially devastating to both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

hillary

The former diplomats inform PJM the new revelations concentrate in two areas — what Ambassador Chris Stevens was actually doing in Benghazi and the pressure put on General Carter Ham, then in command of U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) and therefore responsible for Libya, not to act to protect jeopardized U.S. personnel.

stevens

Gen. Ham

Gen. Ham

Stevens’ mission in Benghazi, they will say, was to buy back Stinger missiles from al-Qaeda groups issued to them by the State Department, not by the CIA. Such a mission would usually be a CIA effort, but the intelligence agency had opposed the idea because of the high risk involved in arming “insurgents” with powerful weapons that endanger civilian aircraft.

Hillary Clinton still wanted to proceed because, in part, as one of the diplomats said, she wanted “to overthrow Gaddafi on the cheap.”

This left Stevens in the position of having to clean up the scandalous enterprise when it became clear that the “insurgents” actually were al-Qaeda – indeed, in the view of one of the diplomats, the same group that attacked the consulate and ended up killing Stevens.

The former diplomat who spoke with PJ Media regarded the whole enterprise as totally amateurish and likened it to the Mike Nichols film Charlie Wilson’s War about a clueless congressman who supplies Stingers to the Afghan guerrillas. “It’s as if Hillary and the others just watched that movie and said ‘Hey, let’s do that!’” the diplomat said.

He added that he and his colleagues think the leaking of General David Petraeus’ affair with his biographer Paula Broadwell was timed to silence the former CIA chief on these matters.

Regarding General Ham, military contacts of the diplomats tell them that AFRICOM had Special Ops “assets in place that could have come to the aid of the Benghazi consulate immediately (not in six hours).”

Ham was told by the White House not to send the aid to the trapped men, but Ham decided to disobey and did so anyway, whereupon the White Housecalled his deputy and had the deputy threaten to relieve Ham of his command.”

He told us. Did he not?

He told us. Did he not?

The White House motivation in all this is as yet unclear, but it is known that Ham retired quietly in April 2013 as head of AFRICOM.

PJ Media recognizes this is largely hearsay, but the two diplomats sounded quite credible. One of them was in a position of responsibility in a dangerous area of Iraq in 2004.

We will report more as we learn it.

 H/T    The I-Man

                                                                       

PJ Media HERE!!

Obama Aide: ‘Irrelevant Fact’ Where President Was During Benghazi Attacks

Warning!! Duct Tape Area!

Feel Free To Use Mine. I have All The Latest Colors .

 

http://www.weeklystandard.com

9:48 AM, MAY 19, 2013 • BY DANIEL HALPER

Obama aide Dan Pfeiffer said it’s an “irrelevant fact” where the president physically was during the Benghazi terror attack on September 11, 2012:

Please Pay attention at 1:13 mark

“every hearing has found it’s been a tragedy”

Oh Really now!

Host Chris Wallace reminds Pfeiffer that Obama didn’t really talk with Secretary Clinton, Secretary Panetta, or Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that night. “He was talking to his national security staff,” Pfeiffer insists.

Asked about whether the president entered the Situation Room, Pfeiffer says, “I don’t remember what room the president was in on that night, and that’s a largely irrelevant fact.”

Pfeiffer then argues that Wallace’s questions about the president’s handling of the Benghazi terror attack are “offensive.”

And now a word from our resident lunatic. “offensive…Offensive” No you little twit, this is offensive.

us-libya-ambassador-chris-stevens-nationalturk-0455

look at it..look at it you perverted PIECE of excrement. while your boss was getting his nails done and god knows what else at the down low club. this man and 3 others died. that is offensive to me and about 80% of the nation. More important. it’s OFFENSIVE to god.

 

General Petraeus To Testify On Benghazi This Week

Yep, I’m going to beat Benghazi Like A Dead Horse.

DeadHorseTheoryamplido

OK,   This article looks like things are going to rock and roll when

General Petraeus Testifies this week. Seems he may have an ax to grind with skippy. I’d like to pull one paragraph out and highlight how Jay Carney answers a reporter’s question. It just amazes me how these people can say so much and not even come close to answering your question..LOL

I’ll run the whole story after the pull out. Am I confusing you? Cause I’m sure as heck confusing myself.   :D         ~ Steve~

OK,  This is reporter’s question.

“Again,” one newly curious reporter asked, “what role did the White House play, not just in making but in directing changes that took place to these?”

And this is Carneys response.

“Well,” the carney said, “thank you for that question. The way to look at this, I think, is to start from that week and understand that in the wake of the attacks in Benghazi, an effort was underway to find out what happened, who was responsible. In response to a request from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence to the CIA, the CIA began a process of developing points that could be used in public by members of Congress, by members of that committee. And that process, as is always the case — again, led by the CIA — involved input from a variety of …”

Enough. You get the point: Full Spin Cycle.

 Just what in the hell is he saying? I know he did not answer the question, and seems he threw the C.I.A. under the bus. Now if memory serves who was the director of CIA at time of Benghazi? Hmmmm-

—————————————————————————————————

Watch out for Petraeus in Benghazi                    scandal

http://www.washingtontimes.com/staff/joseph-curl/

By their second term “inside the bubble,” presidents have completely lost touch with reality: Aides and confidants conspire to keep the chief executive insulated from the real world — the bad news, the worse press coverage. They think it’s their job, and lounging on the Oval Office couches, they nod along with the president’s every musing.

But this presidency has taken OOCS to new heights. Mr. Obama has only a few trusted aides, and occasional leaks from the West Wing show a paranoid president suspicious of nearly everyone around him. Supremely confident, convinced by the fawning minions at his feet that he is untouchable, the president dismisses all controversy as partisan attacks by an overzealous opposition. A pliant press corps of stenographers follows in lockstep.

Not surprisingly, every president in the past 60 years has had a major scandal in Term 2: Dwight Eisenhower had the U-2 “incident”; Richard Nixon had Watergate; Ronald Reagan had Iran-Contra; Bill Clinton had Monica (literally); George W. Bush had Katrina (and let’s not forget those WMDs that never turned up); and now, this president has Benghazi.

Make no mistake: Benghazi is a major scandal. Benghazi is a scandal before, during and after the terrorist attack that left four Americas dead, including an ambassador.

For months before, there were warnings about weak security at the U.S. Consulate in Libya; no one paid attention. During the attack, when Americans were begging for help, the White House ignored their pleas, sent no help.

And after? That’s when the Obama scandal falls into the predictable second-term pattern his predecessors all learned the very hard way. Faced with a crisis, the Obama White House panicked. “We can’t have a terrorist strike two months before Election Day, so … let’s not have a terrorist strike two months before Election Day.” Cue the Cover-Up.

So little is known about what happened in BenghaziWhere was the commander in chief that night? No pictures from the Situation Room this time. Why didn’t the Pentagon authorize a quick-response team to swoop in? Members of the military say they were ready — burning — to go. The call came in: Stand down. Let them die. There were dozens of witnesses to the attack that night: Where are they? What do they know? What really happened that night?

And who forced the heavy-handed redactions of those infamous “talking points,” the ones that sent Mr. Obama’s ambassador to the United Nations onto the Sunday talk shows to declare that the attack was just the culmination of a spontaneous protest over an anti-Islam video posted on YouTube?

Carnival barker Jay Carney looked almost ashen Friday as he took the podium to face a suddenly invigorated press corps. Of course, the public briefing came after a private session with “reporters who matter,” a sure sign the White House is in full hunker-down mode — and, more precisely, terrified.

“Again,” one newly curious reporter asked, “what role did the White House play, not just in making but in directing changes that took place to these?”

“Well,” the carney said, “thank you for that question. The way to look at this, I think, is to start from that week and understand that in the wake of the attacks in Benghazi, an effort was underway to find out what happened, who was responsible. In response to a request from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence to the CIA, the CIA began a process of developing points that could be used in public by members of Congress, by members of that committee. And that process, as is always the case — again, led by the CIA — involved input from a variety of …”

Enough. You get the point: Full Spin Cycle.

Speaking for the White House, the flack said the CIA was fully to blame for the talking points. Fully. “That is what was generated by the intelligence community, by the CIA,” he said.

“Since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants.” That line was stricken: Everything was fine there — fine fine fine.

And: “We do know that Islamic extremists with ties to Al Qaeda participated in the attack.” That line, too, was deleted by … someone. Instead, this was inserted: “There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.”

Despite protestations by the White House, this scandal is just beginning. And the White House has picked a very bad scapegoat: the Central Intelligence Agency. The CIA follows RFK’s edict: “Don’t get mad, get even.” And when the CIA gets even, it isn’t pretty.

With the White House putting all blame on the agency, expect push back this week — nuclear push back. Gen. David H. Petraeus, the former director forced to resign after a sex scandal, is a dangerous man to the Obama administration. Mad and intent on getting even, he’s already talking, telling one reporter the talking points were “useless” and that he preferred not to use them at all. The floodgates will open this week, and by the end of business Friday, the scandal will be full blown.

petraeus_web_20121112_0007_s160x146General (Retired) Petraeus

A warning to those West Wing sycophants suffering from acute OOCS: Don’t walk down any dark alleys.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/12/curl-watch-out-petraeus-benghazi-scandal/?page=2#ixzz2TB1BiC00

MSM Start To Turn On Benghazi . Could Get Interesting Real Quick.

This is encouraging. This will be the only way to take him down. Kinda wish the media would have done their jobs say…about 5 yrs ago.

~Steve~

——————————————————————————————

MAY 10, 2013  POSTED BY 

http://www.newyorker.com

SPINNING BENGHAZI

——————————————————————————————
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney Holds Daily Press Briefing
                          Poor wittle Jay Carney. Busted lying thru his teeth.    :D
                        I definitely have a case of Schadenfreude on this.  LOL

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.

On Friday, ABC News’s Jonathan Karl revealed the details of the editing process for the C.I.A.’s talking points about the attack, including the edits themselves and some of the reasons a State Department spokeswoman gave for requesting those edits. It’s striking to see the twelve different iterations that the talking points went through before they were released to Congress and to United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice, who used them in Sunday show appearances that became a central focus of Republicans’ criticism of the Administration’s public response to the attacks. Over the course of about twenty-four hours, the remarks evolved from something specific and fairly detailed into a bland, vague mush.

From the very beginning of the editing process, the talking points contained the erroneous assertion that the attack was “spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved.” That’s an important fact, because the right has always criticized the Administration based on the suggestion that the C.I.A. and the State Department, contrary to what they said, knew that the attack was not spontaneous and not an outgrowth of a demonstration. But everything else about the changes that were made is problematic. The initial draft revealed by Karl mentions “at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi” before the one in which four Americans were killed. That’s not in the final version. Nor is this: “[W]e do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.” That was replaced by the more tepid “There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.” (Even if we accept the argument that State wanted to be sure that extremists were involved, and that they could be linked to Al Qaeda, before saying so with any level of certainty—which is reasonable and supported by evidence from Karl’s reporting—that doesn’t fully explain these changes away.)

Democrats will argue that the editing process wasn’t motivated by a desire to protect Obama’s record on fighting Al Qaeda in the run-up to the 2012 election. They have a point; based on what we’ve seen from Karl’s report, the process that went into creating and then changing the talking points seems to have been driven in large measure by two parts of the government—C.I.A. and State—trying to make sure the blame for the attacks and the failure to protect American personnel in Benghazi fell on the other guy.

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.”

Remarkably, Carney is sticking with that line even now. In his regular press briefing on Friday afternoon (a briefing that was delayed several times, presumably in part so the White House could get its spin in order, but also so that it could hold a <href=”#.uy1gksebagw.twitter”>secretive pre-briefing briefing with select members of the White House press corps), he said:

The only edit made by the White House or the State Department to those talking points generated by the C.I.A. was a change from referring to the facility that was attacked in Benghazi from “consulate,” because it was not a consulate, to “diplomatic post”… it was a matter of non-substantive factual correction. But there was a process leading up to that that involved inputs from a lot of agencies, as is always the case in a situation like this and is always appropriate.

This is an incredible thing for Carney to be saying. He’s playing semantic games, telling a roomful of journalists that the definition of editing we’ve all been using is wrong, that the only thing that matters is who’s actually working the keyboard. It’s not quite re-defining the word “is,” or the phrase “sexual relations,” but it’s not all that far off, either.