But Susan Rice (now Obama's National Security Advisor a/k/a NSA) said it was all about a YouTube video--remember the Obama administration's "talking points"? (supposedly prepared by the CIA?)
Follow @intelfail
Showing posts with label Benghazi. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Benghazi. Show all posts
CIA operatives on the ground during Benghazi attack
Exclusive: Dozens of CIA operatives on the ground during Benghazi attack – The Lead with Jake Tapper - CNN.com Blogs: "Dozens of CIA operatives on the ground during Benghazi attack"
But Susan Rice (now Obama's National Security Advisor a/k/a NSA) said it was all about a YouTube video--remember the Obama administration's "talking points"? (supposedly prepared by the CIA?)
Follow @intelfail
But Susan Rice (now Obama's National Security Advisor a/k/a NSA) said it was all about a YouTube video--remember the Obama administration's "talking points"? (supposedly prepared by the CIA?)
Follow @intelfail
Why the Benghazi controversy is "absolutely not" over
Republicans want to talk to Col. George Bristol about Benghazi - CBS News: "While much scrutiny has been paid to the talking points used to brief the public on the attack on a U.S. facility in Benghazi, CBS News National Security correspondent Bob Orr and senior national security analyst Juan Zarate discuss which questions remain unanswered about the government's response to the attack."
Follow @intelfail
BENGHAZI: Whistleblower witnesses threatened by CIA and State
" . . . The lawyers said their clients believe their accounts of Benghazi were spurned by the Accountability Review board (ARB), the official investigative body convened by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to review the terrorist attacks, and that the two employees have faced threats and intimidation from as-yet-unnamed superiors. “I'm not talking generally, I'm talking specifically about Benghazi -- that people have been threatened,” Toensing told Fox News on Wednesday. “And not just the State Department; people have been threatened at the CIA. ... It's frightening. ...They're taking career people and making them well aware that their careers will be over.” DiGenova told Fox News on Thursday, by way of describing his and Toensing’s respective clients: “There were people who were material witnesses, who wanted to talk to [the ARB], and they were not allowed to talk to them. “The people that we are representing are career civil servants...people who have served the country overseas…in dangerous positions all over the world, have risked their lives and only want to tell the truth.” Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/04/benghazi-names-whistleblower-witnesses-revealed/#ixzz2SOPyQ65P
Follow @intelfail
Follow @intelfail
More on Obama and his Benghazi disgrace
More on Benghazi--foot dragging, misleading the public, what a disgrace for Obama and his administration--
CNN.com - Transcripts: Aired May 1, 2013 - 19:00 ET--"And now our fourth story OUTFRONT: new leads in the Benghazi attack after an avalanche of criticism for the fact that absolutely no one has been held accountable. Today, the FBI released photos of three men that they want to question about the September 11th attacks on the U.S. consulate in Libya that killed Chris Stevens and three other Americans. The men were on the ground of the consulate during the attack and may be able to provide information. The question is: why did it take about eight months to figure this out? To get these photos to the public? Would it ever have happened if there didn't continue to be such incredible controversy about Benghazi?
CNN's Barbara Starr is OUTFRONT tonight with the latest.
And, Barbara, why is the FBI releasing these photos now?
BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, that's a great question, Erin, to which there is no immediate answer. What a surprise.
The FBI says they're doing it simply because they're at the point in the investigation where it makes the most sense. But you're right, eight months later, these men -- where are they? Who knows where they are?
But they want to talk to them. They say this video surveillance camera saw them there the night of the attack and they want to see what they know about it and not calling them suspects yet. . . ."
Eight months? Pathetic. Obviously not a priority for Obama and his administration!
Follow @intelfail
CNN.com - Transcripts: Aired May 1, 2013 - 19:00 ET--"And now our fourth story OUTFRONT: new leads in the Benghazi attack after an avalanche of criticism for the fact that absolutely no one has been held accountable. Today, the FBI released photos of three men that they want to question about the September 11th attacks on the U.S. consulate in Libya that killed Chris Stevens and three other Americans. The men were on the ground of the consulate during the attack and may be able to provide information. The question is: why did it take about eight months to figure this out? To get these photos to the public? Would it ever have happened if there didn't continue to be such incredible controversy about Benghazi?
CNN's Barbara Starr is OUTFRONT tonight with the latest.
And, Barbara, why is the FBI releasing these photos now?
BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, that's a great question, Erin, to which there is no immediate answer. What a surprise.
The FBI says they're doing it simply because they're at the point in the investigation where it makes the most sense. But you're right, eight months later, these men -- where are they? Who knows where they are?
But they want to talk to them. They say this video surveillance camera saw them there the night of the attack and they want to see what they know about it and not calling them suspects yet. . . ."
Eight months? Pathetic. Obviously not a priority for Obama and his administration!
Follow @intelfail
Benghazi - Obama administration mislead the public
This is what happens when you put political expediency above the national interests--
The Benghazi Talking Points | The Weekly Standard: " . . . The exchange of emails is laid out in a 43-page report from the chairmen of five committees in the House of Representatives. . . . it is clear that senior administration officials engaged in a wholesale rewriting of intelligence assessments about Benghazi in order to mislead the public. The Weekly Standard sought comment from officials at the White House, the State Department, and the CIA, but received none by press time. Within hours of the initial attack on the U.S. facility, the State Department Operations Center sent out two alerts. The first, at 4:05 p.m. (all times are Eastern Daylight Time), indicated that the compound was under attack; the second, at 6:08 p.m., indicated that Ansar al Sharia, an al Qaeda-linked terrorist group operating in Libya, had claimed credit for the attack. According to the House report, these alerts were circulated widely inside the government, including at the highest levels. The fighting in Benghazi continued for another several hours, so top Obama administration officials were told even as the fighting was taking place that U.S. diplomats and intelligence operatives were likely being attacked by al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists. A cable sent the following day, September 12, by the CIA station chief in Libya, reported that eyewitnesses confirmed the participation of Islamic militants and made clear that U.S. facilities in Benghazi had come under terrorist attack. It was this fact, along with several others, that top Obama officials would work so hard to obscure. . . ."
Follow @intelfail
The Benghazi Talking Points | The Weekly Standard: " . . . The exchange of emails is laid out in a 43-page report from the chairmen of five committees in the House of Representatives. . . . it is clear that senior administration officials engaged in a wholesale rewriting of intelligence assessments about Benghazi in order to mislead the public. The Weekly Standard sought comment from officials at the White House, the State Department, and the CIA, but received none by press time. Within hours of the initial attack on the U.S. facility, the State Department Operations Center sent out two alerts. The first, at 4:05 p.m. (all times are Eastern Daylight Time), indicated that the compound was under attack; the second, at 6:08 p.m., indicated that Ansar al Sharia, an al Qaeda-linked terrorist group operating in Libya, had claimed credit for the attack. According to the House report, these alerts were circulated widely inside the government, including at the highest levels. The fighting in Benghazi continued for another several hours, so top Obama administration officials were told even as the fighting was taking place that U.S. diplomats and intelligence operatives were likely being attacked by al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists. A cable sent the following day, September 12, by the CIA station chief in Libya, reported that eyewitnesses confirmed the participation of Islamic militants and made clear that U.S. facilities in Benghazi had come under terrorist attack. It was this fact, along with several others, that top Obama officials would work so hard to obscure. . . ."
Follow @intelfail
Hillary Clinton and the murder of the US ambassador at Benghazi
This sad saga, draped in the lies and cover-up (Susan Rice et al), only gets worse--what is amazing is that these supposedly smart people at State, the White House, the CIA, and NSA, didn't realize their lies would be revealed and how idiotic they would all look--not even counting the political fallout that would eventually (now) occur! I guess this is what happens when arrogance and the illusion of power becomes systemic.
Clinton sought end-run around counter-terrorism bureau on night of Benghazi attack, witness will say | Fox News: Documents from the State Department, the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Council, first published in the May 13 edition of "The Weekly Standard," showed that senior officials from those agencies decided within days of the attacks to delete all references to Al Qaeda's known involvement in them from "talking points" being prepared for those administration officers being sent out to discuss the attacks publicly. Those talking points -- and indeed, the statements of all senior Obama administration officials who commented publicly on Benghazi during the early days after the attacks -- sought instead to depict the Americans' deaths as the result of a spontaneous protest that went awry. The administration later acknowledged that there had been no such protest, as evidence mounted that Al Qaeda-linked terrorists had participated in the attacks. The latter conclusion had figured prominently in the earliest CIA drafts of the talking points, but was stricken by an ad hoc group of senior officials controlling the drafting process. Among those involved in prodding the deletions, the documents published by "The Weekly Standard" show, was State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland, who wrote at one point that the revisions were not sufficient to satisfy "my building's leadership." Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/05/clinton-sought-end-run-around-counterterrorism-bureau-on-night-benghazi-attack/#ixzz2SU0cqGiR
Follow @intelfail
Clinton sought end-run around counter-terrorism bureau on night of Benghazi attack, witness will say | Fox News: Documents from the State Department, the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Council, first published in the May 13 edition of "The Weekly Standard," showed that senior officials from those agencies decided within days of the attacks to delete all references to Al Qaeda's known involvement in them from "talking points" being prepared for those administration officers being sent out to discuss the attacks publicly. Those talking points -- and indeed, the statements of all senior Obama administration officials who commented publicly on Benghazi during the early days after the attacks -- sought instead to depict the Americans' deaths as the result of a spontaneous protest that went awry. The administration later acknowledged that there had been no such protest, as evidence mounted that Al Qaeda-linked terrorists had participated in the attacks. The latter conclusion had figured prominently in the earliest CIA drafts of the talking points, but was stricken by an ad hoc group of senior officials controlling the drafting process. Among those involved in prodding the deletions, the documents published by "The Weekly Standard" show, was State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland, who wrote at one point that the revisions were not sufficient to satisfy "my building's leadership." Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/05/clinton-sought-end-run-around-counterterrorism-bureau-on-night-benghazi-attack/#ixzz2SU0cqGiR
Follow @intelfail
Benghazi E-Mails - Obama administration fumbles and bumbles
Stumbling and bumbling and political maneuvering all over DC when Benghazi went down . . . from State to Langley to White House--
Benghazi E-Mails Put White House on the Defensive - NYTimes.com: "The disclosures about how extensively the talking points were revised also reveal the divisions that often exist among intelligence agencies, as well as the bureaucratic infighting that often lies behind the bland language in official government statements. In this case, the State Department bridled at the C.I.A.’s initial draft, both because it went further than what the department had been disclosing publicly and because it was apparently worried that C.I.A. warnings about other potential threats would reflect badly on the department. . . . State Department’s spokeswoman, Victoria Nuland, raised concerns with the White House and the intelligence agencies, saying the information could be “abused” by members of Congress “to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either?” C.I.A. officials responded with a new draft, but Ms. Nuland replied that the changes did not “resolve all my issues or those of my building leadership.” . . . She also believed that the C.I.A., which had more than 20 people in Benghazi on the night of the attack, was trying to absolve itself at the State Department’s expense . . ." (read more at link above)
Follow @intelfail
Benghazi E-Mails Put White House on the Defensive - NYTimes.com: "The disclosures about how extensively the talking points were revised also reveal the divisions that often exist among intelligence agencies, as well as the bureaucratic infighting that often lies behind the bland language in official government statements. In this case, the State Department bridled at the C.I.A.’s initial draft, both because it went further than what the department had been disclosing publicly and because it was apparently worried that C.I.A. warnings about other potential threats would reflect badly on the department. . . . State Department’s spokeswoman, Victoria Nuland, raised concerns with the White House and the intelligence agencies, saying the information could be “abused” by members of Congress “to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either?” C.I.A. officials responded with a new draft, but Ms. Nuland replied that the changes did not “resolve all my issues or those of my building leadership.” . . . She also believed that the C.I.A., which had more than 20 people in Benghazi on the night of the attack, was trying to absolve itself at the State Department’s expense . . ." (read more at link above)
Follow @intelfail
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)