Can we handle the truth about Benghazi?
By Jacquie Kubin, Communities Digital News
Obama, Clinton, Carney and Rice are all part of the Benghazi question
WASHINGTON, May 2, 2014 – Can Republicans demand the truth about Benghazi?
House Republicans and Speaker John Boehner are announcing the formation of a special committee to investigate Benghazi. Party to that will be the subpoenaing of Secretary of State John Kerry.
Which begs the question: Do we know the truth about Benghazi? Can we handle the truth about Benghazi?
If we look back to May of 2013, questions about the September 11, 2011 attacks at Benghazi were still being asked close to two years after the attack. Nearly a year ago (May 14, 2013) a leaked White House Email sent by Benjamin Rhodes, a top aide to President Obama discusses the Administrations reaction to the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks on Benghazi, Libya.
If, as Rhodes says, there is a “ton of wrong information getting out into the public domain…” why did the President, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, Hilary Clinton, Jay Carney and everyone else that stood there repeating the same falsehoods, lie to us saying it was about a film?
Why has there been nearly three years of smoke screens and misdirections?
On April 30, 2014, and with unbelievable hubris, Jay Carney continues to lie about the White House’s influences on Rice’s media tour stating that Rhodes email and Rice’s talking points were not about the Benghazi attack, but the overall protests in the region including Cairo, Cairo, Sana’a, Khartoum and Tunis.’
READ ALSO: Hillary Clinton, Benghazi and revealing documents
And that the White House did not, even though Rhodes email says differently, provide talking points to Rice saying that the video was the catalyst for the attacks.
Even when everyone knew different.
CNN (Jake Tapper/The Lead) reported in May of 2014 that 30 people were evacuated from Benghazi and that of those thirty, at least 20 were CIA employees leading to the conclusion that the mission in Benghazi was covert.
There are two known objectives for the teams in Benghazi per reports: Countering the terrorist threat from extremists pouring into the country and helping to secure the flood of weapons after the fall of Ghadafi, the fear being that they were weapons that could have gone to terrorists.
The CIA roles, particularly in their relationship to the Libyan state arsenals at risk, have escaped scrutiny as the focus has instead been turned onto the State Department and their failure to heed growing signs of terrorist threat and/or the political debate as to why the White House downplayed the terrorist attack.
READ ALSO: Benghazi is ancient history to most Americans
It is because the White House doesn’t want us to know the truth? It is because the CIA needs to protect the truth?
It is national security, or a bungling administration that felt that the collateral damage of a few Americans were an acceptable price to pay? And pay for what? To protect secrets? To protect radical Islam? To protect the incompetence of our sitting leaders?
Secretary of State Clinton and President Obama led the cheerleading cry that Benghazi was the fault of a filmmaker even as they, and the American people knew, that it was the actions of radical terrorists.
It was just one more lie told to us from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. They were complicit in the arrest of the filmmaker, removing him from public, and press questioning.
Read more
House Republicans and Speaker John Boehner are announcing the formation of a special committee to investigate Benghazi. Party to that will be the subpoenaing of Secretary of State John Kerry.
Which begs the question: Do we know the truth about Benghazi? Can we handle the truth about Benghazi?
If we look back to May of 2013, questions about the September 11, 2011 attacks at Benghazi were still being asked close to two years after the attack. Nearly a year ago (May 14, 2013) a leaked White House Email sent by Benjamin Rhodes, a top aide to President Obama discusses the Administrations reaction to the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks on Benghazi, Libya.
If, as Rhodes says, there is a “ton of wrong information getting out into the public domain…” why did the President, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, Hilary Clinton, Jay Carney and everyone else that stood there repeating the same falsehoods, lie to us saying it was about a film?
Why has there been nearly three years of smoke screens and misdirections?
On April 30, 2014, and with unbelievable hubris, Jay Carney continues to lie about the White House’s influences on Rice’s media tour stating that Rhodes email and Rice’s talking points were not about the Benghazi attack, but the overall protests in the region including Cairo, Cairo, Sana’a, Khartoum and Tunis.’
READ ALSO: Hillary Clinton, Benghazi and revealing documents
And that the White House did not, even though Rhodes email says differently, provide talking points to Rice saying that the video was the catalyst for the attacks.
Even when everyone knew different.
CNN (Jake Tapper/The Lead) reported in May of 2014 that 30 people were evacuated from Benghazi and that of those thirty, at least 20 were CIA employees leading to the conclusion that the mission in Benghazi was covert.
There are two known objectives for the teams in Benghazi per reports: Countering the terrorist threat from extremists pouring into the country and helping to secure the flood of weapons after the fall of Ghadafi, the fear being that they were weapons that could have gone to terrorists.
The CIA roles, particularly in their relationship to the Libyan state arsenals at risk, have escaped scrutiny as the focus has instead been turned onto the State Department and their failure to heed growing signs of terrorist threat and/or the political debate as to why the White House downplayed the terrorist attack.
READ ALSO: Benghazi is ancient history to most Americans
It is because the White House doesn’t want us to know the truth? It is because the CIA needs to protect the truth?
It is national security, or a bungling administration that felt that the collateral damage of a few Americans were an acceptable price to pay? And pay for what? To protect secrets? To protect radical Islam? To protect the incompetence of our sitting leaders?
Secretary of State Clinton and President Obama led the cheerleading cry that Benghazi was the fault of a filmmaker even as they, and the American people knew, that it was the actions of radical terrorists.
It was just one more lie told to us from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. They were complicit in the arrest of the filmmaker, removing him from public, and press questioning.
Read more
Read more at http://www.commdiginews.com/politics-2/can-we-handle-the-truth-about-benghazi-166Read more at http://www.commdiginews.com/politics-2/can-we-handle-the-truth-about-benghazi-16686/#zJgPoRlOSy4Qh5Jc.99
Obama, Clinton, Carney and Rice are all part of the Benghazi question
It is because the second building, that most Americans don’t know
about not because it isn’t out there, but because the media kept the
focus on the Villa where Ambassador Chris Stevens and Sean Smith were
killed, was in fact a CIA annex?
Charlene Lamb, an official in the State Departments Bureau of Diplomatic Security, acknowledged that an intelligence post was located about 1.2 miles form the U.S. mission.
READ ALSO: Uncloaking the layers of the Benghazi tragedy
On September 10, 2012 al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri released a video calling for attacks on Americans in Libya in order to avenge the death of Abu Yahya al-Libi in a drone strike in Pakistan in June 2012. The date for the attacks, September 11, was to coincide with the 10 year anniversary of the radical Islam attack on America.
The State Department, CIA and White House were all aware that attacks were imminent and it is hard to not believe that the Villa and annex were not primary targets.
That no longer secret annex took “as many” as three direct hits during the attack. Glen Doherty and Tryrone Woods, both CIA, were killed in what has been categorized as an unlikely mortar strike after they held their position.
That annex post was used, at least in part, to collect information on the looting of Libyan arsenal including surface-to-air missiles. That post was fortified including sensor and cameras, which the villa where Stevens died was not.
That both the outpost, that has been described as a safe hour for diplomatic personnel and the villas where Stevens died, were attacked by al Qaeda militants is not in dispute.
READ ALSO: The CIA that saved Dick Holm but failed Charles Wood, Chris Doherty at Benghazi
After the attack at the Villa, U.S. and Libyan personal, were sent to the annex.
CNN uncovered that there were “dozens” of CIA operatives on the ground during the Benghazi attack, and CNN reports that:
State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland expressed the need to remove mentions of specific terrorists groups and CIA warning, prior to the attack. But she was not alone in wanting to protect information. Internal disagreements at the CIA included whether the attack should be characterized as a pre-planned act of terror following the protests in Cairo over the anti-Muslim video.
Whatever the final story, the fact the the truth was avoided in favor of talking points for members of Congress and the American people is sickening.
Note that the subject line of the memo is “Re: Revised HPSCI Talking Points for Review” because Congress and Americans were being handled by the Administration.
The question then becomes is was that at the behest of the CIA protecting secrets or an Administration protecting Middle Eastern relationships as, if they had said it was a terrorist attack, American’s may have demanded retaliation.
.
“In the email [deputy national security adviser Ben] Rhodes makes clear that our primary goals included making sure our people in the field were protected and bringing those responsible for the attacks to justice,” Bernadette Meehan, National Security Council spokeswoman, said in a statement. “The content reflects what the administration was saying at the time and what we understood to be the facts at the time.”
READ ALSO: How America failed, and continues to fail, at Benghazi investigation
Those emails also includes an email from Rhodes for U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice’s now infamous talk show appearances including her Sunday, September 16 appearance on CBS’s “Face the Nation:”
Judicial Watch announced (April 29) that they had obtained 31 new Benghazi related State Department documents as a result of their Freedom of Information Acti (FOIA) lawsuit filed agains the State Department.
In those documents is “… a newly declassified email showing then-White House Deputy Strategic Communications Adviser Ben Rhodes and other Obama administration public relations officials attempting to orchestrate a campaign to “reinforce” President Obama and to portray the Benghazi consulate terrorist attack as being “rooted in an Internet video, and not a failure of policy.” Other documents show that State Department officials initially described the incident as an “attack” and a possible kidnap attempt.”
We know the truth. But if the truth ever really came out of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, I don’t think America could handle it. They would, instead, continue to bow down to the alter of mistruths and obfuscation that are hallmarks of this administration.
Charlene Lamb, an official in the State Departments Bureau of Diplomatic Security, acknowledged that an intelligence post was located about 1.2 miles form the U.S. mission.
READ ALSO: Uncloaking the layers of the Benghazi tragedy
On September 10, 2012 al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri released a video calling for attacks on Americans in Libya in order to avenge the death of Abu Yahya al-Libi in a drone strike in Pakistan in June 2012. The date for the attacks, September 11, was to coincide with the 10 year anniversary of the radical Islam attack on America.
The State Department, CIA and White House were all aware that attacks were imminent and it is hard to not believe that the Villa and annex were not primary targets.
That no longer secret annex took “as many” as three direct hits during the attack. Glen Doherty and Tryrone Woods, both CIA, were killed in what has been categorized as an unlikely mortar strike after they held their position.
That annex post was used, at least in part, to collect information on the looting of Libyan arsenal including surface-to-air missiles. That post was fortified including sensor and cameras, which the villa where Stevens died was not.
That both the outpost, that has been described as a safe hour for diplomatic personnel and the villas where Stevens died, were attacked by al Qaeda militants is not in dispute.
READ ALSO: The CIA that saved Dick Holm but failed Charles Wood, Chris Doherty at Benghazi
After the attack at the Villa, U.S. and Libyan personal, were sent to the annex.
CNN uncovered that there were “dozens” of CIA operatives on the ground during the Benghazi attack, and CNN reports that:
“…that the agency is going to great lengths to make sure whatever it was doing, remains a secret.The rescue of Stevens and Smith at the Villa was bungled. That Woods and Doherty held their position unassisted for more than seven hours, even as Clinton and Obama watched and did nothing, is unacceptable to most Americans.
CNN has learned the CIA is involved in what one source calls an unprecedented attempt to keep the spy agency’s Benghazi secrets from ever leaking out.”
State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland expressed the need to remove mentions of specific terrorists groups and CIA warning, prior to the attack. But she was not alone in wanting to protect information. Internal disagreements at the CIA included whether the attack should be characterized as a pre-planned act of terror following the protests in Cairo over the anti-Muslim video.
Whatever the final story, the fact the the truth was avoided in favor of talking points for members of Congress and the American people is sickening.
Note that the subject line of the memo is “Re: Revised HPSCI Talking Points for Review” because Congress and Americans were being handled by the Administration.
The question then becomes is was that at the behest of the CIA protecting secrets or an Administration protecting Middle Eastern relationships as, if they had said it was a terrorist attack, American’s may have demanded retaliation.
.
“In the email [deputy national security adviser Ben] Rhodes makes clear that our primary goals included making sure our people in the field were protected and bringing those responsible for the attacks to justice,” Bernadette Meehan, National Security Council spokeswoman, said in a statement. “The content reflects what the administration was saying at the time and what we understood to be the facts at the time.”
READ ALSO: How America failed, and continues to fail, at Benghazi investigation
Those emails also includes an email from Rhodes for U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice’s now infamous talk show appearances including her Sunday, September 16 appearance on CBS’s “Face the Nation:”
In those emails Rhodes’ says Rice’s objectives would be, as the above transcript shows: “To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy” and “To reinforce the President and Administration’s strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges.”SUSAN RICE: –sparked by this hateful video. But soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that– in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent.BOB SCHIEFFER: But you do not agree with him that this was something that had been plotted out several months ago?SUSAN RICE: We do not– we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.BOB SCHIEFFER: Do you agree or disagree with him that al Qaeda had some part in this?SUSAN RICE: Well, we’ll have to find out that out. I mean I think it’s clear that there were extremist elements that joined in and escalated the violence. Whether they were al Qaeda affiliates, whether they were Libyan-based extremists or al Qaeda itself I think is one of the things we’ll have to determine.BOB SCHIEFFER: There seems to be demonstrations in more than twenty cities as far as we know yesterday. Is there any sense that this is leveling off?SUSAN RICE: Well, on Friday, of course, I think that’s what you’re referring to– there– there were a number of places around the world in which there were protests, many of them peaceful, some of them turned violent. And our emphasis has been– and the President has been very, very clear about this, priority number one is protection of American personnel and facilities. And we have been working now very constructively with host governments around the world to provide the kind of protection we need and to condemn the violence. What happens going forward I think it would be unwise for any of us to predict with certainty. Clearly the last couple of days have seen a reduction in protests and a reduction in violence. I don’t want to predict what the next days will yield.BOB SCHIEFFER: The Romney campaign continues to criticize the administration. Paul Ryan was on the campaign trail yesterday saying that the Obama administration has diminished America’s presence overseas and our image, a direct quote, “If we project– if we project weakness, they come. If we are strong, our adversaries will not test us and our allies will respond to us.” What’s your response to that?SUSAN RICE: It’s two-fold. First of all, Bob, I think the American people expect in times of challenge overseas for our leaders to be unified and to come together and to be steadfast and steady and calm and responsible and that certainly what President Obama has been. With respect to what I think is a very empty and baseless charge of weakness, let’s be plain, I think American people know the record very well. President Obama said when he was running for President that he would refocus our efforts and attentions on al Qaeda. We’ve decimated al Qaeda. Osama bin Laden is gone. He also said we would end the war in Iraq responsibly. We’ve done that. He has protected civilians in Libya, and Qaddafi is gone. I serve up at the United Nations and I see every day the difference in how countries around the world view the United States. They view us as a partner. They view us as somebody they want to work with. They view President Obama as somebody they trust. Our standing in the world is much stronger so this charge of weakness is really quite baseless.
Judicial Watch announced (April 29) that they had obtained 31 new Benghazi related State Department documents as a result of their Freedom of Information Acti (FOIA) lawsuit filed agains the State Department.
In those documents is “… a newly declassified email showing then-White House Deputy Strategic Communications Adviser Ben Rhodes and other Obama administration public relations officials attempting to orchestrate a campaign to “reinforce” President Obama and to portray the Benghazi consulate terrorist attack as being “rooted in an Internet video, and not a failure of policy.” Other documents show that State Department officials initially described the incident as an “attack” and a possible kidnap attempt.”
We know the truth. But if the truth ever really came out of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, I don’t think America could handle it. They would, instead, continue to bow down to the alter of mistruths and obfuscation that are hallmarks of this administration.
Read more at http://www.commdiginews.com/politics-2/can-we-handle-the-truth-about-benghazi-16686/2/#pKHDuwFvPfQ50vku.99
Can we handle the truth about Benghazi?
By Jacquie Kubin, Communities Digital News
Obama, Clinton, Carney and Rice are all part of the Benghazi question
WASHINGTON, May 2, 2014 – Can Republicans demand the truth about Benghazi?
House Republicans and Speaker John Boehner are announcing the formation of a special committee to investigate Benghazi. Party to that will be the subpoenaing of Secretary of State John Kerry.
Which begs the question: Do we know the truth about Benghazi? Can we handle the truth about Benghazi?
If we look back to May of 2013, questions about the September 11, 2011 attacks at Benghazi were still being asked close to two years after the attack. Nearly a year ago (May 14, 2013) a leaked White House Email sent by Benjamin Rhodes, a top aide to President Obama discusses the Administrations reaction to the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks on Benghazi, Libya.
If, as Rhodes says, there is a “ton of wrong information getting out into the public domain…” why did the President, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, Hilary Clinton, Jay Carney and everyone else that stood there repeating the same falsehoods, lie to us saying it was about a film?
Why has there been nearly three years of smoke screens and misdirections?
On April 30, 2014, and with unbelievable hubris, Jay Carney continues to lie about the White House’s influences on Rice’s media tour stating that Rhodes email and Rice’s talking points were not about the Benghazi attack, but the overall protests in the region including Cairo, Cairo, Sana’a, Khartoum and Tunis.’
READ ALSO: Hillary Clinton, Benghazi and revealing documents
And that the White House did not, even though Rhodes email says differently, provide talking points to Rice saying that the video was the catalyst for the attacks.
Even when everyone knew different.
CNN (Jake Tapper/The Lead) reported in May of 2014 that 30 people were evacuated from Benghazi and that of those thirty, at least 20 were CIA employees leading to the conclusion that the mission in Benghazi was covert.
There are two known objectives for the teams in Benghazi per reports: Countering the terrorist threat from extremists pouring into the country and helping to secure the flood of weapons after the fall of Ghadafi, the fear being that they were weapons that could have gone to terrorists.
The CIA roles, particularly in their relationship to the Libyan state arsenals at risk, have escaped scrutiny as the focus has instead been turned onto the State Department and their failure to heed growing signs of terrorist threat and/or the political debate as to why the White House downplayed the terrorist attack.
READ ALSO: Benghazi is ancient history to most Americans
It is because the White House doesn’t want us to know the truth? It is because the CIA needs to protect the truth?
It is national security, or a bungling administration that felt that the collateral damage of a few Americans were an acceptable price to pay? And pay for what? To protect secrets? To protect radical Islam? To protect the incompetence of our sitting leaders?
Secretary of State Clinton and President Obama led the cheerleading cry that Benghazi was the fault of a filmmaker even as they, and the American people knew, that it was the actions of radical terrorists.
It was just one more lie told to us from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. They were complicit in the arrest of the filmmaker, removing him from public, and press questioning.
Read more
House Republicans and Speaker John Boehner are announcing the formation of a special committee to investigate Benghazi. Party to that will be the subpoenaing of Secretary of State John Kerry.
Which begs the question: Do we know the truth about Benghazi? Can we handle the truth about Benghazi?
If we look back to May of 2013, questions about the September 11, 2011 attacks at Benghazi were still being asked close to two years after the attack. Nearly a year ago (May 14, 2013) a leaked White House Email sent by Benjamin Rhodes, a top aide to President Obama discusses the Administrations reaction to the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks on Benghazi, Libya.
If, as Rhodes says, there is a “ton of wrong information getting out into the public domain…” why did the President, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, Hilary Clinton, Jay Carney and everyone else that stood there repeating the same falsehoods, lie to us saying it was about a film?
Why has there been nearly three years of smoke screens and misdirections?
On April 30, 2014, and with unbelievable hubris, Jay Carney continues to lie about the White House’s influences on Rice’s media tour stating that Rhodes email and Rice’s talking points were not about the Benghazi attack, but the overall protests in the region including Cairo, Cairo, Sana’a, Khartoum and Tunis.’
READ ALSO: Hillary Clinton, Benghazi and revealing documents
And that the White House did not, even though Rhodes email says differently, provide talking points to Rice saying that the video was the catalyst for the attacks.
Even when everyone knew different.
CNN (Jake Tapper/The Lead) reported in May of 2014 that 30 people were evacuated from Benghazi and that of those thirty, at least 20 were CIA employees leading to the conclusion that the mission in Benghazi was covert.
There are two known objectives for the teams in Benghazi per reports: Countering the terrorist threat from extremists pouring into the country and helping to secure the flood of weapons after the fall of Ghadafi, the fear being that they were weapons that could have gone to terrorists.
The CIA roles, particularly in their relationship to the Libyan state arsenals at risk, have escaped scrutiny as the focus has instead been turned onto the State Department and their failure to heed growing signs of terrorist threat and/or the political debate as to why the White House downplayed the terrorist attack.
READ ALSO: Benghazi is ancient history to most Americans
It is because the White House doesn’t want us to know the truth? It is because the CIA needs to protect the truth?
It is national security, or a bungling administration that felt that the collateral damage of a few Americans were an acceptable price to pay? And pay for what? To protect secrets? To protect radical Islam? To protect the incompetence of our sitting leaders?
Secretary of State Clinton and President Obama led the cheerleading cry that Benghazi was the fault of a filmmaker even as they, and the American people knew, that it was the actions of radical terrorists.
It was just one more lie told to us from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. They were complicit in the arrest of the filmmaker, removing him from public, and press questioning.
Read more
Read more at http://www.commdiginews.com/politics-2/can-we-handle-the-truth-about-benghazi-16686/#zJgPoRlOSy4Qh5Jc.99
No comments:
Post a Comment