Posts Tagged ‘al-Qaeda’
By Paul Brandus | The Week
“With all this manure,” the boy replied, “there must be a pony in here somewhere.”
The administration has long maintained that the now-infamous talking points used by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice on five Sunday talk shows just days after the September 11 attack were the product of the intelligence community. We know the talking points originated in the intelligence community. But the final product itself? No.
ABC News reports that the documents were heavily edited by the State Department. And not just edited, but censored: State requested that references to Ansar al-Sharia — tied to al Qaeda — be deleted. It also requested that references to CIA warnings about terror threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack be deleted as well. (Read the whole ABC story here.)
Rewind to November 28. Here’s what White House press secretary Jay Carney told us at that day’s press briefing:
Those talking points originated from the intelligence community (IC). They reflect the IC’s best assessments of what they thought had happened. The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment (emphasis added) 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.
And Carney just two days ago stuck to this story, telling us:
The only edits made by anyone here at the White House were stylistic and nonsubstantive. They corrected the description of the building or the facility in Benghazi from consulate to diplomatic facility and the like. And ultimately, this all has been discussed and reviewed and provided in enormous levels of detail by the administration to congressional investigators, and the attempt to politicize the talking points, again, is part of an effort to, you know, chase after what isn’t the substance here.
Carney’s phrase “here at the White House” may be accurate in the physical sense, but in the broader context there’s no question he was referring to the Obama administration at large. And as Stephen Hayes of The Weekly Standard — which first published some of the email traffic between the White House and State Department on this — charged, “senior Obama administration officials knowingly misled the country about what happened.”
So who at the State Department was involved in changing — and censoring — the talking points? According to one email, spokesperson Victoria Nuland — who reported to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — expressed specific concern about this particular CIA talking point:
The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qa’ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya. These noted that, since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador’s convoy. We cannot rule out the individuals has previously surveilled the U.S. facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks. [Via ABC News]
Is there a White House connection? ABC notes that in a Sept. 14 email — two days before Rice went on TV — Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes said the State Department’s concerns needed to be addressed.
“We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department,” Rhodes noted.
The final talking points eventually given to Rice reflected State’s concerns, but Carney told us that it’s all on the up-and-up because the changes were signed off on by the CIA.
There’s a meatpacking-like quality to all this. You don’t really want to know how your hamburger is processed, do you? The administration’s defense — and it’s looking thinner than ice on a late spring pond — is that government bureaucracy is messy and multi-layered and that’s a big part of why Rice said what she did.
Benghazi occurred seven weeks before election day. The administration’s strategy was simple: Downplay the terror attack, change the narrative, and run out the clock. And that’s what it did.
But now the dam has burst. Carney’s “here at the White House” comment has essentially thrown Clinton under the bus. Republicans, who leaked the edited emails to Karl and Hayes, have succeeded on two fronts: They’ve got the administration on the defensive over Benghazi, and they’ve weakened the Democrat’s most formidable 2016 candidate.
It seems that after all that digging, Republicans have found their pony at last.
- Carney Claims on Changing #Benghazi Talking Points at Odds With the Facts (speaker.gov)
- White House slams ‘attempts to politicize’ Benghazi (politico.com)
- Obama administration e-mails raise new questions on Benghazi (cnn.com)
- Benghazi Talking Points Changed 12 Times (restart.typepad.com)
- ABC Exclusive: Benghazi Talking Points Underwent 12 Revisions, Scrubbed of Terror Reference (rubinoworld.com)
- ABC: Benghazi talking points went through 12 revisions, scrubbed of terror reference (hotair.com)
- Benghazi Talking Points Changed 12 Times By Obama Regime, Scrubbed Of Terror References (thedaleygator.wordpress.com)
- ABC Finds Benghazi Talking Points Extensively Edited by State Dept. (nationalreview.com)
Obama May Have Supplied Arms Used in Benghazi Attack
Posted by By GeorgeM at 6 December, at 19 : 35 PM
|by Kris Zane|
Why would the Obama administration spend two weeks parroting a ridiculous story about a “protest turned violent” because of an anti-Muslim YouTube video being the cause of the attack on the Benghazi consulate?
Why would they then spend a month blaming the CIA for bad intel?
Why would they then comb through a former four-star general’s, then CIA-chief Petraeus’ email to “uncover” an adulterous affair that apparently everyone—including Obama—already knew about?
Was this the reason Obama has been turning his administration into a pretzel trying to explain why he blamed a YouTube video for the murder of four Americans?
Was this the reason he refused to send in air or ground support to the dozens of Americans under fire, where Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty, and Tyrone Woods begged for help for upwards of seven hours and were eventually slaughtered?
Or was it something more?
What if it was the Fast and Furious debacle all over again, but this time in the Middle East and North Africa?
What if Barack Hussein Obama supplied the weapons to the al-Qaeda-linked group Ansar al-Sharia that murdered the Americans in Benghazi?
And if he would have sent in troops to help the Americans under attack at the Benghazi consulate and CIA safe house, it would have been discovered that the weapons had been supplied by the United States.
According to a New York Times article published yesterday that admits Obama-sanctioned weapons got into the hands of jihadists—and the article appears to be chocked full of leaked information from the White House in order to control the explosion of some new revelation—this in fact may be the case.
The New York Times, like a prim schoolmarm, assures the reader, twice mind you—the first time in the second paragraph—that “no evidence has surfaced that any weapons went to Ansar al-Shariah, an extremist group blamed for the Benghazi attack.”
Why are they so sure of this?
Well, they don’t say.
They do seem to know the name of the American arms dealer—Marc Turi—who brokered the arms deal.
They do seem to know that Obama officials secretly met with Qatar officials who were steeped in supplying Islamic extremists with weapons.
They do seem to know information that could only have come from Barack Obama himself.
Is there anything this President doesn’t have his fingers in?
It’s like Chicago in the Twenties and Thirties all over again!
We should call Obama the Al Capone of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue!
- BenghaziGate: Obama Regime Knew Libyan Terrorists Had US-Provided Weapons (thedaleygator.wordpress.com)
- Obama Was Arming Jihadist, err Al Qaeda, in Libya, It’s A New Day (tarpon.wordpress.com)
- CIA sources: Obama ordered military not to help Ambassador Stevens in Benghazi (examiner.com)
- Obama said ordered US Military not to help Ambassador Stevens in Benghazi (amadeusmusicinstruction.typepad.com)
- NYT: Obama admin approved secret weapons deals that ended up arming Islamists in Libya (hotair.com)
- Was Obama briefed that Benghazi was a terror attack before Rice went on TV? (hotair.com)
- The White House’s Benghazi bungling is proving a disaster (blogs.telegraph.co.uk)
- Obama Administration Oversaw Arms Shipments to Al Qaeda in Libya (counterjihadreport.com)
- Sources: Obama Knew Benghazi Was Terrorism Before Deploying Rice (conservativebyte.com)
- White House Stoked Violence with Benghazi Blame Game (trinityspeaks.wordpress.com)