Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Turns out those talking points you keep going on about were revised 12 times before Rice saw them. Let's see the original not redacted versions please.
Rice referenced items from the CIA talking points that were deleted in later versions of the talking points.
Because Susan Rice's comments align with many of the points that were mentioned in the earlier CIA versions of the talking points, that were dropped from later versions of those talking points.
I haven't seen the original CIA version that was given to the WH. Did it include a definitive statement that it was a protest that went wrong because of the video? Can you provide me with it? I don't recall Rice even mentioning the possibility that it was an attack by Al Qaeda. Do you have a link where it says that she did? If she was aligned to "many of the points" what points did she omit?
Last edited by softblueyz; 05-10-2013 at 11:09 AM..
Did the worst part of our Benghazi failures come, not after the attacks, but BEFORE them?
People seem to be keying on the lies told by U.S. officials (up to and including the President) after the Benghazi attacks: They weren't real attacks, they were just protests that went wrong, they were due to a video etc.
That was a coverup, it is now clear. But a far worse coverup by the Obama administration was in place and running, long before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2012.
BACKGROUND
Osama bin Laden was killed on May 2, 2010, by U.S. forces authorized by President Obama. He immediately added it to his campaign theme for reelection: "Bin Laden is dead, and GM is still alive!" And he began reducing security at various American installations, apparently to appease Middle Eastern people and emphasize how benign and cooperative the U.S. now was.
Al Qaeda turned out to be less dead than he had hoped, though, and began testing our defenses, protesting at embassies and Cairo and elsewhere, firing over the walls of various U.S. and British installations etc., and generally undermining Obama's hoped-for image as a peacemaker and diplomat.
Attacks against U.S. buildings in Egypt and Libya picked up in 2012. The embassy and consulate personnel requested more guards and reinforcements from Washington, but the requests were denied, to maintain the image of peaceful relations. Some barbed wire and concrete barriers were added to the Benghazi consulate. Night-vision security cameras were sent, but never installed.
ATTACKS BEFORE SEPT. 11, 2012
Several bombings took place in Benghazi as intelligence reports indicated a deteriorating security situation.
On April 6, two former security guards for the Benghazi consulate threw explosives over the consulate fence. There were no casualties.
A week later, a bomb targeted a convoy carrying the head of the UN mission to Libya. No one was killed.
The Red Cross was attacked in May, causing them to withdraw from Benghazi altogether.
In early June, a bomb was thrown at the front gate of the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi. No one was injured.
A bomb was placed against the wall of the U.S. consulate in Benghazi in June, blowing a 12-foot hole in it. Further pleas for security improvements were denied by Washington.
A British convoy carrying the UK Ambassador was attacked with rocket-propelled grenades on June 11, injuring two.
REACTION
The Obama administration kept up their efforts at mollifying the militants. State Dept. security forces were replaced with Libyan personnel at Tripoli and Benghazi, and the number of American troops was reduced to a minimum. The administration was apparently concerned that sending American troops overseas while they were assuring the American people that our relations with those countries were improving, would raise the eyebrows of voters for the coming election.
The Obama administration arranged with the Libyan government for a Libyan quick-reaction force to help out in case of attack. Guards at the gates and perimeter of the Benghazi consulate compound, were replaced with Libyan personnel... and those guards were kept unarmed, equipped with only whistles and batons, to present a less offensive image to observers.
WHY WAS IT DONE?
Some people believe that the actions by the Obama administration were an attempt to make American voters (who had heard little about the spring and summer attacks) believe the situation was well in hand, with an election coming in November. Others speculate that the people in the Obama administration honestly and sincerely believed that negotiations, appeasement, and gestures of good will would defuse the situation and produce improved relations between the U.S. and various Muslim groups.
This belief in good will producing good results, is said to be a fundamental part of the Obama faction's ideology. And any attacks or protests are examined only with an eye toward figuring out how we need to approach the people involved and bring them over to our side. The idea that they can never be brought over to our side, is summarily rejected - further negotiations and appeals are the ONLY viable tools to be employed, since they will unquestionably result in eventual success.
RESULTS
By Sept. 2012, the number of American security personnel at the Benghazi consulate had been reduced to three. When Ambassador Stevens came on Sept. 9 for a five-day visit, two bodyguards accompanied him, bringing the total to five. Stevens had previously emailed his superiors in Washington, alerting them to a "security vacuum" in Benghazi. And just before Stevens' visit, the American Embassy warned that Libyan Officials had declared a "state of maximum alert" in Benghazi.
Today, Americans are still looking the wrong way when examining the attacks and the murders of Stevens and three other Americans. They are concentrating on the stories of "protests gone wrong", anger over a video, and other things that happened during and after the attacks themselves.
But the real, most tragic failures came long before the attacks.
Did the Obama administration and State Department deliberately pretend security could be safely reduced in our embassies and consulates, to craft an image of peace and success for the upcoming Nov. 2012 elections? Even as attacks against our facilities kept increasing over that spring and summer, and our personnel on the spot kept pleading for more reinforcements and security?
Did Obama basically trade four American lives in the consulate in Benghazi, Libya, for a bigger electoral margin in the Nov. elections?
Last edited by Little-Acorn; 05-10-2013 at 11:14 AM..
Well, then, doesn't this fly in the face of the GOP narrative that the besieged diplomats desperately called for help and none was sent?
It was a Libyan operation group with US Soldiers in it. It was NOT the US Military.
The DoD said that they wouldn't have made it because it takes longer than 7 hours to prep their planes.
Like that response ?
Even more reason for the investigation to continue. There is a lot we don't know, as the libs cry foul and the WH lies and stone walls
Why we can only know what we are told. If we are told that the Benghazi attacks are because of a video then the reaction would be to denounce having anything to do with the video, apologize and in this case the man who made the video was arrested for probation violations. Looks good to the uninformed.
You keep saying that, but you're the only one saying that. Can you show me one person on this thread that is attributing the attack to "The Video"?
In fact, can you show me one quote from Obama that attributes the attack, without qualification, solely to the video? The only time the video was part of the conversation was in the early stages, when the situation was being assessed, and when, coincidentally, several protests over the video were occurring, including in front of US embassies. Why are you people trying to pretend that wasn't happening? Why, when it was occurring all over the Muslim world, would you not consider it in the initial assessments? Because you'd rather have definitive statements issued before all possibilities are considered? Because it doesn't fit into your little narrative? We know now that it wasn't the video, but in light events concurrent to the attack, having considered it in the course of an investigation makes sense to me, and it ought to for anyone with half a brain.
The only people still talking about the video months later, are people like you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Did the worst part of our Benghazi failures come, not after the attacks, but BEFORE them?
