US House approves new Benghazi inquiry

[chuckd]

Then and now - what a difference eh?

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2014/05/ronald-reagans-benghazi.html

n September of 1984, for the third time in eighteen months, jihadists bombed a U.S. government outpost in Beirut yet again. President Reagan acknowledged that the new security precautions that had been advocated by Congress hadn’t yet been implemented at the U.S. embassy annex that had been hit. The problem, the President admitted, was that the repairs hadn’t quite been completed on time. As he put it, “Anyone who’s ever had their kitchen done over knows that it never gets done as soon as you wish it would.” Imagine how Congressman Issa and Fox News would react to a similar explanation from President Obama today.

Your comparison to security arrangements in 1984 as compared to 2012 are not really very realistic. I don't know how long you have lived in the Middle East but in 1984 there were very limited security procedures being taken to protect US facilities and personnel. In 2012 virtually every US facility in the world had been bomb proofed...except apparently Benghazi. And therein lies one of the big problems.

The real buildup in security in the Middle East happened after 9/11/01 when Embassies and Consulates began to resemble armed fortresses. Prior to that there were few limitations to visiting a US Embassy or other facility in the Middle East.

As far as the US Marine barracks in Beirut was concerned, this was one of the first instances of a car bomb being used against US personnel. There were some concrete barriers set up in front of the building but a suicide truck loaded with explosives drove through the barriers at speed and crashed into the building itself, exploding and bringing the building to the ground.

It got really serious in Saudi after the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996. All US government facilities began security arrangements in earnest. Saudi Security Forces required all western utilized housing compounds to secure their compounds as well.

[chuckd]

I did read one news items today. It seems Jeff Zucker, CEO of CNN, has claimed he won't be shamed into covering Benghazi.

He has decided to take the ostrich approach so many of our good members seem to enjoy. If there is any bad news, he won't have to listen to it if his head is buried in the sand.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CNN President Jeff Zucker: We won’t be ‘shamed’ into covering Benghazi hearings

By Jessica Chasmar-The Washington Times Tuesday, May 20, 2014

CNN President Jeff Zucker said Monday that he didn’t know whether his network will cover the Republican-led hearings on the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, arguing that CNN will not be “shamed” into reporting on something if it has no news value.

“We’re not going to be shamed into it by others who have political beliefs that want to try to have temper tantrums to shame other news organizations into covering something,” he said in an interview with the New York Times at the Deadline Club’s annual awards dinner in New York City, Mediaite reported.

“If it’s of real news value, we’ll cover it,” he added.

Read more:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/20/cnn-president-jeff-zucker-we-wont-be-shamed-coveri/#ixzz32MuTRXb0

Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

[chuckd]

Maybe Zucker was taking his lead from Obama himself.

Barrack seems to believe voters should just shut-up about Benghazi and Obamacare...continue voting Democrat and keep giving him their money.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Obama To Voters: Shut Up About Obamacare And Benghazi

Neil Munro

The nation shouldn’t be debating the nation’s health-care system or the jihadi attack in Benghazi in 2012, President Barack Obama complained at a May 19 fundraiser in Maryland.

“Yes, we can have a legitimate debate about does every government program work … [but] the debate we’re having right now is about, what, Benghazi? Obamacare?” Obama told his donors in the wealthy Potomac district of Maryland.

“It’s not serious [and] is not speaking to the real concerns that people have,” Obama insisted.

Obama’s complaints about the public’s debate over Obamacare and Benghazi came after he insisted to donors that his policies — such as doubled immigration of low-skill workers — would help the nation’s economy recover after the 2007 collapse of the government-created property bubble.

http://www.thedailydemocrat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=26498&Itemid=9

[folium]

Then and now - what a difference eh?

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2014/05/ronald-reagans-benghazi.html

n September of 1984, for the third time in eighteen months, jihadists bombed a U.S. government outpost in Beirut yet again. President Reagan acknowledged that the new security precautions that had been advocated by Congress hadn’t yet been implemented at the U.S. embassy annex that had been hit. The problem, the President admitted, was that the repairs hadn’t quite been completed on time. As he put it, “Anyone who’s ever had their kitchen done over knows that it never gets done as soon as you wish it would.” Imagine how Congressman Issa and Fox News would react to a similar explanation from President Obama today.

Your comparison to security arrangements in 1984 as compared to 2012 are not really very realistic. I don't know how long you have lived in the Middle East but in 1984 there were very limited security procedures being taken to protect US facilities and personnel. In 2012 virtually every US facility in the world had been bomb proofed...except apparently Benghazi. And therein lies one of the big problems.

The real buildup in security in the Middle East happened after 9/11/01 when Embassies and Consulates began to resemble armed fortresses. Prior to that there were few limitations to visiting a US Embassy or other facility in the Middle East.

As far as the US Marine barracks in Beirut was concerned, this was one of the first instances of a car bomb being used against US personnel. There were some concrete barriers set up in front of the building but a suicide truck loaded with explosives drove through the barriers at speed and crashed into the building itself, exploding and bringing the building to the ground.

It got really serious in Saudi after the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996. All US government facilities began security arrangements in earnest. Saudi Security Forces required all western utilized housing compounds to secure their compounds as well.

History teacher strikes again...

20 years earlier a VC car bomb attack in 1964 on the BOQ in the Brinks Hotel in Saigon killed 2 US personnel and wounded some 50 others. The VC used car bombs against the French, US and ARVN.

The concept of the car bomb was introduced to the Middle East by the Stern Gang (Jewish insurgents/terrorists/future political leaders depending on your POV) and were used widely against British and Palestinian targets.

[Ulysses G.]

Actually, The first car bomb in the Middle East was used for the assassination attempt on Ottoman Sultan Abdul Hamid II in 1905 in Istanbul by Armenian separatists and the Palestinian Arabs started bombing Jewish civilians long before the Stern Gang ever existed, but the main issue about Benghazi was the lie about a YouTube video causing the attack on the consulate and the subsequent COVER UP for political expediency. It is always the COVER UP that gets politicians.

Edited May 22, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[Ulysses G.]

The democrats did a 180 turn on the Benghazi select committee as I predicted. How else could they obstruct the proceedings?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/05/21/pelosi-democrats-benghazi/9377603/

[Chicog]

The democrats did a 180 turn on the Benghazi select committee as I predicted. How else could they obstruct the proceedings?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/05/21/pelosi-democrats-benghazi/9377603/

Hardly a 180, they have been discussing the scope and terms of reference with the Republicans.

Not that anyone will stick to them of course.

[chuckd]

Then and now - what a difference eh?

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2014/05/ronald-reagans-benghazi.html

n September of 1984, for the third time in eighteen months, jihadists bombed a U.S. government outpost in Beirut yet again. President Reagan acknowledged that the new security precautions that had been advocated by Congress hadn’t yet been implemented at the U.S. embassy annex that had been hit. The problem, the President admitted, was that the repairs hadn’t quite been completed on time. As he put it, “Anyone who’s ever had their kitchen done over knows that it never gets done as soon as you wish it would.” Imagine how Congressman Issa and Fox News would react to a similar explanation from President Obama today.

Your comparison to security arrangements in 1984 as compared to 2012 are not really very realistic. I don't know how long you have lived in the Middle East but in 1984 there were very limited security procedures being taken to protect US facilities and personnel. In 2012 virtually every US facility in the world had been bomb proofed...except apparently Benghazi. And therein lies one of the big problems.

The real buildup in security in the Middle East happened after 9/11/01 when Embassies and Consulates began to resemble armed fortresses. Prior to that there were few limitations to visiting a US Embassy or other facility in the Middle East.

As far as the US Marine barracks in Beirut was concerned, this was one of the first instances of a car bomb being used against US personnel. There were some concrete barriers set up in front of the building but a suicide truck loaded with explosives drove through the barriers at speed and crashed into the building itself, exploding and bringing the building to the ground.

It got really serious in Saudi after the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996. All US government facilities began security arrangements in earnest. Saudi Security Forces required all western utilized housing compounds to secure their compounds as well.

History teacher strikes again...

20 years earlier a VC car bomb attack in 1964 on the BOQ in the Brinks Hotel in Saigon killed 2 US personnel and wounded some 50 others. The VC used car bombs against the French, US and ARVN.

The concept of the car bomb was introduced to the Middle East by the Stern Gang (Jewish insurgents/terrorists/future political leaders depending on your POV) and were used widely against British and Palestinian targets.

I said "one of the first", not "the first".

I now recall the earlier one but thanks for the history lesson.

[Chicog]

Then and now - what a difference eh?

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2014/05/ronald-reagans-benghazi.html

n September of 1984, for the third time in eighteen months, jihadists bombed a U.S. government outpost in Beirut yet again. President Reagan acknowledged that the new security precautions that had been advocated by Congress hadn’t yet been implemented at the U.S. embassy annex that had been hit. The problem, the President admitted, was that the repairs hadn’t quite been completed on time. As he put it, “Anyone who’s ever had their kitchen done over knows that it never gets done as soon as you wish it would.” Imagine how Congressman Issa and Fox News would react to a similar explanation from President Obama today.

Your comparison to security arrangements in 1984 as compared to 2012 are not really very realistic. I don't know how long you have lived in the Middle East but in 1984 there were very limited security procedures being taken to protect US facilities and personnel. In 2012 virtually every US facility in the world had been bomb proofed...except apparently Benghazi. And therein lies one of the big problems.

The real buildup in security in the Middle East happened after 9/11/01 when Embassies and Consulates began to resemble armed fortresses. Prior to that there were few limitations to visiting a US Embassy or other facility in the Middle East.

As far as the US Marine barracks in Beirut was concerned, this was one of the first instances of a car bomb being used against US personnel. There were some concrete barriers set up in front of the building but a suicide truck loaded with explosives drove through the barriers at speed and crashed into the building itself, exploding and bringing the building to the ground.

It got really serious in Saudi after the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996. All US government facilities began security arrangements in earnest. Saudi Security Forces required all western utilized housing compounds to secure their compounds as well.

I'm aware of all that Chuck, but the point of that article was the difference in the way the two parties united to deal with the problem rather than what happens these days. Perhaps elected officials were less mercenary and more honourable in days gone by. (What am I saying? Perhaps?! )

The last two sentences of the quote sum it up. Fox and Issa et al would be screaming from the rooftops about 'the president trivialising the deaths of Americans", etc.

They now indulge in petty point scoring; they can't score with Obamacare any more, they can't score with the economy, so now they are back to Benghazi again. The bottom line is they do not give a toss about the Ambassador's death nor anyone else's. They are simply upset about the fact that the Whitehouse may have stopped them scoring a few more election points with a bit of delaying tactics, and I think you know it. That is the extent of the "cover up", and frankly when Obama writes it in his autobiography those that know it now will tap their noses and chuckle.

But unless Gowdy has the smoking gun he claims, I do believe the issue is simply going to die a death as soon as the midterms are over.

I really can't see it being a hindrance for Hillary, should she choose to run. In fact I think the Republicans would actually hurt their cause if they keep pressing it, as the Fox Poll showed.

[snarky66]

No one in the obama administration is ever held to account for anything. He first heard about it on the nightly news.

[folium]

Actually, The first car bomb in the Middle East was used for the assassination attempt on Ottoman Sultan Abdul Hamid II in 1905 in Istanbul by Armenian separatists and the Palestinian Arabs started bombing Jewish civilians long before the Stern Gang ever existed, but the main issue about Benghazi was the lie about a YouTube video causing the attack on the consulate and the subsequent COVER UP for political expediency. It is always the COVER UP that gets politicians.

Despite what it says in Wiki, the assassination attempt in 1905 aimed at Hamid used a carriage to deliver the device. Cars were still fairly rare and very expensive items in Istanbul in 1905. Even the Sultan used a horse-drawn carriage for much of his travels within the city. Probably more reliable!

The confusion probably stems from the fact that early cars were often referred to as "horse-less carriages".

Anyway back to Benghazi.....

[Chicog]

No one in the obama administration is ever held to account for anything. He first heard about it on the nightly news.

You've been watching Fox News again, haven't you?

[chuckd]

How about YouTube? There are quite a few YouTube videos showing Rep. Gowdy in session. Some who have posted Gowdy is not smart might want to watch a few of them.

These questions, at a minimum, needs answers and it is unlikely the main stream media is interested enough to seek those answers.

Thus, the reason for the special committee.

[Chicog]

I suppose it's only natural that he keeps repeating the same questions since many of them have been answered repeatedly.

But still, it should speed things up, because the witnesses will have their responses ready.

[Chicog]

The following Democratic representatives will be members of the panel:

Elijah Cummings of Maryland, the senior Democrat on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee; Adam Smith of Washington, the senior Democrat on House Armed Services; Adam Schiff, a member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; Linda Sanchez of California, an Ethics Committee member; and Tammy Duckworth of Illinois, who serves on the Armed Services Committee and is an Iraq war veteran.

Pelosi also said that negotiations with Boehner on the operation of the special congressional panel had not produced any agreement.

Those discussions centered on whether Democratic members of the panel would have input on witnesses that would be subpoenaed and whether Democrats could participate in interviewing witnesses before hearings.

So it's open season then.

Re that last bit: They interview witnesses before hearings? Kinda defeats the object doesn't it? Or is that just coaching?

http://bangordailynews.com/2014/05/21/news/nation/pelosi-names-5-democrats-to-house-panel-on-benghazi-attack/?ref=latest

[Ulysses G.]

they can't score with Obamacare any more, they can't score with the economy, so now they are back to Benghazi again.

Huh? Democrats are still running from Obamacare and real unemployment has not gotten much better. The official rate has gone down, because so many people have stopped looking for a job. On top of that, most Americans don't believe the administration's version of what happened at Benghazi. That head-in-the-sand, Media Matters propaganda is getting stale.

Edited May 22, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[snarky66]

Some foreigners are unaware of the concept of deposing witnesses.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[snarky66]

More from Faux News

Caution: radical leftists are not gonna like this video.

For everyone else Prost

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDIzsHGZn0I

[Chicog]

More from Faux News

Caution: radical leftists are not gonna like this video.

For everyone else Prost

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDIzsHGZn0I

"Rumours"..... "Claims"....... wow yes, that's a smoking gun if ever I saw one.

[Chicog]

Some foreigners are unaware of the concept of deposing witnesses.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

If they are simply deposing them, how could anyone on the committee be excluded?

Edited May 23, 2014 by Chicog

[chuckd]

Some foreigners are unaware of the concept of deposing witnesses.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

If they are simply deposing them, how could anyone on the committee be excluded?

Here is a link to the House rules on Depositions. Knock yourself out.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/95-949.pdf

[chuckd]

This stuff seems to be coming out from under its rock. Makes one wonder where it will all lead.

My bet is 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

White House Contacted YouTube During Benghazi Attack, Darrell Issa Says

Jonathan Karl

May 22, 2014 1:42pm

A still-classified State Department e-mail says that one of the first responses from the White House to the Benghazi attack was to contact YouTube to warn of the “ramifications” of allowing the posting of an anti-Islamic video, according to Rep. Darrell Issa, the Republican chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

The memo suggests that even as the attack was still underway — and before the CIA began the process of compiling talking points on its analysis of what happened — the White House believed it was in retaliation for a controversial video.

The subject line of the e-mail, which was sent at 9:11 p.m. Eastern Time on the night of the attack, is “Update on Response to actions – Libya.” The e-mail was written hours before the attack was over.

Issa has asked the White House to declassify and release the document. In the meantime he has inserted a sentence from the e-mail in the Congressional Record....“White House is reaching out to U-Tube [sic] to advice ramification of the posting of the Pastor Jon video,”

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/05/white-house-contacted-youtube-during-benghazi-attack-darrell-issa-says/

[Chicog]

This stuff seems to be coming out from under its rock. Makes one wonder where it will all lead.

My bet is 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

White House Contacted YouTube During Benghazi Attack, Darrell Issa Says

Jonathan Karl

May 22, 2014 1:42pm

A still-classified State Department e-mail says that one of the first responses from the White House to the Benghazi attack was to contact YouTube to warn of the “ramifications” of allowing the posting of an anti-Islamic video, according to Rep. Darrell Issa, the Republican chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

The memo suggests that even as the attack was still underway — and before the CIA began the process of compiling talking points on its analysis of what happened — the White House believed it was in retaliation for a controversial video.

The subject line of the e-mail, which was sent at 9:11 p.m. Eastern Time on the night of the attack, is “Update on Response to actions – Libya.” The e-mail was written hours before the attack was over.

Issa has asked the White House to declassify and release the document. In the meantime he has inserted a sentence from the e-mail in the Congressional Record....“White House is reaching out to U-Tube [sic] to advice ramification of the posting of the Pastor Jon video,”

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/05/white-house-contacted-youtube-during-benghazi-attack-darrell-issa-says/

Again - this is old news, it was already reported in 2012, and the GOP have had ample time to "investigate" it - so why is it news now?

One would have thought the fact that the White House contacted Youtube over the video - before the actual attack that killed the civilians commenced in case you're wondering - would actually bolster their initial view that the attack was related to the video.

[chuckd]

This stuff seems to be coming out from under its rock. Makes one wonder where it will all lead.

My bet is 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

White House Contacted YouTube During Benghazi Attack, Darrell Issa Says

Jonathan Karl

May 22, 2014 1:42pm

A still-classified State Department e-mail says that one of the first responses from the White House to the Benghazi attack was to contact YouTube to warn of the “ramifications” of allowing the posting of an anti-Islamic video, according to Rep. Darrell Issa, the Republican chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

The memo suggests that even as the attack was still underway — and before the CIA began the process of compiling talking points on its analysis of what happened — the White House believed it was in retaliation for a controversial video.

The subject line of the e-mail, which was sent at 9:11 p.m. Eastern Time on the night of the attack, is “Update on Response to actions – Libya.” The e-mail was written hours before the attack was over.

Issa has asked the White House to declassify and release the document. In the meantime he has inserted a sentence from the e-mail in the Congressional Record....“White House is reaching out to U-Tube [sic] to advice ramification of the posting of the Pastor Jon video,”

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/05/white-house-contacted-youtube-during-benghazi-attack-darrell-issa-says/

Again - this is old news, it was already reported in 2012, and the GOP have had ample time to "investigate" it - so why is it news now?

One would have thought the fact that the White House contacted Youtube over the video - before the actual attack that killed the civilians commenced in case you're wondering - would actually bolster their initial view that the attack was related to the video.

1. You state: One would have thought the fact that the White House contacted Youtube over the video - before the actual attack that killed the civilians commenced in case you're wondering - would actually bolster their initial view that the attack was related to the video.

You might want to check the time differential between Washington, DC, and Benghazi. Benghazi is six hours ahead of DC, meaning the State Department e-mail lin question being sent at 9:11 PM equated to 03:11 AM Benghazi time.

Ambassador Stevens and Sean Smith were long dead when the e-mail from State was dispatched. Glenn Doherty and Tyrone Woods were killed approximately one hour AFTER the State Department message about the video went out.

2. Ambassador Hicks testified before Congress that he called it a terrorist attack when he first contacted the State Department and denied there was ever a protest in Benghazi over the film.

State was already in a "full spin" mode while the attack was still on-going.

From the linked article:

"“We actually think this proves what we’ve said. We were concerned about the video, given all the protests in region,” the official said. And the intelligence community “was also concerned about the video.”

Issa has an entirely different view. He contends the document contradicts the White House assertion that it was the CIA who first pinned blame for the attack on protests in response to the anti-Islamic video.

“The e-mail shows the White House had hurried to settle on a false narrative — one at odds with the conclusions reached by those on the ground — before Americans were even out of harm’s way or the intelligence community had made an impartial examination of available evidence,” Issa said."

3. Following is a link to the actual timeline of the atack. As it says, all times are "local".

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/06/politics/benghazi-attack-timeline/

[Chicog]

Not what I'm reading Chuck:

A still-classified State Department e-mail says that one of the first responses from the White House to the Benghazi attack was to contact YouTube to warn of the "ramifications" of allowing the posting of an anti-Islamic video, according to Rep. Darrell Issa, the Republican chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

[...]

The subject line of the e-mail, which was sent at 9:11 p.m. Eastern Time on the night of the attack, is "Update on Response to actions - Libya." The was written hours before the attack was over.

According to the Pentagon's timeline, the first assault began at 9:42 p.m. Benghazi time, or 3:42 p.m. ET. It was over by 5:30 p.m. ET, many hours before the State Department email referencing communications with YouTube. The second assault did not begin until 5:15 a.m. in Benghazi the next day -- 11:15 p.m.* in D.C., hours after the email was sent.

Pentagon Timeline

Quoted Article

More to the point, while finding that I also found this, which makes it seem perfectly reasonable to assume an attack on an embassy (or consulate in this case) would be linked to the video. It's normal behaviour for the bearded crazies.

Posted: Sep 13, 2012 4:58 AM ET Last Updated: Sep 14, 2012 3:59 AM ET

Protests over an American film ridiculing the Prophet Muhammad spread to a number of countries in the Muslim world, including Yemen, Egypt and Iran — and the demonstration in the Egyptian capital could grow considerably today.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/protests-over-muhammad-video-spread-to-more-u-s-embassies-1.1219824

Edited May 23, 2014 by Chicog

[chuckd]

Perhaps we have a little disagreement over semantics.

Who are you calling the "civilians"?

Is it all four or only the last two victims?

Edit in: Your edit caught my post in transit. Two ships passing in the night.

Your link trying to justify the video story was published two days after the attack took place. Of course by then State was in full flow on the video excuse.\

Edit #2:

Your link closes with these statements:

U.S. President Barack Obama on Thursday reiterated his vow to "bring to justice" those who launched the Benghazi assault.

"I want people around the world to hear me, to all those who would do us harm: no act of terror will go unpunished," he said at a campaign event in Golden, Colorado.

Representative Gowdy would also like to know why nobody has, as yet, been brought to justice as Obama promised.

Edited May 23, 2014 by chuckd

[Chicog]

Perhaps we have a little disagreement over semantics.

Who are you calling the "civilians"?

OK let's just call them Americans, I wasn't attempting to be pedantic.

Your link trying to justify the video story was published two days after the attack took place. Of course by then State was in full flow on the video excuse.

Here's one from 23:30 BST on the day of the attack.

Protests in Cairo and Benghazi over American film

Protesters breach US embassy in Cairo and destroy American flag in protest against film they say insults Prophet Muhammad

Egyptian protesters, largely ultraconservative Islamists, climbed the walls of the US embassy in Cairo on Tuesday, made their way into the courtyard and brought down the flag, replacing it with a black flag with an Islamic inscription to protest a film attacking Islam's prophet, Muhammad.

<snip>

In a sign of growing anger over the film, Libyans set fire to the US consulate in the eastern city of Benghazi and fired in the air after a protest against the film. Witnesses said much of the consulate was burned.

<snip>

The protests came after some Egyptian media have been reporting on the film for several days, with ultraconservative clerics going on air to denounce it.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/sep/11/egypt-protest

Plenty there - from a left wing newspaper granted - to suggest that the protests were against the video, no?

Edited May 23, 2014 by Chicog

[Ulysses G.]

The point is that US Intelligence knew within 24 hours that it was NOT the video that caused the attack and that there had been no protest. It does not matter what some left wing reporter came up with and the White House glommed onto to as an excuse stick to their narrative about having demolished al Qeada. The administration knew that it was not true, but they kept repeating it for 2 weeks,.

Edited May 23, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[Chicog]

The point is that US Intelligence knew within 24 hours that it was NOT the video that caused the attack and that there had been no protest. It does not matter what some left wing reporter came up with and the White House glommed onto to as an excuse stick to their narrative about having demolished al Qeada.

Actually it was the Egyptian press days before the attack if you bothered to read.

But it begs the question - this email is neither new nor does it contradict the WH narrative.

So why is it being brought up?

I'll have to turn on Fox News now to see how they are spinning it.

Added: That was good timing. Maria Molina w00t w00t!

Edited May 23, 2014 by Chicog

[Ulysses G.]

I did bother to read it. The Egyptian press was reporting on what happened in Eqypt. The Guardian newspaper lumped Egypt and Benghazi together. American Intelligence knew almost right away that was not correct, but the White House kept repeating that story for 2 weeks. They even told the families of the dead Americans - at the funerals - that they were going to put the guy who made the video in jail, which they did, even though they knew that his video had little to do with the terrorist attack at Benghazi.

Edited May 23, 2014 by Ulysses G.