Wednesday, November 21, 2012
*First this failure was four fold it was a failure on policy, preparation, tactical response to the attack, and the aftermath or coverup. The last three stem from the first, but two and three might be argued away as mis steps, errors or miscommunications at lower levels. One and Four were errors that fall on Obama fully.
* The video "The innocence of Muslims" has back story not fully investigated. I remember the arguments Clinton made in Kosovo that Muslims were suffering genocide and like Gaza videos, the militants knew how to play to the video to try to draw in the west. In this case, Sam Bacille (I know he has many aliases) had accomplices who intentionally tried to market and or disperse the video in Egypt to agitate for Coptics who have been the target of mass killings and bombings since the Arab Spring. My point is regardless of the motive, this was not a lone gunman or in this case videographer with with loopy ideas about an Islamic Davinci code. They were trying to instigate civil war so they could draw in the west. Would it have worked? Does it matter? It did in Kosovo where less than 2000 bodies were found where Clinton people said 100s of thousands would be found. I'm not bolstering Obama's false narrative. The video exists and played an ancillary role only in the fact that it "volumized" the Cairo attack which we now know was planned by Al Qaeda affiliates months before.
* Susan Rice told a lot of lies, but Victoria Nuland at the State Dept. did too and Jay Carney may have been the worst, but people seem to expect him to lie, so when they portray Rice as something a kin to a teleprompter reader with a script that comes from a musical chairs White House, then you can see where the model came from.
* On Meet the Press, Rice did not initially start with her CBS CYA disclaimer, ie, "There is an ongoing investigation (Now 70 days old), Our best assessment at this time (This could all be bullshit in 5 minutes), It appears from what we can ascertain from the best intel,... " Yes that disclaimor is sequential, Jeez! So on MTP she skipped that and launched in to "We know this was from the video" ... Later when Gregory, she fell back on the disclaimer. There is a difference between conditional statements and qualified responses and assertive declarative statements. She made many declarative statements. These were untrue.
* Rice claimed her words were religiously following the talking points, but in the talking points is says as one of the possible motives for the attack was the recent drone killing of Al Libi, which was an action of Obama, an action of the US government and based firmly on a policy of both. She states unequivocally, as did Carney over and over, this was based on the video, it was spontaneous, meaning no one was considering this before Sept 11, it happened as she said "after" the Libyans saw Cairo burning. Carny and Rice both said many times, "This had nothing to do with any US policy or action". Yet that goes against what we know was in the talking points about Al Libi. Susan Rice is lying. So was Carney, Nuland, and Obama who had access to the talking points, yet used this phrase.
* Rice is lying if she wants us to believe she had no outside information than what was on the memo. She had access to public info as we did. Obama supposedly said on Sept. 12 that this was an act of terror. We all saw it. How could she not have seen that. As you re-watch these interviews knowing what we know now, there are times where she literally goes five to six consecutive statements with each including at least one distinct and separate lie.
* The attacks on McCain, Grahm and Ayotte reminded me of Robert Byrd for some reason. I couldn't stand him, but he was so protective of the Senate at times that some times at moments like this when Democrats are openly lying under oath to the US Senate, he would pop up out of the blue and start ripping in to the Democrat liars on the floor of the Senate. That was cool. He's still an idiot.
*The statement that there was "no evidence that this was preplanned" was a lie. We know that the Consulate had been begging them and the bomb blast the month before would have most certainly been in the morning briefing. This comes back to McCain's remark that she is either lying or incompetent. If she did not know this, then it was Obama himself who witnessed the daily briefing and personally allowed her to do the full ginsburg ill prepared. For all we know, sending an ignorant person out to speak may have been a strategy. Nuland actually said, "literally", "I'm not very smart about these things".
* On MTP Rice said we knew Cairo would have unrest from video so preparations were made by calling on Egypt to help. Egypt later said they intentionally delayed the response. That was a failure by the White House to judge Morsi.
* On MTP Rice said when Obama heard of the Benghazi attack he sent security personnel to Tripoli and thn said the two SEALS were from that group. False. One was onsite the other came from Tripoli not into Tripoli. She is trying to claim Obama sent adequate security forces and he did not.
* Rice claimed the Cairo unrest was not premeditated and solely based on the video. One of the accomplices in Egypt of Sam Bacile provided the video to a media group in Egypt on Sept 8. It was unknown before that, yet Abdul (The Blind Sheink) Rahman's son announced the protest on the embassy 40 days before. His group Gamal Islamiya is a terror group that is part of Al Qaeda. Ayman Zawahiri's brother, also a terrorist working for AQ met with CNN within 24 hours before the protest and also explained the purpose was to get Rahman out of jail in the US.
* In June a member of Egypt's parliament, and a member of the terror group Gamal Islamiya, AQ front group visited the White House to ask for Rahman's release. Yes! Our White House. Yes that Al Qaeda. Yes, Al Qaeda given the OK to visit the White House by Obama's people.
* Morsi himself has asked Obama for Rahman's release.
* After watching how twisted the Obama folks twist facts around to portray it as having an opposite meaning, who can trust when Clapper says I changed the memo. This is a shell game. One person makes a broad statement, like Clapper, then it takes a week to get him under oath, which by the way he said the opposite under oath last week, then under oath and under questioning, he says something completely different. Then the White House comes out and tosses another meme on the floor for everyone to chase around for a week. They seem to believe that a chain of lies "plus time" is better than the truth. This is what Thomas Sowell calls "Cooling the Mark". The old conman trick of a side con on standby so if the Mark discovers you, the conman can spring the side con to inject doubt in the Mark long enough to skip town.
* Today the Gaza Israeli peace deal was postponed at the request of the White House in order for Hillary to arrive and take credit. During that time, more bombs fell, so who doesn't believe the Benghazi/Cairo narrative did not come up with Morsi and keep a close eye on the $2 Billion and the Attack Subs that were scheduled for delivery to Egypt. Keep in mind, Israel was shelling Gaza from Ships at sea, unmolested by subs.
* I still haven't heard any hard numbers or reliable proof on the veracity or volume of the "post Consulate attack" protest in the streets that supposedly showed how "America is seen by Iraqis as liberators"...oops I meant Libyans.
* The White House has admitted that during the attack Obama was in the Oval with Panetta and Biden. We also know the situation room was occupied and active with security staff monitoring the attack which went on for 8 hours. For those that do not know, the West Wing is extremely small. When you step out of the Oval there is the Roosevelt Room and the cabinet room and two hallways which you could walk maybe 20 0r 30 paces. The Situation Room is on the floor just below the west wing. It would take less than 60 seconds to come out from behind his desk and drop in to the Situation Room. Anyone that is trying to claim that Obama or even Panetta did not enter the situation room during that 8 hour period is lying. It is such close quarters that it would be like college guys in a dorm not hearing the keg party down the hall. This is very close. There is no way, he would have got the call, which came within minutes of the first shots and said, I'm gonna just hang out with Slow Joe while my political life hangs in the balance, never mind the actual lives at risk. It is probably the case that they admitted the Panetta meeting, because according to logs and scheduling, this would have been easily discovered, so why not cop to it now. Yet they still evade on the Situation Room.
There are just too many lies to mention here, but I will come back later and add more.