October 02, 2012
BenghaziGate Blows Up, By The Numbers
Whilst the Editorial Staff was intently peering at boring spreadsheets, BenghaziGate hit the proverbial fan. Let's run it down:
1. White House talking points based on cherry picked intel? Sacre bleu!
The arrogant cowboy Bush President Obama has much to answer for!
Lake reports that there was a briefing from the CIA blaming the attack on the video. However, the intelligence was based on one intelligence intercept and ignored all the other intelligence that we had about the attack.The intelligence that helped inform those talking points—and what the U.S. public would ultimately be told—came in part from an intercept of a phone call between one of the alleged attackers and a middle manager from al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), the group’s north African affiliate, according to U.S. officials familiar with the intercept. In the call, the alleged attacker said the locals went forward with the attack only after watching the riots that same day at the U.S. embassy in Cairo.
However, the intercept was one of several monitored communications during and after the attacks between members of a local militia called Ansar al-Sharia and AQIM, which, taken together, suggest the assault was in fact a premeditated terrorist attack, according to U.S. intelligence and counter-terrorism officials not authorized to talk to the press.
In one of the calls, for example, members of Ansar al-Sharia bragged about their successful attack against the American consulate and the U.S. ambassador.
It’s unclear why the talking points said the attacks were spontaneous and why they didn’t mention the possibility of al Qaeda involvement, given the content of the intercepts and the organizations the speakers were affiliated with. One U.S. intelligence officer said the widely distributed assessment was an example of “cherry picking,” or choosing one piece of intelligence and ignoring other pieces, to support a preferred thesis.
2. Via DirectorBlue, CNN sources say White House lied about Benghazi attack
In the five months leading up to this year’s 9/11 anniversary, there were two bombings on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi and increasing threats to and attacks on the Libyan nationals hired to provide security at the U.S. missions in Tripoli and Benghazi.
Details on these alleged incidents stem in part from the testimony of a handful of whistleblowers who approached the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in the days and weeks following the attack on the Benghazi consulate.
4. Prior to 9/11 attack and after "long line of attacks on Western diplomats and officials in Libya", U.S. Embassy requested more security ... and was turned down by Washington:
... multiple U.S. federal government officials have confirmed to the Committee that, prior to the September 11 attack, the U.S. mission in Libya made repeated requests for increased security in Benghazi,” Issa and Chaffetz added (my emphasis). “The mission in Libya, however, was denied these resources by officials in Washington.”
The committee noted 13 “security threats” in Benghazi, including an attempt to assassinate the British ambassador to Libya.
5. FBI asked for military security detail to provide perimeter support for their investigation... and was turned down.
6. White House response to whistleblowers' allegations: "No comment".
Doesn't look good, does it? Do us a favor, though: don't take your eye off the real danger facing America.
Posted by Cassandra at October 2, 2012 05:51 PM
TrackBack URL for this entry:
There you going, confusing things with the facts again. Just keep saying ... its all Bush's fault
Posted by: Frodo at October 2, 2012 08:39 PM
A. The movie was SO bad that everyone spontaneously combusted in anger and riots . . . BUT
B. Forgot to show up at the specific embassies and RIOT . . and
C. Those *cough* really REALLY NICE people who follow that other religion kinda LIKE US! even while they shoot at us and kill our countrymen and yell at our embassies . . and
D. Nothing to see here! Move along!! We really most definitely KNOW what we are doing . . . . maybe
Posted by: Tribbles at October 3, 2012 12:17 AM
It was, or certainly should have been, an absolute no brainer that an unprotected Ambassador should not be in a vulnerable location on the anniversary of 9/11.
Who sent him in there? Why? Cui bono?
Posted by: CAPT Mongo at October 3, 2012 09:07 AM