• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ex-White House Official On Benghazi: 'Dude, This Was Like Two Years Ago'

Filthy McNasty said:
No they didn't. Coming the day after Brigadier General Lovell's testimony you have to have your head way way up in fantasy clouds or buried far into the sand to not know that. I'd say good try, but it was strictly speaking a pathetic try.
Click to expand...

Actually, it was the CIA who thought the attack was a result of the protests.


"....Morell also detailed the sequence of events in which he learned that the CIA's initial assessment, that there had been a protest outside the U.S. installation and extremists had made an "opportunistic" attack. He said the assessment was made based on news and intelligence reports made in the days following the attack, and it was not until four days later, on September 15, that he received an email from the station chief saying there was no protest...."

In the end, Morell said, it is still unclear if the YouTube video may have been part of the motivation behind the attack. Instead, he said analysts believe it could have been related to the video or revenge for the death of al Qaida leader Abu Yahya al-Libi.

“We never thought that a protest and a terrorist attack were mutually exclusive," Morell said, adding, "There’s a difference between what it was, which was a terrorist attack, and what motivated it. Those are two completely different things."......
Click to expand...

Read more: Former CIA director Morell denies misleading American people on Benghazi - UPI.com

Gen. Lowell contradicts the CIA testimony. But how would he know what the motivation for the attack was considering the guys who did the attack have never been caught? It doesn't look like Issa is too interested in catching them either....why, because they might contradict him and ruin his circus act?
 
Last edited:
Mithros said:
RhodesEmail022.jpg

The email doesn't mention "attacks". It says that the protests were over a video... which they were.
Click to expand...

again that video had nothing to do with it
 
Moot said:
Actually, it was the CIA who thought the attack was a result of the protests.




Read more: Former CIA director Morell denies misleading American people on Benghazi - UPI.com
Click to expand...



Heya Moot.....nah. Actually the Libyans warned us 3 days in advance of the attack. That would be State and the CIA they told.


Libya: We gave US three-day warning of Benghazi attack.....
Tuesday 18 September 2012


American diplomats were warned of possible violent unrest in Benghazi three days before the killings of US Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three members of his team, Libyan security officials say.

The claim came as the country's interim President, Mohammed el-Megarif, said his government had information that the attack on the US consulate had been planned by an Islamist group with links to al-Qa'ida and with foreigners taking part.

However, the American ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, insisted that the killings had resulted from a demonstration against a film about the Prophet Mohamed, replicating protests in Cairo, which had been "hijacked" and got out of control.

The Independent has reported diplomatic sources who said that the threat of an attack against US interests in the region was known to the US administration 48 hours before it took place. The alert was issued by the State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security, but not made public. A State Department spokesman maintained: "We are not aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the US Mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent."

But President Megarif told the American station National Public Radio: "We firmly believe that this was a pre-calculated, pre-planned attack that was carried out specifically to attack the US Consulate. A few of those who joined in were foreigners who had entered Libya from different directions, some of them definitely from Mali and Algeria."

A senior official of the biggest militia in Benghazi, the February 17th Brigade, told CNN that he had warned US diplomats of a rapidly deteriorating security situation in Benghazi three days before the attack. "The situation is frightening, it scares us," he said he had stressed during the meeting. Mr Stevens had been back in Libya for only a short time before US security officials decided it would be safe to make the journey to Benghazi during the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. The British consulate in the city was shut after an ambush of a convoy carrying Dominic Asquith, the UK ambassador, in which his bodyguard were injured. The UN and International Committee of the Red Cross offices had been bombed and there had been a spate of political assassinations.

However, Ms Rice denied the Benghazi attack was pre-planned. She said: "Our current best assessment... is that... it was a spontaneous – not a premeditated – response to what had transpired in Cairo. "A small number of people came to the consulate. It seems to have been hijacked by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons... And it then evolved from there." Mr Stevens was separated from his protection team during the attack. He was found, it is thought unconscious, by locals who took him to hospital where, doctors said, he died from smoke inhalation.....snip~

Libya: We gave US three-day warning of Benghazi attack - Africa - World - The Independent

Which doesn't count the Libyan FM telling the Brits and the BBC in the UK that the attacked was planned.
 
Mithros said:
I'd suggest a google search first. Just search "protest" in the range of 09/10/2012-09/11/2012.

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/20...-sparks-anti-u-s-protests-in-egypt-and-libya/
American killed in Libya during protests about Prophet Muhammad video - World News
Anti-Islam film sparks Libya, Egypt protests
Click to expand...

It wont load for some reason.

Did those protest happen before or after the E-mail was sent ?

And dont get me wrong, Rice was being prepped for the Sunday talk shows to spread a lie that was Politically beneficial to Obama, no question about it.

The E-mail refered to protest in the plural. So which protest was he talking about ?
 
Moot said:
That was the original assessment by the CIA.
Click to expand...


A ex CIA official just testified under Oath that the Video narrative wasn't part of their talking points.

So who brought the Video fals narrative into it ?

The WH ofcourse.
 
Fenton said:
Im trying to figure out if there were actual protest over a video going on when that E-mail was sent.

Or was there just one, whichh would be their lie about Benghazzi being because of a video.
Click to expand...

Here is what All of Team O had to say on Sept 12. 2012......There is no getting around what they told the MS Media.


Sept.12: Obama Labels Attack ‘Act of Terror,’ Not ‘Terrorism’
Sept. 12: Clinton issues a statement confirming that four U.S. officials, not one, had been killed. She called it a “violent attack.”
Sept. 12: Clinton delivers a speech at the State Department to condemn the attack in Benghazi and to praise the victims as “heroes.” She again makes reference to the anti-Muslim video in similar language.

Sept. 12: After his Rose Garden speech, Obama tapes an interview for “60 Minutes.” Obama says he didn’t use the word “terrorism” in his Rose Garden speech because “it’s too early to know exactly how this came about.” Steve Kroft, the show’s host, wonders how the attack could be described as a “mob action” since the attackers were “very heavily armed.” Obama says “we’re still investigating,” but he suspects “folks involved in this . . . were looking to target Americans from the start.”

Sept. 12: Senior administration officials, who did not permit use of their names, hold a briefing with reporters to answer questions about the attack. Twice officials characterize those involved in the attack as “extremists.” In one case, an official identified only as “senior administration official one” is asked by Fox News reporter Justin Fishel if the administration had ruled out the possibly that the attack was in response to the anti-Muslim video. The official says, “We just don’t know.”

Sept. 12, 4:09 p.m.: At a press briefing en route to Las Vegas, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney is asked, “Does the White House believe that the attack in Benghazi was planned and premeditated?” He responds, “It’s too early for us to make that judgment. I think — I know that this is being investigated, and we’re working with the Libyan government to investigate the incident. So I would not want to speculate on that at this time.”

Sept. 12: Libya’s deputy ambassador to London, Ahmad Jibril, tells the BBC that Ansar al-Sharia was behind the attack. The little-known militant group issues a statement that says it “didn’t participate as a sole entity,” neither confirming nor denying the report.

Sept. 12, 6:06 p.m.: Beth Jones, the acting assistant secretary of state for the Near East, sends an email to top State Department officials that reads in part: “[T]he group that conducted the attacks, Ansar al-Sharia, is affiliated with Islamic extremists.” (An excerpt of Jones’ email was read by Rep. Trey Gowdy at the May 8, 2013, House oversight hearing.)

Sept. 12: Citing unnamed “U.S. government officials,” Reuters reports that “the Benghazi attack may have been planned in advance” and that members of Ansar al-Sharia “may have been involved.” Reuters quotes one of the U.S. officials as saying: “It bears the hallmarks of an organized attack.”.....snip~

Benghazi Timeline

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...-reinforce-white-house-pushing-video-w-9.html
 
Fenton said:
Im trying to figure out if there were actual protest over a video going on when that E-mail was sent.

Or was there just one, whichh would be their lie about Benghazzi being because of a video.
Click to expand...
Contemporary forums are great resources. Here's one which may be useful. Also, note how the conservative line of attack is that the protests were not the result of the video, but are indicative of the administrations failure.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...-violence-sweeps-across-23-world-nations.html
 
Fenton said:
A ex CIA official just testified under Oath that the Video narrative wasn't part of their talking points.

So who brought the Video fals narrative into it ?

The WH ofcourse.
Click to expand...

:lol:


Sept. 13: ‘Clearly Planned’ or ‘Spontaneous’ Attack?

Sept. 13: Clinton meets with Ali Suleiman Aujali — the Libyan ambassador to the U.S. — at a State Department event to mark the end of Ramadan. Ambassador Aujali apologizes to Clinton for what he called “this terrorist attack which took place against the American consulate in Libya.” Clinton, in her remarks, does not refer to it as a terrorist attack. She condemns the anti-Muslim video, but adds that there is “never any justification for violent acts of this kind.”

Clinton: Religious freedom and religious tolerance are essential to the stability of any nation, any people. Hatred and violence in the name of religion only poison the well. All people of faith and good will know that the actions of a small and savage group in Benghazi do not honor religion or God in any way. Nor do they speak for the more than 1 billion Muslims around the world, many of whom have shown an outpouring of support during this time.

Unfortunately, however, over the last 24 hours, we have also seen violence spread elsewhere. Some seek to justify this behavior as a response to inflammatory, despicable material posted on the Internet. As I said earlier today, the United States rejects both the content and the message of that video. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. At our meeting earlier today, my colleague, the foreign minister of Morocco, said that all prophets should be respected because they are all symbols of our humanity, for all humanity.

But both of us were crystal clear in this paramount message: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind. And we look to leaders around the world to stand up and speak out against violence, and to take steps to protect diplomatic missions from attack.

Sept. 13: At a daily press briefing, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland was asked if the Benghazi attack was “purely spontaneous or was premeditated by militants.” She declined to say, reiterating that the administration did not want to “jump to conclusions.”

Sept. 13: Clinton met with Moroccan Foreign Minister Saad-Eddine Al-Othmani. She condemned what she called the “disgusting and reprehensible” anti-Muslim video and the violence that it triggered. She said, “Islam, like other religions, respects the fundamental dignity of human beings, and it is a violation of that fundamental dignity to wage attacks on innocents. As long as there are those who are willing to shed blood and take innocent life in the name of religion, the name of God, the world will never know a true and lasting peace.”

Sept. 13: At a campaign event in Colorado, Obama again uses the phrase “act of terror.” He says: “I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished.”

Sept. 13: CNN reports that unnamed “State Department officials” say the incident in Benghazi was a “clearly planned military-type attack” unrelated to the anti-Muslim movie.

Sept. 14: White House Says No Evidence of Planned Attack.....snip~


http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...reinforce-white-house-pushing-video-w-10.html
 
MMC said:
Heya Moot.....nah. Actually the Libyans warned us 3 days in advance of the attack. That would be State and the CIA they told.


Libya: We gave US three-day warning of Benghazi attack.....
Tuesday 18 September 2012


Libya: We gave US three-day warning of Benghazi attack - Africa - World - The Independent

Which doesn't count the Libyan FM telling the Brits and the BBC in the UK that the attacked was planned.
Click to expand...

Hi MMC.

So are you saying that Stevens was also warned of the danger and made the decision to go to Benghazi, anyway?

Lets see now, there were protests over the anti-Islamic video going on all over the ME....it was the anniversary of 9/11....and Lybia was still mopping up after a civil war. Gee, not much potential for danger there.

Your link say...."Mr. Stevens had been back in Libya for only a short time before US security officials decided it would be safe to make the journey to Benghazi during the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

The British consulate in the city was shut after an ambush of a convoy carrying Dominic Asquith, the UK ambassador, in which his bodyguard were injured. The UN and International Committee of the Red Cross offices had been bombed and there had been a spate of political assassinations...."


Who were the "US security officials" that determined the journey to Benghazi was safe when all the other diplomatic consulates and Blue Cross had left the city? Yes, there were plenty of warnings...but inspite of the obvious and well known danger.....Stevens decided to go to Benghazi, anyway. Nobody ordered him to go....it was his choice.
 
Last edited:
Oops!


Sept. 12: Libya’s deputy ambassador to London, Ahmad Jibril, tells the BBC that Ansar al-Sharia was behind the attack. The little-known militant group issues a statement that says it “didn’t participate as a sole entity,” neither confirming nor denying the report.

Sept. 12, 6:06 p.m.: Beth Jones, the acting assistant secretary of state for the Near East, sends an email to top State Department officials that reads in part: “[T]he group that conducted the attacks, Ansar al-Sharia, is affiliated with Islamic extremists.” (An excerpt of Jones’ email was read by Rep. Trey Gowdy at the May 8, 2013, House oversight hearing.)

Sept. 12: Citing unnamed “U.S. government officials,” Reuters reports that “the Benghazi attack may have been planned in advance” and that members of Ansar al-Sharia “may have been involved.” Reuters quotes one of the U.S. officials as saying: “It bears the hallmarks of an organized attack.”.....snip~

Benghazi Timeline

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...reinforce-white-house-pushing-video-w-17.html


Now remember this is all still on the 12th and Team O is denying it is a planned attack still on the Sept 14th. 2 days later and still trying to stick to the Anti Muslim Video BS.
 
Last edited:
MMC said:
Oops!


Sept. 12: Libya’s deputy ambassador to London, Ahmad Jibril, tells the BBC that Ansar al-Sharia was behind the attack. The little-known militant group issues a statement that says it “didn’t participate as a sole entity,” neither confirming nor denying the report.

Sept. 12, 6:06 p.m.: Beth Jones, the acting assistant secretary of state for the Near East, sends an email to top State Department officials that reads in part: “[T]he group that conducted the attacks, Ansar al-Sharia, is affiliated with Islamic extremists.” (An excerpt of Jones’ email was read by Rep. Trey Gowdy at the May 8, 2013, House oversight hearing.)

Sept. 12: Citing unnamed “U.S. government officials,” Reuters reports that “the Benghazi attack may have been planned in advance” and that members of Ansar al-Sharia “may have been involved.” Reuters quotes one of the U.S. officials as saying: “It bears the hallmarks of an organized attack.”.....snip~

Benghazi Timeline

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...reinforce-white-house-pushing-video-w-17.html
Click to expand...

here is a bigger question.

why is all this money being spent on investigating a supposed coverup, when it could be better spent discussing ways to make sure that such a tragedy never happens again.
 
Moot said:
Hi MMC.

So are you saying that Stevens was also warned of the danger and made the decision to go to Benghazi, anyway?

Lets now, there were protests over the anti-Islamic video going on all over the ME....it was the anniversary of 9/11....and Lybia was still mopping up after a civil war. Gee, not much potential for danger there.

Your link say...."Mr. Stevens had been back in Libya for only a short time before US security officials decided it would be safe to make the journey to Benghazi during the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. The British consulate in the city was shut after an ambush of a convoy carrying Dominic Asquith, the UK ambassador, in which his bodyguard were injured. The UN and International Committee of the Red Cross offices had been bombed and there had been a spate of political assassinations...."


Who were the US security officials that determined the journey to Benghazi was safe when all the other diplomatic consulates and Blue Cross had left the city?
Click to expand...


Nope, Stevens was in Tripoli and then sent to Benghazi to meet with the Turk Envoy earlier that night.


More details emerge on U.S. ambassador's last moments.....


Three days before the deadly assault on the United States consulate in Libya, a local security official says he met with American diplomats in the city and warned them about deteriorating security.

Jamal Mabrouk, a member of the February 17th Brigade, told CNN that he and a battalion commander had a meeting about the economy and security.

He said they told the diplomats that the security situation wasn't good for international business. <<<<< (What situation do you think they were talking about 3 days before the attack?) (What Business?)


Mabrouk said it was not the first time he has warned foreigners about the worsening security situation in the face of the growing presence of armed jihadist groups in the Benghazi area.

Mabrouk said he received a call from an official in Tripoli, who said he had been called by a "terrified" American in Benghazi.

The official was at the safe-house. Mabrouk says the Brigade asked the Americans if they needed help -- but were told that while the situation was dangerous, it was under control.

A few hours later, Mabrouk said he received another call from Tripoli about the arrival of a U.S. team at Benghazi airport that needed transport into the city.

He met the seven Americans, who were heavily armed but not in military uniform, on the runway and provided them with an armed escort, he said.

As soon as the two vehicles carrying the seven Americans arrived at the safe house, they came under intense attack -- including a volley of grenades and machine-gun fire. The assailants then fled......snip~

More details emerge on U.S. ambassador's last moments - CNN.com


Btw.....this is the one that Damages Team O beyond repair. This guy was telling our CIA and State People about the DETIORATING SECURITY in Benghazi 3days before the attack takes place.

Who decided to send Stevens to Benghazi despite the DIRECT warnings.

NOW as my CO would have said.....I WANT SOMEBODY's ASS! It don't stop until you give the ASS up......now run back and tell Obama I said So.
427809_457689890948529_1440798947_s.jpg
 
Last edited:
Mithros said:
And this thread was started before the Benghazi attacks.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...down-us-flag-attack-cairo-embassy-w-53-a.html
Click to expand...

Its dated 9/11.

And it referred to the Cairo attack which WAS NOT caused by a video.

The second post refers to the Benghazzi attack.

Wow ! Ben Rhodes WAS refering to Cairo and Benghazzi wasn't he ?

In that E-mail he called those two attacks "proetest" and wanted Rice to underscore that a VIDEO caused them.

Thanks for the info
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
here is a bigger question.

why is all this money being spent on investigating a supposed coverup, when it could be better spent discussing ways to make sure that such a tragedy never happens again.
Click to expand...

Did you forget.....Obama put the FBI in Libya to conduct an investigation. They have not concluded their business nor brought any to Justice yet.
 
Fenton said:
A ex CIA official just testified under Oath that the Video narrative wasn't part of their talking points.

So who brought the Video fals narrative into it ?

The WH ofcourse.
Click to expand...

The talking points given to Rice were written and edited by the CIA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom