The Obama White House sent out another dupe today, a kid named Pfeffer, to spin and lie about the various scandals swirling around the President. As long as you have Alzheimer’s disease or are a moron incapable of reading, you will find nothing troubling about the White House desperate attempts to recast what the President and his lackey’s have said about Benghazi. Fortunately, there is this thing called the internet. You can go on the internet and look at what was actually said by key players.
Let’s take Ambassador Susan Rice. She was sent out on the Sunday talk shows on 16 September to push the lie–a total goddamn lie–that the protests were inspired by a “hateful video” and that Al Qaeda was not involved. Here is the CBS transcript from that day:
SUSAN RICE: They are not on the ground yet, but they have already begun looking at all sorts of evidence of– of various sorts already available to them and to us. And they will get on the ground and continue the investigation. So we’ll want to see the results of that investigation to draw any definitive conclusions. But based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy—
BOB SCHIEFFER: Mm-Hm.
SUSAN RICE: —sparked by this hateful video. But soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that– in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent.
BOB SCHIEFFER: But you do not agree with him that this was something that had been plotted out several months ago?
SUSAN RICE: We do not– we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Do you agree or disagree with him that al Qaeda had some part in this?
SUSAN RICE: Well, we’ll have to find out that out. I mean I think it’s clear that there were extremist elements that joined in and escalated the violence. Whether they were al Qaeda affiliates, whether they were Libyan-based extremists or al Qaeda itself I think is one of the things we’ll have to determine.
The first draft of the CIA talking points was very specific about who was involved:
The crowd almost certainly was a mix of individuals from across many sectors of Libyan society. That being said, we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.
The White House wants you to believe that the reason this tidbit was excised from the final version of the talking points was in response to intervention by the FBI in order to protect the investigation. But that is total bullshit. In fact, the emails released also included news that the FBI had no problems with that being released. The only ones who had a problem with acknowledging an Al Qaeda attack on the anniversary of the first 9-11 were the White House and State Department political types.
Then we have the total discrepancy between DCM Hicks, who testified under oath, and the bogus Accountability Review Board report produced by Ambassador Thomas Pickering and Admiral Mike Mullen. Shame on these men for their ineptitude and failure to do their job properly.
According to the ARB report, Ambassador Stevens went to Benghazi on his own:
The Board found that Ambassador Stevens made the decision to travel to Benghazi independently of Washington, per standard practice. Timing for his trip was driven in part by commitments in Tripoli, as well as a staffing gap between principal officers in Benghazi. Plans for the Ambassador’s trip provided for minimal close protection security support and were not shared thoroughly with the Embassy’s country team, who were not fully aware of planned movements off compound. The Ambassador did not see a direct threat of an attack of this nature and scale on the U.S. Mission in the overall negative trendline of security incidents from spring to summer 2012. His status as the leading U.S. government advocate on Libya policy, and his expertise on Benghazi in particular, caused Washington to give unusual deference to his judgments.
But that’s not what the number two man in the US Embassy in Libya said. He testified under oath to the exact opposite (the questioning starts at the two minute mark):
“According to [Ambassador] Chris [Stevens], Secretary Clinton wanted Benghazi converted into a permanent constituent post. Timing for this decision was important. Chris needed to report before Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year, on the physical and the political and security environment in Benghazi to support an action memo to convert Benghazi from a temporary facility to a permanent facility.”
What Hicks does not say, because he was in a public hearing, is that another reason for Stevens making the trip was to meet with the reps of Turkey to discuss the shipment of weapons and fighters from Libya to Syria. That part of this story remains hidden and shrouded in secrecy. Getting to the bottom of this is one of the reasons Chairman Issa will be grilling Pickering and Mullen behind closed doors.