Saturday, November 17, 2012

Search For the Truth in the Terror Attack on Benghazi Continues...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty
-vs- Tyranny


As the hearings continue more questions will be answered. As the nation becomes fully informed of the situation(s) and realities surrounding the terror attack on the America consulate in Benghazi, and protocol is put in place to prevent similar occurrences in the future, hopefully we will put the political issue(s) to bed and move on to solving a even more complex and threatening situation. The national debt and out budgetary crisis.

Why It Matters:

The question of what the president and administration knew about the nature of the attacks on the consulate in Benghazi has become a huge political controversy. In addition, the potential nomination of Susan Rice to be secretary of state has been endangered by the controversy.
Washington Guardian - U.S. intelligence told President Barack Obama and senior administration officials within 72 hours of the Benghazi tragedy that the attack was likely carried out by local militia and other armed extremists sympathetic to al-Qaida in the region, officials directly familiar with the information told the Washington Guardian on Friday.

Based on electronic intercepts and human intelligence on the ground, the early briefings after the deadly Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya identified possible organizers and participants. Most were believed to be from a local Libyan militia group called Ansar al-Sharia that is sympathetic to al-Qaida, the official said, while a handful of others was linked to a direct al-Qaida affiliate in North Africa known as AQIM.

Those briefings also raised the possibility that the attackers may have been inspired both by spontaneous protests across the globe on the 11th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and by a desire to seek vengeance for the U.S. killing last summer of a Libyan-born leader of al-Qaida named Abu Yaya al-Libi, the officials said, speaking only on condition of anonymity because they were discussing intelligence matters.

The details from the CIA and Pentagon assessments of the killing of Ambassador Chris Stephens were far more specific, more detailed and more current than the unclassified talking points that UN Ambassador Susan Rice and other officials used five days after the attack to suggest to Americans that an unruly mob angry over an anti-Islamic video was to blame, officials said.

Most of the details affirming al-Qaida links were edited or excluded from the unclassified talking points used by Rice in appearances on news programs the weekend after the attack, officials confirmed Friday. Multiple agencies were involved in excising information, doing so because it revealed sources and methods, dealt with classified intercepts or involved information that was not yet fully confirmed, the officials said.

"There were multiple agencies involved, not for political reasons, but because of intelligence concerns," one official explained.

Rice's performance on the Sunday talk shows has become a source of controversy between Congress and the White House. Lawmakers, particularly Republicans, have questioned whether the administration was trying to mislead the country by suggesting the Benghazi attack was like the spontaneous protests that had occurred elsewhere on Sept. 11, in places like Egypt.

Obama has defended Rice, and he and his top aides have insisted politics was not involved. They argue the administration's shifting story was the result of changing intelligence.

U.S. intelligence officials said Friday, however, the assessment that the tragedy was an attack by extremists with al-Qaida links was well defined within 48 to 72 hours. (Emphasis mine.){Read More}

Via: Memeorandum

20 comments:

  1. According to Republicans who were in the closed door meeting with Pertraus yesterday, Ms. Rice was not told it was a terrorist attack by the CIA on purpose. Not because of some nefarious cover up, but because of protocols and procedures to protect sources of the CIA. Republicans seemed annoyed but satisfied by that response from the Gen., because it falls within normal procedure for the CIA.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Congressman Schiff went on CNN last night and said, "we still don't know if this was a planned terrorist attack." How do fellows like this get elected?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Replies
    1. Ya think? I guess you should no if anyone does Shaw.

      Good Day...

      Delete
  4. They just happened to have hand grenades, mortars, and a couple of dozen AK-47s on 'em. Spontaneous!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, but talking about the truth either makes you a bigot or a racist in the eyes of a progressive.

      Check in with Shaw for further clarification..

      Delete
  5. .

    Rational Nation USA,

    Oh pal-ese. The Washington D.C. hearings have absolutely NOTHING to do with searching for the truth. Get off your moral high horse. The Inspector Clouseau wing of the RepublicanT Party is desperate to create a scandal to score political points. This is obvious to even a casual observer.

    The truth is simple. USA was attacked.

    (And contrary to the wishes of the RepublicanT Party, Mr Obama was not out front leading the attackers.)



    Ema Nymton
    ~@:o?
    .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ema; Oh pal-ese, get out of your progressive heap of mush and get a grip.

      Delete
    2. .

      Inspector Clouseau of RN(USA),

      "... the Benghazi tragedy that the attack was likely carried out by local militia and other armed extremists sympathetic to al-Qaida in the region, ..." "likely" "likely" "likely" "likely" - hmm firm word "likely".

      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts. So Inspector Clouseau of RN(USA) tell us _your_ likely facts of the case.

      Do you feel in your gut that the CIA "likely" did not have hard facts within 72 hours? "Likely" facts were not available for a while. But the RepublicanT Party are "likely" _searching_for_truth_ "likely".

      (Wiley E Coyote with powder flash burns on face holding cindering match as a result of the backfire of this failed ACME product of the RepublicanT Party imagination. ...) Thanks for the laugh; ha ha ha ha ha ha ...

      Ema Nymton
      ~@:o?
      .

      Delete
    3. Ema, tee, hee, tee, hee, Grow up.

      But I must say that I am glad you laughed so hard you LIKELY wet yourself. But then again it doesn't take much for a lolly sucking Hope and Change Forward (to reverse)ObamaBot to wet themselves now does it?

      Read the data as it has emerged, connect the dots, and draw your conclusions. The act of questioning the President, his administration, his appointed personnel, is not unpatriotic. In fact it is the exact opposite. Nor does it signal support for the Republicans or the Tea Party. But in your lolly pop world of unicorns and rainbows where Hope and Change and Forward (in reverse) reigns unquestionably supreme I guess it does.

      Now Ema, as it is Sunday I leave you with this, have a wonderful day of rest and may the fairy dust be sprinkled in abundance over your head and in your eyes.

      Delete
    4. "You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts."

      Thankfully, RN has done a great job at sticking to the facts. Not sure what to call what you are entitled to, Ema. Opinion or "fact", it is flat-out wrong. All we see is you lying again and again just because the guy on your side was caught in something bad.

      Delete
  6. Ema, a bit of advice. Don't bother coming here with anything but talking points to shore up RN's talking points. All you'll get is ridicule and a lousy "You Do It Too!" response.

    Or brilliant repartee like this: "...I am glad you laughed so hard you LIKELY wet yourself."

    The cons are still outraged over the fact that President Obama was re-elected. It'll take them a while to settle down and face reality.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .

      "... take them a while to settle down and face reality."

      Yes. There is no joy in the kingdom of man so great as the joy of seeing bullies and hucksters laid low, and watching people who have arrogantly spent years assuming they were morally superior and right about the world living to see all those haughty assumptions die before their eyes. And it give great pleasure to laugh at them at the same time.

      Ema Nymton
      ~@:o?
      .

      Delete
    2. No Shaw, I am not outraged that Obama won reelection. Because? Well, America will survive. Sure I do not approve of his political philosophy or some of his policies, but hey I am an adult, the majority of the voting public choose to reelect the man president. I am okay with that, I even think the rEpublican party is crazy if they don't let the President pursue his course with some degree of cooperation. Why, because if his policies work I WILL BE GLAD THEY DID. If they don't, WHICH I DON'T HOPE FOR, then the President and the democratic party can then point only to themselves.

      I get it Shaw. What I don't get is why some progressives refuse to recognize to some degree people like me actually understand and support the need to get something done. I blame the rEpublicans as much as the President and the democrats, actually more for the lack of movement towards fiscal responsibility.

      Sorry if you and Ema are so thin skinned my comments bother you. I certainly withstood much worse at your blog and simply gave it back. Not to mention what I went through on my on site. Now, I am not whining, I knew it would be like this. Actually, I find it amusing in a certain comedic way. Because sometime in the future, if there is one, people will be analyzing all this published material, yours, mine, and everyone else in a university sociology class somewhere figuring out what made the 20th and 21st American political scene what it was. Trying to figure out just what made society so infantile. I'm thinking back now on Ancient Greece and the learned philosophers of that time.

      Seems like the more things change the more they stay the same. But hey, what do I know, I'm just a con, eh Shaw?

      Delete
    3. You have yet to acknowledge the fact that Ms. Rice was just doing her job, and was not given the facts necessary (withheld by the CIA on purpose) to give to the American people. That does not let Obama off the hook, but it's time McCain and all who jumped to conclusions like silly school kids apologize to Ms. Rice for trying to assassinate her character.

      Delete
    4. If it will make you and the rest of your crowd feel better then I acknowledge Rice was given outdated or insufficient info.

      But then again I never named Rice as being the important figure in the possible cover up. You usually don't "shoot the messenger", particularly if the data, info, or Intel provide was intentionally inacurate. You go after the big Kahuna, whoever that might be.

      As it is playing out the big Kahuna, whoever that may be just might be safe.

      Now go back to Shaw's place,report, and stir up some more progressive drivel.

      Delete
    5. Not much to apologize for, RN, as Rice was knowingly lying about it at least by the time the truth was out in the media and she kept sticking to the sham story. At this time, she had no excuse for flogging the outdated info.

      Delete
    6. Well dmarks, the issue is what did the big Kahuna know and when did he know it. But frankly I am tiring of the political gamesmanship and the tit for tat bullsh*t.

      We have MUCH bigger issues at stake, and frankly I am ready to say give the progressives everything they want and then wait and see.

      One thing for sure, ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER would learn something wouldn't they?

      Delete
  7. Hi there to every body, it's my first pay a quick visit of this website; this webpage includes remarkable and in fact fine data designed for visitors.
    My blog ; GeeksonSteroids

    ReplyDelete

As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.