The MSM Is On the Benghazi Coverup

[Supsalemgr]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-5 ... n-sept-11/

It is clear the WH was aware of the attack two hours into it and did nothing about it. Couple this with the information about the drone video and it is very disturbing. There are many unanswered question. Just one I have is who received these e-mails and what did they do with them. This begs many more questions. This screams of a designed coverup or total incompetence. The noose is tightening on the WH on this issue.

Our lib friends can enjoy the evening denying and spinning this did not happen.

[keyboarder]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-5 ... n-sept-11/

It is clear the WH was aware of the attack two hours into it and did nothing about it. Couple this with the information about the drone video and it is very disturbing. There are many unanswered question. Just one I have is who received these e-mails and what did they do with them. This begs many more questions. This screams of a designed coverup or total incompetence. The noose is tightening on the WH on this issue.

Our lib friends can enjoy the evening denying and spinning this did not happen.

SSMGR. CNN and Fox all over it too. Some members of the house already saying there needs to be hearings.
How much more is gonna' leak out? ALL of it needs to be aired out.

[Supsalemgr]

Sorry Vrede doesn't agree with me starting a thread just in this topic. However, in my view I believe it deserves special attention. If Vrede does not, she can ignore the thread and make it more to the point.

[Bungalow Bill]

Sadly, as we all know, we can't trust the MSM, especially the good ol' Communist
Broadcasting Network. All they do is spew out communistic and socialistic lies. They
even will go so far as to cover up the gay link between Obama, Ambassador Stevens,
and Larry Sinclair, the very same link that forced Obama to hire Al-Qaeda of the Libyan
Sands to off Stevens. When will the people wake up?

[billy.pilgrim]

what is the msm? and how is it On the coverup?

[Supsalemgr]

b.p just confirmed his comprehension level.

[Supsalemgr]

Sorry thread monitor.

"1) Not knowing that "MSM" is an acronym for "Mainstream Media" has nothing to do with comprehension."

I will label it "ill informed".

Now, go back into your hole.

[O Really]

I think Billy is just used to hearing "lame stream media" out of posters such as Super-S. Took me by surprise, too. I did hear about a secret cloud-based network where all the major media players get their items they're supposed to cover and those to cover up. I think it's run by these people... http://www.rothschild.com/

As to whether "this" happened, are we talking about Obama knowing about the attack and doing nothing, or about a conspiracy to cover up by the Mainstream Media? If there was evidence of the former, there wouldn't be much need for speculation, would there? Bring it out. And without such evidence, what is the MSM covering? Speculation and innuendo?

[Crock Hunter]

The MSM Is On the Benghazi Coverup

Now that's the sort of unashamed nitwittery we've come to expect from you rightwing shitheads.. well done suppersalesman. . ..

[billy.pilgrim]

tag has been self-pegged

[perspctv]

As usual, I'm trying to figure out just where the scandal over Benghazi is supposed to lie. Last night, CBS News breathlessly released three emails sent to the State Department on the day of the attacks. Two of them were reports that the compound in Benghazi was under assault. Here's the third:

And this proves....what? Both Obama and Hillary Clinton talked from the start about the attacks being the work of extremist elements. Susan Rice and Jay Carney later suggested that there had been protests outside the consulate and that a YouTube video had played a role in instigating the attack, but that's because this is what the CIA was telling them at the time. What's more, to this day there's still evidence that the video played a role. (An opportunistic one, probably, but a role nonetheless.) As for the charge that Obama was trying to downplay al-Qaeda involvement, that's not because he was trying to hold onto his reputation as the guy who killed bin Laden. It's because Ansar al-Sharia was a homegrown group with virtually no connection to al-Qaeda central. There really was no al-Qaeda involvement.

This is crazy. Where does this stuff keep coming from? Based on the evidence we know today, the worst you can say about the White House is that they didn't do a very good job of coordinating the messages being delivered to the public by all the various agencies. Beyond that, it took about a week for everyone to get on the same page because that's how long it took before the intelligence community had a good handle on what actually happened. There's just no scandal here.

The next bend in the Libya story—sorry, Libya scandal—began last night, when CBS News and other organizations scooped a series of emails from the State Department on Sept. 11. At 4:05 p.m., State emails that the Benghazi consulate is "under attack." At 4:54, the "firing has stopped." At 6:07 p.m., "Ansar al-Sharia [has claimed] responsibility" for the attack.

Allahpundit explains why this is should be so disturbing.

The White House had plenty of reason to suspect more was going on than a protest that got out of hand, even from the very beginning. But that would meddle with one of O’s strongest reelection narratives, i.e. the president who demolished Al Qaeda (read this for a stark illustration of how certain key supporters are helping him out with that), so we didn’t hear about it until Eli Lake and CNN and Reuters all but dragged it out of him.

One problem. In the same story that breaks the news and gives readers the emails, CBS News prints an unaired answer that Obama gave Steve Kroft on Sept. 12. It was his first interview after the attacks.

You're right that this is not a situation that was—exactly the same as what happened in Egypt and my suspicion is that there are folks involved in this who were looking to target Americans from the start.

The next day, Obama was in Colorado, where he addressed the killings in Libya.

A couple of days ago, for four Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Libya. ... So what I want all of you to know is that we are going to bring those who killed our fellow Americans to justice. I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished.
Obama didn't pretend that this was merely "a protest that got out of hand." The trouble, when we look back at the timeline, is that reporters didn't really glom onto the Libya story for a few days. When they did, by the Sunday shows and Sept. 19, you had administration representatives soft-peddling the "target Americans from the start" story.

Before that, though, if you followed the story, you knew that Ansar al-Sharia took credit for the attacks and that Obama was calling them "acts of terror." This is the oddity of the story we now call "Benghazigate." One "scandal," that Obama pretended the attacks were only spontaneous results of a protest, is baseless. The next scandal, that the administration didn't beef up security in Benghazi, is just harder to pin on a villain. So we hear more about the "shifting timeline," even though the president had implied that the attacks were terrorism four times in the 48 hours afterward.

[Crock Hunter]

tag has been self-pegged

Indeed... well reality does have a liberal bias you know...... .

[perspctv]

It was, from the start, about as hard an intelligence problem as you can find. The date was Sept. 11, and the CIA was stretched thin, monitoring anti-American protests in no fewer than 54 countries that day, according to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. Post-Qaddafi Libya itself was still chaotic, caught up in the fog of war, and indeed Ambassador Chris Stevens, at great personal risk, had journeyed to his old Arab Spring-era stomping ground in Benghazi to assess the situation himself. Still, Clapper recently told an annual conference of intelligence professionals that there was no warning to Stevens or anyone else that he was about to be targeted by an organized extremist attack.
So in the ensuing days, the fog lifted only very gradually. The intelligence community did not see a clear way to explain the deaths of Stevens and three other Americans. And as the probe advanced they began shifting their assessment dramatically. Four days after the attacks, on Sept. 15, intel briefers sent U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice off to tape the Sunday talk shows with talking points that suggested Stevens’s death was the result of “spontaneous” protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo against a short film made in California lampooning the Prophet Muhammad. And that’s what Rice said on CBS’s Face the Nation “based on the best information we have to date,” as she put it. Rice added, however, that “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.”
“It was clear from the outset that a group of people gathered that evening. A key question early on was whether extremists took over a crowd or if the guys who showed up were all militants,” said an intelligence official involved in the Benghazi assessment. “It took time—until that next week—to sort through varied and sometimes conflicting accounts to understand the group’s overall composition.”
By the following week, however, the DNI came to believe that there had been no protest at all. “That was genuine fog of war issue,” the intelligence official said. “Press reports at the time indicated there had been. It took about a week or so to iron that out.” On Sept. 28, Shawn Turner, spokesman for Clapper’s office, said in a statement that as U.S. intelligence learned more about the attack, “we revised our initial assessment to reflect new information indicating that it was a deliberate and organized terrorist attack carried out by extremists.”
To supporters of Republican nominee Mitt Romney in the chattering classes and in the House of Representatives, where an investigative committee has been hard at work probing the attacks and, apparently, leaking information, there is a lot more going on here. They see a deliberate effort by the Obama administration to play down evidence that new al-Qaida-linked terrorist groups were at work killing Americans. After all, one of the president’s big talking points in a tough election race is that he’s killed Osama bin Laden and decimated al-Qaida.
It sounds very plausible. There’s only one problem with that view: No evidence has surfaced so far to support the idea that the Obama administration deceived the public deliberately. On Wednesday a new spate of stories emerged, quoting unclassified e-mails sent to the White House and State Department only hours after the attacks that indicate the extremist Libyan militia Ansar al-Sharia had asserted responsibility. “Smoking gun!” Jennifer Rubin, a conservative blogger, tweeted. “The White House cover story—namely that CIA got it all wrong and the White House (in urging us to believe the murder of four Americans was the result of a video riot gone bad) was telling us what it knew, when it knew—has been severely undercut,” she added on her blog. “Three e-mails sent to the White House within two hours of the attack identify it as a terrorist operation and inform the White House that local jihadists with al-Qaida connections claimed responsibility.”
But that story doesn’t hold up well either. The e-mails in question contained nothing more than “raw” intelligence, uncorroborated and unverified, that often flows in after an event. Intelligence officials typically don’t deliver their assessments until they have “finished” reports based on multiple sources, and corroborated evidence, and Obama officials such as Rice certainly would not have been out in front of the TV cameras citing raw intelligence. And as the government’s most senior officials say, the Benghazi case has taken them a long time to finish. “People forget that a Palestinian group was the first to claim credit for 9/11,” the intelligence official said. “There was no message from the field in those first hectic days that would have eliminated questions or proven who was behind the attack.”
Indeed, as White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters, all that Wednesday’s stories reported was “an open-source, unclassified e-mail about a posting on a Facebook site. I would also note I think that within a few hours, that organization itself [Ansar al-Sharia] claimed that it had not been responsible.” Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, in separate remarks on Wednesday, also said that “posting something on Facebook is not in and of itself evidence, and I think it just underscores how fluid the reporting was at the time and continued for some time to be.”
Even now, intelligence officials say, the full story is not known. It is not even clear that the video-inspired protests in Cairo were unrelated to the attack in Benghazi, because some of the extremists who attacked Stevens and his colleagues may have been provoked by watching the demonstrations on TV. Officials say they are still compiling a list of suspects.
"The bulk of available information still supports the early assessment that extremists—many with ties to Ansar al-Sharia, AQIM [Al Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb], or other groups—didn’t preplan the attack days or weeks in advance, but launched their assault opportunistically after they learned about the violence at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo,” the intelligence official said.
Interestingly, even Romney seems to have grown a bit tired of the Benghazi story, as he indicated on Monday night when moderator Bob Schieffer made Libya question No. 1 in his final debate with President Obama and the GOP nominee basically ignored it. Nonetheless, the story of what senior administration officials knew and when they knew it doesn’t seem to go away. Perhaps it will after Nov. 6.

[Bungalow Bill]

Leave it to a nutjob to come up with a thread title that could mean two things,
each one being the opposite of the other.

[billy.pilgrim]

Leave it to a nutjob to come up with a thread title that could mean two things,
each one being the opposite of the other.

and then run away

[Tertius]

Forum rules
Loose Rules:
...If there is a thread already covering a topic, please do not start another one.

Supsalemgr: "Look at me, look at me, please look at me."

I thought about that but the other discussion I started centers around the setting up of a gay American Ambassador to be murdered, the failure ti deploy and withdrawal of security, and the failure of the administration to permit our forces in the area to rescue the last two murdered.

I think that can be the focus of the other discussion. Here we can discuss the Obama-Clinton coverup and attempt to postpone findings of the study of the events until after the election.

[Bungalow Bill]

Running away--a small favor in this case.

You started that other thread with a load of nonsense, which you've only amplified
in further posts. Your "cover-up" is just more unproven nonsense, because that's
what you mostly deal in. You have to be one of the most clueless shitheads around
here.

[Stinger]

the other discussion I started centers around the setting up of a gay American Ambassador to be murdered, the failure ti deploy and withdrawal of security, and the failure of the administration to permit our forces in the area to rescue the last two murdered.

Stupid bullshit fairy tale. None of it's true. You still haven't given any facts in support of your poppycock, and it's been several days.

You have, however, completely bungled the situation with tales on nonexistent Marines, nonexistent Special Forces, forces that could have saved Stevens when he died from smoke inhalation early in the attack, and tales of the "Chicago diplomatic circle."

You have no credibility.

I think that can be the focus of the other discussion.

The focus of the other discussion is your extreme gullibility and complete lack of credibility.

Here we can discuss the Obama-Clinton coverup and attempt to postpone findings of the study of the events until after the election.

Coverup? Another right-wing goose chase. You dumbasses never learn. How'd that Fast and Furious thing work out for you?

[Supsalemgr]

And the spin continues.

[Brother]

When somebody says that the President knew about the attack and did nothing mean? What would you have had him do? And do you think that the American public had the right to know everything the Whitehouse knew when they knew it?