Every once in a while, the noos media commits
actual journalism. And ABC has
done just that on the Benghazi cover-up no less. The result is darn close to a smoking gun (Emphasis mine):
it became clear last fall that the CIA’s now discredited Benghazi talking
points were flawed, the White House said repeatedly the documents were put
together almost entirely by the intelligence community, but White House
documents reviewed by Congress suggest a different story.
News has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show they
were extensively edited as they evolved from the drafts first written entirely
by the CIA to the final version distributed to Congress and to U.S. Ambassador
to the U.N. Susan Rice before she appeared
on five talk shows the Sunday after that attack.
House emails reviewed by ABC News suggest the edits were made with extensive
input from the State Department. The
edits included requests from the State Department that references to the Al
Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia be deleted as well references to CIA
warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the
talking points originated from the intelligence community. They reflect
the IC’s best assessments of what they thought had happened,” Carney told
reporters at the White House press briefing on November 28, 2012. “The
White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment
that was made to those talking points by either of those two institutions were
changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility’ because ‘consulate’ was
So the e-mails acquired by ABC show the State
Department (with White House support no doubt) covered up that they knew
Benghazi was a terrorist attack and that they had been warned of terrorist
attacks. And the White House and
State Department have been covering up the cover-up ever since.
the kicker: "In an email to officials at the White House and the
intelligence agencies, State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland took issue
with including that information because it "could be abused by members [of
Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings,
so why would we want to feed that either? Concerned . . ."
I bet they were concerned . . . about saving
their own butts. Where was the
concern when our people in Libya were begging for more protection and when
there were numerous warnings about the danger?
Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard backs up
in painstaking detail that State knew it was a terrorist attack even as it was
occurring then strove to obscure that afterward:
the House report provides an accurate and complete depiction of the emails, it
is clear that senior administration officials engaged in a wholesale rewriting
of intelligence assessments about Benghazi in order to mislead the public. The
Weekly Standard sought comment from officials at the White House, the
State Department, and the CIA, but received none by press time. Within
hours of the initial attack on the U.S. facility, the State Department
Operations Center sent out two alerts. The first, at 4:05 p.m. (all times are Eastern
Daylight Time), indicated that the compound was under attack; the second, at
6:08 p.m., indicated that Ansar al Sharia, an al Qaeda-linked terrorist group
operating in Libya, had claimed credit for the attack. According to the House
report, these alerts were circulated widely inside the government, including at
the highest levels. The fighting in Benghazi continued for another several
hours, so top Obama administration officials were told even as the fighting was
taking place that U.S. diplomats and intelligence operatives were likely being
attacked by al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists. A cable sent the following day,
September 12, by the CIA station chief in Libya, reported that eyewitnesses
confirmed the participation of Islamic militants and made clear that U.S.
facilities in Benghazi had come under terrorist attack. It was this fact, along
with several others, that top Obama officials would work so hard to obscure.
And, as I mentioned, Hayes goes into detail,
including talking points drafts.
So do feel free to dig into his article. Hayes has also just revealed that then CIA head David Petraeus
was not happy about the revised talking points.
And you can bet there is more unraveling of the
cover-up to come. Sen. Tom Coburn
no less has pretty much telegraphed that.
But the unraveling of the cover-up is not stopping the Obama
Administration from continuing to cover up. No, not at all.
The Chairman of the House Arm Services Committee, as is his oversight
duty, is investigating the (*Anglican Understatement alert*) inadequate protection
of our Benghazi consulate, and has asked for relevant documents. The Pentagon has denied his request.
And the noos media? With a very few praiseworthy exceptions, they are spinning away as their cover-up is further
exposed as just that.
Again, I think only the noos media can save
Obama and Hillary now. What a
contrast with Watergate.
Labels: Benghazi, Hillary Clinton, news media, Obama