The Latest "Update" from the Administration... via the Washington Post
The CIA [supposedly] rushed security operatives to an American diplomatic compound in Libya within 25 minutes of its coming under attack and played a more central role in the effort to fend off a night-long siege than has been acknowledged publicly, U.S. intelligence officials said Thursday.
Folks... quite simply... I don't believe this. It goes against what we've already been told and as far as I can tell the MSM (starting yesterday with ABC News and now today with this Washington Post piece) is simply pretending their own previous reporting is no longer valid without even so much as a "he said, she said" breakdown with supporting evidence.
The agency mobilized the evacuation effort, took control of an unarmed U.S. military drone to map possible escape routes, dispatched an emergency security team from Tripoli, the capital, and chartered aircraft that ultimately carried surviving American personnel to safety, U.S. officials said.
The key word here being "surviving."
Folks... again... putting aside the conflict between this latest story and past reporting... why would the CIA be taking lead? Why wouldn't the State Department - or the military - have the lead? But putting that too aside... where's Obama...? Where's Hillary...? Who (supposedly) put the CIA in charge...? And if Obama and/or Hillary and/or Panetta put the CIA in change and the CIA knew that this was a terrorist attack - knew it in real time - how to explain the days and weeks of LIES following the events of September 11, 2012?
The account provided by senior U.S. intelligence officials offers the most detailed chronology yet of the Sept. 11 assault that killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans.
Political appointees...??? Obama political loyalists or career agency personnel? And in any case... how about some names?! If this is "on the record" from "senior officials" than who exactly are these officials and what paper/audio/video evidence have they produced to verify this... er... latest story?
U.S. officials said they decided to offer a detailed account of the CIA’s role to rebut media reports that have suggested that agency leaders delayed sending help to State Department officials seeking to fend off a heavily armed mob.
Unnamed officials. (And who gave them the ok... the instructions to release this... er... new and contradictory information? Hmm...???)
Oh... and as for "media reports that have suggested that agency leaders delayed sending help"... these weren't "suggestions" - they were allegations. Allegations made by insiders in a position to know whose info was obviously vetted by the media organs which carried the stories!
Folks...a few days before the election the administration "puts this out" and the Washington Post runs with it...? Really...?
U.S. intelligence officials insisted that CIA operatives in Benghazi and Tripoli made decisions rapidly throughout the assault with no interference from Washington.
With or without Obama, Clinton, and Panetta being in the loop?
Yeah... folks... if this newest story is true than how to explain Obama's post-9/11/12 behavior... or Hillary's... or Panetta's...? How to explain Susan Rice's going on five Sunday news shows - speaking for the administration - trying to blame the Benghazi attack and murders on "public outrage" against... er... a video teaser on the internet?
The information does not address the main source of political controversy surrounding the siege: the shifting assessments offered by Obama administration officials over whether the assault was a protest that turned violent or a planned terrorist attack.
Yeah... paragraph eight... the Washington Post writer/editor finally gets around to addressing the issue!
But officials reiterated that the initial intelligence was fragmentary and often contradictory. They said talking points for members of Congress and senior administration officials did not discuss possible links between the attackers and al-Qaeda because the information was classified.
Classified, huh? Why? For what possible reason? Funny how Bush didn't hide the fact that Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda were behind 9/11/01.
Folks... it's obvious what happened! The administration has known all along that Libya - and particularly Benghazi - was a total cluster-fuck even as they tried to portray their Libya policy as successful. It was in the service of this deliberately false narrative by the administration that our consulate was attacked, overrun, and an American Ambassador and three other Americans were murdered.
As to the post-9/11/12 lies... obviously Obama thought he and the administration could get away with sweeping reality under the rug and pretending Benghazi was part and parcel of the region-wide disruptions of that day.
The briefing and material provided Thursday focused on the hour-by-hour developments in Benghazi. Among the disclosures is that the CIA station chief in Tripoli sent an emergency security force, with about a half-dozen agency operatives as well as two U.S. military personnel, to Benghazi aboard a hastily chartered aircraft while the attack was underway.
Funny how the Washington Post is ignoring the issue that there were CIA agents in Benghazi itself chomping at the bit to try and rescue our people and who say they were denied permission not once but twice... and then went anyway on their own accord. What about that...???
Folks... I'll let you read the full WP story for yourselves. I ask that you consider the points I'm raising and engage your own personal bullshit detectors. I also urge you to once again review the various stand-alone posts and newsbites here at Usually Right concerning this matter which have been posted since 9/11/12.
I fear this latest reporting... this latest administration info dump... has much more to do with attempting to further muddy the waters prior to election day than with attempting to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth to the American People.