Actually, my friends, the number is no doubt far higher
than 26... and... "botched" isn't exactly the right word; I'd
substitute "Lied to the American People" for "botched."
The following has been sitting in my email since December
31. It is a synopsis of reporting by Sharyl Attkisson as carried by the
Heritage Foundation's "Daily Signal."
* * *
* *
It neither “exonerates” nor “debunks.”
It specifically states that it is not the final word on
Benghazi.
The Washington Post stated that “the panel’s findings
were broadly consistent with the Obama administration’s version of events,”
though many of the administration’s versions of events have been discredited or
proven incorrect.
USA Today portrayed the report as a sweeping effort that
“cleared the Obama administration of any wrongdoing” and the Associated Press
claimed the report concluded “there was no wrongdoing by Obama administration
officials,” though it didn’t examine most aspects of the administration’s
actions regarding Benghazi.
* FOR EXAMPLE:
For example, the committee did not attempt to dissect
White House actions or decision-making. And it did not generally “assess State
Department or Defense Department activities” (page 4).
(*SMIRK*)
What the House Intelligence Committee did do was focus on
a narrow slice of Benghazi: the intelligence community. As such, the report
largely defends the CIA.
The House Armed Services Committee focused on actions of
the Pentagon, largely serving to defend military interests.
The Accountability Review Board focused on actions of the
State Department, though it chose not to interview some key players, such as
then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
(*SNORT*)
Each investigation occurred over a different time period
amid two years of evolving accounts by Obama administration officials as new
information filled in blanks or contradicted previous official accounts. In
some instances, investigations produced findings that contradicted one another
or documentary evidence.
* AND...
And no single investigation on Benghazi to date has heard
from all relevant witnesses or had full access to complete information.
(*NOD*)
So why did some in the news media adopt the spin of
Democrats such as Intelligence Committee Rep. Adam Schiff, who claimed the
report “completely vindicated” the White House?
* RHETORICAL QUESTION...
(*SNICKER*)
Some media even used the charged language of the Obama
administration, disparaging those investigating the many contradictions and
unanswered questions as “conspiracy theorists.”
* I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO NEWSBITING ABOUT BRIAN WILLIAMS
LATER!
(*HUGE FRIGGIN' GRIN*)
The Huffington Post claimed the Intelligence Committee
report “torched conspiracy theories.” AP and USA Today claimed it “debunked a
series of persistent allegations hinting at dark conspiracies.” Slate likewise
stated that the committee had “debunked Benghazi conspiracies.”
* ALL BULLSHIT... ALL LIES...
(*SHRUG*)
The articles advance limited and sometimes inaccurate
representations of the committee report. They fail to acknowledge the countless
documented instances in which the Obama administration provided false or
conflicting information about Benghazi and hid information entirely from public
view.
* LET'S LOOK AT SOME OF THE CONTRADICTIONS:
At times, the committee report — as it defends the
intelligence community’s performance during Benghazi — flies in the face of
evidence. It relies heavily on witnesses who have previously given inaccurate
information or testimony: then-CIA Deputy Director Mike Morell and Director of
National Intelligence James Clapper.
* WHO SHOULD BOTH BE ROTTING IN JAIL FOR LYING UNDER OATH
TO CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES!
The committee concluded, “the CIA ensured sufficient
security for CIA facilities in Benghazi.”
* AND YET...
Yet security was insufficient to prevent terrorists from
overrunning the CIA Annex, killing two of the four Americans who lost their
lives on Sept. 11, 2012.
(*SNORT*)
The committee found “no evidence” of a “stand down
order.”
* BUT...
But that is at direct odds with testimony from some
eyewitnesses. Three security operators stated they were given a “stand down”
order in the immediate aftermath of the attacks.
* ONE... MORE... TIME...
Three security operators stated they were given a “stand
down” order in the immediate aftermath of the attacks.
The committee appeared to focus on technical utterance of
the words “stand down” and “order” rather than the spirit of the allegation:
that willing responders were delayed or prevented from providing urgent help.
For example, the committee acknowledged that CIA Annex team members “wanted
urgently to depart the Annex” to “save their State Department colleagues” but
that the chief of base in Benghazi “ordered the team to wait” to assess the
situation (page 21).
Also, the committee didn’t address the case of the
Foreign Emergency Support Team in the United States, which began “packing its
bags” to respond to Benghazi, only to have the State Department block its
deployment.
* FOLKS...
(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)
The committee found “no evidence” of “denial of available
air support” and stated that, “the CIA received all military support that was
available” (page 24).
* HOWEVER...
Testimony provided earlier to the House Armed Services
Committee acknowledged that the military could have launched an F-16 fighter
jet and decided against it.
(*SMIRK*)
* AND... FOLKS... AS I'VE NOTED AGAIN AND AGAIN... OBAMA
COULD HAVE SIMPLY GOTTEN ON THE PHONE AND DIRECTLY APPEALED TO ANY AND ALL
FOREIGN LEADERS WITH MILITARY OR PARAMILITARY FORCES IN THE AREA OR WITHIN A
SHORT TIME WINDOW OF GETTING BOOTS ON THE GROUND TO DO SO!
“The mentality of everybody was, [launching an F-16]
doesn’t make sense. … Now, in hindsight, 20/20, we know that there was another
attack at 5:15 in the morning,” U.S. Africa Command General Carter Ham
previously testified.
(*PURSED LIPS*)
In addition, the president’s principle military adviser,
Maj. Gen. Darryl Roberson, previously acknowledged in testimony to another
congressional committee that military aircraft could have buzzed the hostile
Benghazi crowd to try to scatter it.
(*SHRUG*)
“So there is a potential you could have flown a show of
force and made everyone aware that there was a fighter airborne,” Roberson
conceded to the House Armed Services Committee.
(*NOD*)
Further, there were U.S. military assets in Djibouti that
remained untapped. A former U.S. ambassador to East Africa stated, “The
[Benghazi] compound was under siege for almost nine hours. The distance of
1,900 miles is within the range of the ‘combat ready’ F-15s, AC-130s and
special forces.”
* AND, AGAIN... THESE ARE JUST OUR TROOPS... WHAT OF OUR
ALLIES...???
* FOLKS... IMAGINE... IMAGINE YOU'RE THE POTUS (OR EVEN THE
SEC-STATE OR SEC-DEF OR ANYONE WITH HALF A BRAIN)... WOULD YOU HAVE FAILED TO
AT LEAST TRY TO SAVE OUR CONSULATE AND OUR PEOPLE? (THAT'S WHAT OBAMA DID!
THAT'S WHAT HILLARY DID! THEY FAILED TO EVEN TRY...!!!)
The committee found “no evidence of an intelligence
failure.” Yet there was obviously an intelligence failure, since terrorists
bearing heavy arms and rocket-propelled grenades planned and successfully
executed multiple attacks on the Benghazi compound and Annex.
* DUH...!!!
Another intelligence failure documented by the committee
is the flawed analysis by a Washington, D.C.-based CIA officer who reportedly
convinced Morell to advance the YouTube video narrative even though the CIA
station chief on the ground in Libya had said that was not the case.
The committee accepted Morell’s claim that the talking
points were not on the agenda of a Sept. 15, 2012, White House Deputies
Committee meeting prior to U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice’s advancing the incorrect
spontaneous protest narrative on Sunday TV talk shows (page 29). However,
internal emails show that Obama Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes
specifically convened the meeting to discuss various agencies’ disputes about
the talking points.
* FOLKS... AGAIN... RICE LIED. DELIBERATELY. SHE THREW
HERSELF (FIGURATIVELY) ON THE GRENADE SO AS TO PROTECT HILLARY AND OBAMA - AND
THAT OTHER SCUMBAG, LEON PANETTA.
* FOLKS... IT'S BOTH THE CRIME AND THE COVER-UP IN THIS
CASE! THESE PEOPLE ARE SCUM...!!!
The committee accepted Morell’s testimony that changes to
the talking points were “in no way due to White House political influence” and
were just “a reflection of how little we knew at the time” (page 30). However,
documents show the State Department had voluminous information about terrorist
links and had already notified Libya, in no uncertain terms, that Ansar
al-Sharia was responsible for the attacks.
* FOLKS... HILLARY'S DEPUTIES WERE MICROMANAGING THE
ENTIRE "RESPONSE" FROM DAY ONE WITH THE SOLE GOAL BEING "PROTECT
HILLARY." (SECONDARY GOAL BEING "PROTECT OBAMA.")
Though the Washington Post claimed the committee’s
findings were “broadly consistent with the Obama administration’s version of
events,” they differed in many substantive respects.
The Obama administration initially claimed no security
requests were denied. But the committee confirmed the State Department
repeatedly denied security requests (page 16).
* FOLKS... THE AMBASSADOR'S DIARY...!!! (NOT TO MENTION
ALL THE EMAILS AND OFFICIAL REQUESTS!)
The Obama administration initially claimed there was “a
robust American security presence inside the compound, including a strong
component of regional security officers.” But the committee found there was a
handful of State Department diplomatic security agents who were apparently
unarmed when attacked.
* AND WE WERE RELYING UPON "CONTRACT SECURITY"
PROVIDED BY WHAT AMOUNTED TO LOCAL TRIBAL MILITIA!
* COM'ON... FOLKS...
(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)
The Obama administration repeatedly blamed the attacks on
a mob motivated by a YouTube video and initially claimed there was no
meaningful evidence of terrorist involvement. But the committee stated that all
of the Obama administration officials interviewed “knew from the moment the
attacks began that the attacks were deliberate terrorist attacks against U.S.
interests. No witness has reported believing at any point that the attacks were
anything but terrorist acts” (page 25).
* FOLKS... CAN YOU SPELL W*H*I*T*E*W*A*S*H...?!?!
The Obama administration initially claimed, in March
2013, that government press officials made no changes to the Benghazi talking
points. But the committee found that CIA public affairs officials made three
critical changes to the talking points (page 30).
(*DRUMMING MY FINGERS ON THE DESK TOP*)
Morell initially claimed he had no idea who changed the
Benghazi talking points. But the committee confirmed that Morell was directly
involved in making and overseeing key talking points changes to remove mention
of terrorism and al Qaeda.
* AND YET HE'S NOT IN JAIL...
(*PURSED LIPS*)
The Obama administration initially claimed the attacks
were an outgrowth of protests. But the committee found “there was no protest”
(page 2).
Although USA Today claimed the committee “cleared the
Obama administration of any wrongdoing,” the actual report makes numerous
references to administration officials doing things wrong.
The committee confirmed that the Obama administration’s
public narrative blaming the attacks on a YouTube video was “not fully
accurate.”
* YEAH... THAT'S ONE WAY OF PUTTING IT, I SUPPOSE...
Furthermore, the “Additional Views” appendix to the
committee report, submitted by Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Mich., and three other
Republicans, found the following:
Morell “operated beyond his role as CIA deputy director
and inserted himself into a policy-making and public-affairs role” when he
removed references to terrorism from the talking points (Appendix 1, page 7).
Morell provided testimony that was “at times inconsistent
and incomplete” (Appendix 1, page 7).
The Obama administration failed to exert “sufficient
effort to bring the Benghazi attackers to justice” (Appendix 1, page 8).
The Obama administration’s response to the attacks was
marred by “inadequate interagency coordination” and “devoted inadequate
resources to this effort and lacked a sense of urgency” (Appendix 1, page 8).
Senior State Department officials, including
then-Secretary Clinton, placed U.S. personnel “at unnecessary risk” by
dismissing “repeated threat warnings” and denying requests for additional
security (page 2).
Senior U.S. officials perpetuated the “YouTube” narrative
that “matched the administration’s misguided view that the United States was
nearing a victory” over al-Qaeda.
The administration’s “failed policies continue to
undermine the national security interests” of the United States.
There was a “failure of senior U.S. officials to provide
for the defense of U.S. interests against a known and growing terrorist
threat.”
The State Department “failed to provide sufficient
security for its facility in Benghazi” (page 3).
The Obama administration perpetuated a “false view of the
terrorist threat” that “did not comport with the facts” (page 4).
Even as some news reports stated that Republicans had in
essence “exonerated” the Obama administration on all counts, Chairman Rogers
attempted to correct the mischaracterizations. In an op-ed published Dec. 10,
Rogers stated, “Some have said the report exonerates the State Department and
White House. It does not.” He went on to state that his committee looked only
at narrow questions as they pertain to the intelligence community. For that
reason, he said, the committee did not interview key eyewitnesses from the
Department of Defense and the State Department.
It remains unclear how so much news reporting could miss
the mark as far as it did.
* I BELIEVE THE ABOVE SENTENCE REPRESENTS SARCASM...
(*SNORT*)
One news article claimed the Intelligence Committee
report concluded Rice "innocently" relied on bad intelligence on
Sept. 16 when she advanced the spontaneous protest.
* YET...
Yet the actual report clearly states that the committee
has no idea what the White House communicated to Rice before she presented the
talking points.
A news article unequivocally stated that “it was
intelligence analysts, not political appointees, who made the wrong call” on
the nature of the attacks. Yet the report is clear that it did not examine the
role of political appointees or figures in the White House, State Department or
Defense Department.
(*SMIRK*)
* FOLKS... AGAIN... THINK ABOUT THE BRIAN WILLIAMS STORY;
THESE PEOPLE THINK THEY'RE BULLET-PROOF! THEY THINK THE CAN SIMPLY LIE AND
MISLEAD AS THE SPIRIT MOVES THEM... (OR RATHER AS IDEOLOGY MOVES THEM!)
In reporting on the House Intelligence Committee’s
Benghazi report, numerous news outlets headlined that there have been seven
investigations on Benghazi and that an eighth is underway — the House Select
Committee on Benghazi.
The implication is that Benghazi has been more than
thoroughly examined and those who support continued inquiry are beating a dead
horse.
* BULLSHIT! EXECUTIVE BRANCH REPORTS WERE PART OF THE
WHITEWASH... SENATE REPORTS WERE... DEMOCRATIC SENATE REPORTS... AND AS FOR THE
HOUSE... I'VE GOT TWO WORDS FOR YOU: JOHN BOEHNER.
(*SHRUG*)
Indeed, eight investigations might be overkill if each
had been comprehensive and duplicative, and had turned up no new information.
But each has uncovered new facts or different versions of facts as Obama
administration accounts have continue to "evolve."
1 comment:
Excellent, William. This isn't over. It isn't over.
Post a Comment