A boon for Boon.^^^^^

The leaks keep on coming.

Benghazigate keeps on giving.

The above is merely the tip of the iceberg.^^^^

Google around.

BTW, the above authors are all on the LEFT of the aisle.

If my information is radical news for you…

Then it’s telling. You really are in the bubble.

The ManPADS were for SYRIA….. duh!

The op is now the WORST kept secret in the MENA.

One of the reasons that KSA has broken with Barry is because he’s shut this gambit down — too much blow-back.

BTW, there are other CIA operatives involved. There presence is still being kept hush-hush. Barry won’t let them testify before Congress.

So many weapons were involved that the CIA had more than the two facilities. The others are still kept on the QT.

Barry was running his own private war against Assad — with Congress kept at an arms length from the truth.

This op goes wildly beyond Iran-Contra, a fiasco that apparently escaped Barry’s keen.

Barry loves the CIA. His first job out of college was writing for a CIA front publishing house.

His grandparents and his mother all worked for the CIA and fronts for the CIA. (US AID is a notorious CIA altar ego — of which the Russians have bitched for generations.

The Ford Foundation was a CIA fellow traveler. They’d let CIA operatives function as putative employees as the CIA saw fit.

It’s now obvious that the grandmother ran the dark books in Honolulu — and that she got her daughter into the family trade. Hence her fluency in Russian (East-West Center, Manoa Campus, Honolulu) and Stanley Ann’s role as an assistant chief of station — office warrior in one hot spot after another.

First Indonesia — then straight off to Pakistan! As if it’s just a coincidence that these are the two nations most in play at their respective times. Stanley Ann spent five years living out of a four star hotel — on the CIA’s dime!

Such a high profile babe would naturally attract the attentions of the KGB. After all, Stanley Ann is the disburser for the CIA at the height of the Soviet-Afghan conflict.

In the fullness of time, don’t be surprised to find out that the wet work boys picked her off.

So, Barry has grown up with reverence for the CIA. It’s family for him. That’s why he thought he could run his private war using them. In this he was entirely reversing the flow of the Church investigation all those decades ago.

For what could go wrong?

So let me get this straight, your theory is that the administration sold weapons to AQ by accident and wanted it to not become public. I’m unclear why the administration would need to sell shoulder fired missiles to a Libyan group since Nato put a no-fly zone over Libya thereby neutering Libya’s already pathetic air force…but regardless…..

Stevens was negotiating with someone and his bodyguard walked away leaving him open and exposed to an attack and AQ attacked him.

A pretty interesting story, not really sure what in the 60 minutes piece supports it. Nor am I sure how this reasonably accomplishes the goal of covering up a weapons sale or transfer? Why not keep Stevens in the embassy at the capital and just forget about the group that got weapons in error? It’s not like Libya’s a place lacking in weapons. After Qadaffi fell the army basically split up into various tribes and militias and grabbed all the weapons they could.

The Regime became very embarassed about selling weapons to AQ and didn’t want anyone to know about it. They thought that beefing up security and sending the QRF to Stevens would make the newspaper splash, so wanted to cover it all up. What difference does it make at this point why they died?

Because if people knew, more than just Stevens’ head might roll.

Of course they weren’t stupid enough to say outright “The Benghazi attack was absolutely caused by the video.”

You forget yourself, you claimed they lied. A person tells a lie to convince someone of an untruth. Making a statement with numerous qualifications does not convince. BTW, you don’t have any statements from either Clinton or Obama that even go as far as you claim above.

They delivered this message over and over and over (particularly through Susan Rice) in a careful, lawyerly manner, with all the usual disclaimers about “best of our knowledge” so they could weasel out later.

Or they presented what was a perfectly reasonable hypothesis, that the video either sparked the attack or a video protest was hijacked by jihadists who used it as an opening to attack.

They emphasized the video over and over in connection with the attack and yet never even mentioned that it might have been al Qaeda behind it.

Ohhh Face the Nation

MR. SCHIEFFER: Do you agree or disagree with [the previous guest, the president of Libya’s general national congress] that al Qaeda had some part in this?

MS. RICE: Well, we’ll have to find out that out. I mean I think it’s clear that there were extremist elements that joined in and escalated the violence. Whether they were al Qaeda affiliates, whether they were Libyan-based extremists or al Qaeda itself I think is one of the things we’ll have to determine.

Ok she’s not the one who mentioned it but it certainly seems even Rice was open to Al Qaeda playing a hand in the attack from the very beginning.

On Meet the Press

Well, let us— let me tell you the— the best information we have at present. First of all, there’s an FBI investigation which is ongoing. And we look to that investigation to give us the definitive word as to what transpired. But putting together the best information that we have available to us today our current assessment is that what happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of— of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted, of course, by the video. What we think then transpired in Benghazi is that opportunistic extremist elements came to the consulate as this was unfolding. They came with heavy weapons which unfortunately are readily available in post revolutionary Libya. And it escalated into a much more violent episode. Obviously, that’s— that’s our best judgment now. We’ll await the results of the investigation. And the president has been very clear—we’ll work with the Libyan authorities to bring those responsible to justice.

Note that this isn’t a statement to tune of “it was the video, but we have an investigation going”. The video link is qualified at least 5 to 6 times in a single paragraph indicating a large measure of uncertainity and from the beginning the possibility that the attack was more than simple people protesting who happened to have guns left over from the revolution the door was fully open too.

They also explicitly stated many times that the attack was not planned although they knew almost immediately it was both al Qaeda and pre-planned.

Ohhh my neo, you’re in trouble here. You keep doubling down making it easier and easier to trash your assertions. Even today it’s not clear Al Qaeda was the principle behind the attack. The Libyan people claimed it was militias and marched 30,000 strong against armed militia groups about a week after the attack. One of the chief suspects, Ansar al-Sharia, is in fact a militia leader who spoke against the US on the grounds of, wait for it, that stupid video! So even today it is murkey who exactly attacked the consolute and why. Unless you assume Al Qaeda is simply a filler word that means any Muslim group that commits acts of anti-US terrorism.

FOAF

That (the video line) is exactly what the Candy Crowley incident in the debate was about.

Then how come no one could say that in the debate? The original Republican talking point was that Obama failed to say it was terrorism, not that the video link was incorrect. Romney made himself look like an ass by being ignorant of the actual statements he was supposedly complaining about. Now you want to tell us the debate was about linking the attack to the video, which seems like it would have been a very easy thing to have said then…instead we need you to divine ‘true meanings’ almost a year later?

Here’s an alternative narrative. On the day/night of the attack there were multiple violent protests over the video around the Muslim world, including one that actually resulted in an attack on our embassy in Egypt (which has mostly been forgotten now since no one was hurt but absent Libya would have been a huge deal since it’s a violation of diplomatic immunity and sovereignity). A very reasonable and plausible hypothesis was that the Libyian attack was part of that general protest, which continued afterwards for nearly a week or two. This was put forth with multiple qualifications about the investigation just beginning. Over time it became more clear that the attack was less likely linked to the video and more likely linked to a militia that either used the video as excuse or simply opted to attack independent of the video. This narrative is more believeable to the bulk of Americans because most people here hawking more damming versions quite frankly either smell unhinged (like Geoffrey who thinks the attack was somehow planned by Obama to help with his election) or by people who, being partisans already, are unable to dispassionately evaluate the evidence and instead just embrace opportunistic spin.

Valid criticisms such as why there wasn’t better security, who exactly was behind the attack and who exactly participated in it, are probably more relevant than the initial Republican obsesssion with whether or not it was called terrorism within 12 hours of happening and now the latest hobbyhorse of whether or not the video was cited as a cause but the general public probably does not see the Republican Party as honest players trying to get at the truth here. Which is a bit of a shame but not unexpected.