Benghazi…..the truth.

By D13 !

The first thing that I need to say is that I am not going to “link” to anything. To link to any of the supposition that is flying around the internet would be the incorrect thing to do because I can guarantee you that none of the world news organizations has the faintest idea of what is going on. This entire article is going to be based on experience, first hand knowledge, and reality…..so, if you want links as to my source, do not waste your time. The internet is NOT the purveyor of truth.
Instead, this article will relate to what is and how it happens. So let us first start with geography. Benghazi is in Libya….on the coast. ( The Med…..and no, I have not been there ). So, in the scheme of things with all the action around Tripoli, what is the big deal of Benghazi? It is important for several reasons. First, it is the second largest regional city in Libya. It is a major business center and has one of the three branches of the central bank of Libya (in other words, money). The headquarters of the Arabian Gulf Oil is also located in Benghazi. This makes Benghazi a major economic center. This is important in the larger scheme of things. Secondly, and maybe the most important thing, is the population in Benghazi is mainly Arab descent compared to the Berber domination in Tripoli. The uprising originally started in Benghazi against Tripoli. The Arab population is supported by the Muslim Brotherhood, while the Berbers are almost uniquely supported by the Iranians. The survival of Assad’s Syria is singularly important because Assad is the main ally of Iran in supporting the Palestinian movement and the arming of Hezbollah. In addition, the loss of Tripoli and the Syrian support puts another enemy of Iran in the region….. The Muslim Brotherhood.

This sets the stage for Benghazi. It is important to keep in mind the actual players in this game. Having an American presence in Benghazi is contrary to Iran and Tripoli but helpful to the enemies of Syria and Iran who, in turn, are no friends of the United States. In the scheme of things, isolating Iran seems to be more important than supporting the region. So, tacit support of the rebels (Muslim Brotherhood backed) keeps the pressure on Syria, which in fact, keeps it on Iran. Now, fast forward to the attack in Benghazi. It is important to the Obama regime (did I say that?)…I meant to say the Obama administration to keep up the charade that Al Qaeda (pick whichever spelling you want, I pick this one) is on the run. Keep this in mind. There is a much bigger picture than everyone thinks.
As to the attack, the first question should be whether or not there was adequate security. The answer is obviously very clear…there was no security. The security was pulled for two reasons. (1) supposed lack of funds and (2) the pretense that there was no threat even though there were numerous reports of outside influence pouring into the town of Benghazi. Security is the responsibility….the SOLE responsibility of the Secretary of State. The Chief of Mission reports directly to the Secretary of State. All requests for additional security are made through the Chief of Mission to the Secretary of State. The Bureau of Diplomatic Security is responsible for the actual execution of the security. Under the Bureau of Diplomatic Security are what is called RSO’s…..regional security officers. RSO’s report directly to the Chief of Mission. They are also the primary contact or liaison between the contract local security and the local police forces.

The RSO’s rely on the assistance of the US military which means that there is a unified command between the diplomatic posts and the military who supply FAST units. (Fleet Anti Terrorism Teams). In addition to FAST units, there are QRF units (Quick Reaction Force) and RDF (Rapid Deployment Force). In addition to these, are Delta Force and SF Teams…as well as the vaunted Navy Seals. ALL OF WHICH WERE IN EASY REACH. The closest team was only one hour away in Tripoli and the furthest team was in Italy, a short flight across the Med. In addition, there are numerous seal teams on board of the carrier strike forces as well as an armada of support planes that could have flown CAS (close air support) missions in support of the post. The decision to not use them does not come from the “RSO’s but directly from the Secretary of State and the POTUS. The COM (Chief of Mission) issues a pre designated code word for send all assistance necessary. (For example, in Vietnam we used “broken arrow” that would be transmitted. This code word would into effect immediately and goes to the highest command, on flash traffic). This procedure is in place today with predetermined words and actions. Once this word is transmitted, all available assets within reach are to be dispatched immediately to alleviate the problem. All current missions are scrubbed and immediate attention turned to the problem area.

There are only three people that can override such a call for assistance…..the commanding general, in war situations, the Secretary of State and the POTUS in diplomatic situations.

There is no secret that the call went out. There is no secret that this was a coordinated attack with heavy weapons……including mortars. It was not a spontaneous mob as a result of some stupid film. The attack bogged down and went into the next day. There was plenty of time to respond and plenty of assets in place. There was no order. The question is why? Did the POTUS know that there was an attack ongoing? Of course he did. How is that? Because the POTUS has with him, 24/7, military aides, one of which carries the football (nuclear codes). The other is the liaison to the War Room. When ANY diplomatic mission, embassy, or post is attacked, the War Room is immediately notified. When that happens, the POTUS’ aide is immediately notified who then notifies the immediate Secret Service supervisor. In addition, the Secretary of State is also immediately notified. Everyone knew…..no one can claim they did not know. Well, that is, they can claim it but it would be a lie. The lives if the Benghazi personnel could have been saved. The reasons that they were not saved is a matter of opinion and is being debated now. It is obvious, to me, that it is politics. My intent was to point out how it works…….and why the Benghazi mission post was attacked.
The politics of it…..well, that is another subject. But…..the bottom line is…..the decision was made to let the mission post die. It did not have to.

About these ads

Comments

  1. gmanfortruth says:

    Nicely written Colonel :) I will hold comment for now, but will say that this fits what I know!

  2. Well done sir. Thanks for the clarity in this murky situation.

  3. Just A Citizen says:

    d13thecolonel

    A little off topic but I know you will appreciate this. A “Holy Crap Batman” moment.

    Per a write up I just read on the TPC tourney today. Tiger bogeys one of his last holes when he hits his EIGHT IRON from 200 YARDs and it flies OVER the green.

    A freakin 8 iron from 200 and he flies the green. Lord I feel so ……………… amateurish.

    My 8 is for the 150 yd shot, in case you wondered.

    • JAC…..I love to play as well and my 8 iron is 140 to 150…….but all these kids on the tour nowadays, knocks the cover off. I play with tour design Taylor Made clubs and can hit the ball but I do not have a 200 yard 8 iron in my bag….I have a 200 yard 4 iron, tho….lol……and I do like long irons……but some of these kids hit 250 yard 3 irons…..unbelievable.

  4. Could it be that they are just paralyzed when confronted with making a decision? Who will it offend? How will it be perceived? For me this is a continuation of the argument that we are no longer capable of doing big things. We think things to death. I am reminded of the unofficial motto of the Infantry School taught to me by a graduate years ago. If the traditional follow me is inappropriate or doesn’t do the trick, then fall back on, “Do something, even if its wrong, do something”!

    Colonel, do you see anything coming out of the hearings or, like Fast and Furious will we just get a lot of jaw,jaw? Funny thing, I was reviewing “Roberts Rules of Order” in my head the other day along with some other things I seem to remember from my past. When the committee voted to hold Eric Holder in contempt over F and F, I believe the Chair could have summoned the Sergeant at Arms and had Holder arrested on the spot. Am I just dreaming?

    • I see a massive cover up and no convictions on anyone…… I do hope it torpedoes Clinton, but I doubt it.

    • We have heard Obama said no twice before giving the OK to take out OBL. Supposedly Clinton was one of his staff that pushed him into that decision. I can see Obama putting off an action, wait til the smoke clears….Can also see him & Clinton discuss how this would impact them and their administration.

      We might even get an answer after 2016, if Clinton runs or bows out. Won’t know if it will be the truth or just he said/she said. And I’m not sure that will matter. I think both of them lied to us to keep power & get Obama re-elected.

  5. You’re probably gonna have to be patient here D :) But here goes-please tell me where I’m getting this wrong. Having an embassy in Benghazi is basically a way to be an irritant to Iran. So allowing Benghazi to fall, besides the totally immoral act of betraying our people who were sent there, is allowing Iran a win. Plus they also insulted the President who came out and said it was a terrorist attack. Giving Iran another win. Now based on these assumptions-I can’t understand why they didn’t double down on protecting Benghazi-but obviously they didn’t -so Why they chose to give Iran a win is a pretty important question?

    • Ok, VHS…….I have the patience of an oyster. You are now talking political issues and not embassy security. I do not know the why of a presence in Benghazi or Tripoli in a country that is in a civil war but as a country we do this but so does everybody else. If I were in charge, I would be out of Libya and leave it alone. I am not implying anything but just giving the facts about Libya and its rebels. There are competing factions in ALL of the ME countries among themselves. It is and always will be a tribal issue. If we, the US, were not a catalyst, any “interloper” would be be the catalyst. Interloper defined as “any foreign” country or state. If no one was there, they would be fighting among themselves. Iran has a huge stake in Libya and we know this. Without Libya, there is no channel for weapons to Hezbollah and the Palestinians through Syria. It is very complicated and convoluted. Iran wants the influence across the Med……so the US has aligned itself with “moderate factions” in the Arab world……the moderate factions being very scared of Iran. Our alignment with the moderate factions is an “unholy” alliance……meaning that they are only our friends to keep Iran in check. Remember that the whole ME issue right now is centered around Iran and the desire to become the 12th Imam.

  6. I’ve heard two arguments in support of the inaction in Benghazi that I would like to discuss whether or not they are valid.

    One-if they let the team from Tripoli go to Benghazi the embassy at Tripoli would have been unprotected. This argument seems reasonable-is it true? Does it matter-should we let others die to protect a maybe or not?

    Two-there were 54 attacks on embassies under Bush where 9 to 13 people were killed. I think this is more of a -they screwed up -so we get a pass argument. but still it is going to be promoted so It would be nice to get the facts. Now I’ve heard that these attacks happened when we were involved in a war. And that there were 4 hearings but no suspicion of any coverups.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      V.H. None of the 54 attacks were done on Embassies that lacked proper security. None were blatantly lied about on the Sunday morning news shows 5 days later. None had witnesses that were basically told to shut up. None lasted 8 hours where NO help was afforded. None had 2 people killed who had to VIOLATE STAND DOWN ORDERS to go help.

      I think that covers most of your questions about this incident versus the 54 under Bush.

    • First, let us address the issue of embassy bombings and put them into perspective. Do not put your faith in the news rags….Huffpo, the Daily Cos, Media Matters, ect. Do not rely on Fox, CNN, MSNBC, etc……their reporting is sanitized. I would look again at the number of embassy bombings……beginning with John F Kennedy in the 1960′s. There have been numbers of them under every single President. Bush was no different and that 54 number…..look again. It is easily researched. You must also see what is described as an attack. A kid riding a bicycle throwing one hand grenade is considered an attack. There were 12 attacks under Bush.

      The issue with Benghazi was not the attack itself…..everyone knew that the rebel factions are pouring into Benghazi. Remember that the “removal” of a station, is the removal of the intelligence gathering apparatus. Remove intelligence gathering and you blind us in that region. The US is known as a cut and run country now. We will not reopen Benghazi.

    • Now, VHS……..no one has to die but being in ANY country puts our personnel at risk. In the case of Benghazi, from a security argument……it is very simple. There is a unified chain of command. DO NOT OVER LOOK this very important issue. A unified chain of command means that it goes to the top……the VERY top. In case you still do not understand….this means that the State Dept and the POTUS are in the chain, including Clinton and Obama……not aides that did not give the word. They knew. Everyone can speculate all they wish. The bottom line is….they had advance warning, they knew, they ignored.

  7. gmanfortruth says:

    Happy Birthday to USW :)

  8. gmanfortruth says:

    In comments that went largely unnoticed, Missouri Congresswoman Ann Wagner (R) directly blamed President Obama for ordering the stand down which facilitated the assault on the US consulate in Benghazi.

    Wagner was asked by talk show host Dana Loesch, “Because you have been an ambassador, you have been overseas with similar responsibilities and similar missions – who gives such an order to stand down? Where does that come from?”

    “The President of the United States,” responded Wagner.

    The White House has been scrambling to avoid the question of who gave the stand down order ever since whistleblower Greg Hicks, who was number two to Ambassador Chris Stevens, testified that US special forces were ready to board a plane in Tripoli but were prevented from coming to the aid of those under assault inside the consulate.

    Hicks revealed that after Stevens had been killed but while the attack was still ongoing, “The Libyan military agreed to fly their C-130 to Benghazi and carry additional personnel to Benghazi as reinforcements,” including US Special Forces, but that a call came through from Special Operations Command Africa saying, “you can’t go now; you don’t have authority to go now.”

    “They were told not to board the flight, so they missed it.” Hicks said.

    In the hours after the stand down order was given, three more American diplomats were killed by terrorists who laid siege to the consulate.

    The Obama administration denies that any kind of stand down order was given, a claim that rings hollow given the White House’s attempt to cover up the nature of what happened in the days after the attack, claiming instead that it was a “protest” sparked by a YouTube video.

    It was also recently revealed that the State Department hired Al-Qaeda-linked militants to “defend” the diplomatic mission in Benghazi that was later attacked. State Department officials who blocked efforts to help Americans under assault later tried to hide Al-Qaeda’s involvement in the attack.

    As we have exhaustively documented, the Obama administration’s support for Al-Qaeda-linked militants in Libya, which led to the toppling of Colonel Gaddafi, directly contributed to the attack on the consulate and the death of Ambassador Stevens. The very hospital that Stevens was taken to in the last moments of his life was run by the same terrorists who attacked the consulate and who had been empowered as a result of the White House’s military intervention in Libya.

    Despite some predicting that the Benghazi cover-up could lead to the impeachment of Barack Obama, an almost identical situation is now unfolding in Syria as a result of the White House’s support for Al-Qaeda terrorists in the pursuit of regime change.

    Despite the fact that militants in Syria have openly espoused their hatred for the United States – burning American flags in public while praising Osama Bin Laden and glorifying the 9/11 attacks – the Obama administration is preparing to send them heavy weaponry.

    A growing body of evidence also suggests that the entire purpose of the consulate in Benghazi and Ambassador Stevens’ role there was to oversee clandestine arms shipments to Syrian rebels.

    http://www.infowars.com/congresswoman-obama-gave-benghazi-stand-down-order/

    • gmanfortruth says:

      If this is true, as other sources have also said, then Obama is guilty of MURDER!

    • I think this is true that the commander-in-chief had to order no response to stop an automatic response. But no, Obama is not guilty of murder. No one can say we could have saved any or all lives lost. Not the point. The commander-in-chief is expected to support and back his people. If he had let standing orders proceed and they still died, would we have not caught or killed many of the attackers? If we could have saved just one life, would it not have been worth the effort?

  9. @ VHS………..leaving the Tripoli Station did not have to happen either…..but to answer your question….the SF team there could have gone without repercussion to Tripoli.

    • Could you give me some details-why would there be no repercussions? Would it have left Tripoli without security? Is the reason they didn’t need to leave Tripoli because there were other resources that should have been used?

      • There would have been no repercussions to Tripoli. The SF team was not the primary defense of Tripoli. SF teams are reactionary…they are there to respond. One SF team, assuming A team, with air support has the combat effectiveness of a battalion…. That is to say, the condensed fire power of 300-500 combat troops. You get this kind of firepower utilizing air cover, fields of fire, interlocking kill and control zones, etc. (wont bore you with details). In addition, Benghazi is on the coast of the Med…….there are carrier task forces to support NATO….in the Med. no one is reporting the movement of the task force within 30 min strike time with an on target value of 6 hours…. Meaning that air power could have been on station continually from a jeep carrier ( small carrier designed to carry none jet assets).

        The assets were ready….there were plenty of them……they were ordered to stand down. Let me be very clear on this……in military terminology…..stand down means there will be NO response. NONE. It means that the Benghazi incident does not exist.

        This decision was a calculated and specific political decision without regard to life. Very simple.

        • Allow me to make sure you understand thoroughly. The Benghazi mission, and its support staff, was sacrificed. It was allowed to die for political expediency. I cannot be more clear than that. It died so that the legacy of Obama/Clinton could continue. It was as if they pulled the trigger themselves.

          • Thanks D-that’s exactly what I thought-Just wanted the information put out there for those who still believe this is being blown out of proportion.

            I have been told my whole life that we have a very powerful military with assets everywhere-the left insists constantly that the military needs to be cut-that it can be cut without harm because they are so over funded and have so much excess. But now they believe we didn’t have the assets to help these people. I look at it-bottomline-they did nothing to help these people-nothing-nada-except make up excuses for why they couldn’t.

  10. All;

    Given the predominate nature of the US population majority to just plain not give a rat’s ass, it is highly unlikely that obama or clinton will recieve any retribution for their acts of treason. The majority of citizens are more interested in the other two headlines, or what some hollywood starlet is doing.

    If clinton does run for the POTUS in 2016 and manages to win, it will just be another example of how our society as a whole is declining.

    I have a fraternity brother currently stationed somewhere in the ME. He is a Colonel in SF and is due back home around October. It will be his last tour, as he will retire. He and I will be getting together at Deer camp this fall. It will be interesting to hear what he will have to say about this.

    Hope all here at SUFA are well. Work keeps me otherwise occupied, but I did want to hear what D13 had to say.

    CM

    • Good morning, CM…..hope you and yours are doing well.

      • Colonel;

        All is good, just lots of work. Territory was expanded and that has me running all over the Mid-Michigan area. But temps are normally in the 70′s, we are greening up and next week the boats go in the water.

        Could you answer this for me? Once my other Colonel friend comes home and retires, how much, if anything, will he be able to discuss relative to Benghazi and the ME in general?

        I don’t want to put any pressure on him to talk (Huh, like I could pressure a SF Colonel…Ha!) but I am sure he has a very clear picture of things.

        CM

  11. gmanfortruth says:

    Heads should roll over this, Obama’s should be first. Nothing will happen, when that becomes a fact, some of you will understand why I have zero faith in the gang of 536. They are all criminals and sadly, people will go to the polls and vote for more corruption.

    On a slightly different note, that sick pervert Castro who held those girls captive in Ohio, is a registered Democrat. And to think they worry about conservatives being violent, BWAHAHAHA! :)

  12. Just A Citizen says:

    OK my lefty friends who made fun of the Tea Party accusations last year. What do you say now?

    IRS Apologizes For Inappropriately Targeting Conservative Political Groups In 2012 Election

    By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER 05/10/13 10:43 AM ET EDT AP

    WASHINGTON — The Internal Revenue Service is apologizing for inappropriately flagging conservative political groups for additional reviews during the 2012 election to see if they were violating their tax-exempt status.

    Lois Lerner, who heads the IRS unit that oversees tax-exempt groups, said organizations that included the words “tea party” or “patriot” in their applications for tax-exempt status were singled out for additional reviews.

    Lerner said the practice, initiated by low-level workers in Cincinnati, was wrong and she apologized while speaking at a conference in Washington.

    Many conservative groups complained during the election that they were being harassed by the IRS. They said the agency asked them an inordinate number of questions to justify their tax-exempt status.

    Certain tax-exempt charitable groups can conduct political activities but it cannot be their primary activity.

  13. gmanfortruth says:

    BOMBSHELL: Mayor Sarah Palin Denied Police Protection To Family, Resulting In Their Murder

    [NOTE: make sure you read the full post to the bottom]

    If Sarah Palin had any 2016 presidential aspirations, this story might deal a significant deathblow to them.

    It begins in Wasilla, Alaska, in late 1998, when a family of four–a single mother and her three daughters–began, according to police reports, receiving untraceable, sexually perverse telephone calls from an unknown man.

    Over a period of six weeks, the calls became more frequent, and so the mother requested and received from the telephone company a change of number. The calls stopped for a while, and the family was now able to live in peace.

    Until two months later.

    That’s when the same man, having finally, somehow, discovered the new phone number, began his phone calls again. But now he dropped from his calls the sexuality and replaced it with threats of violence against the woman and her three children.

    This is when Sarah Palin entered the picture.

    The mother allegedly (there is no proof) went to Palin’s office to put in a formal request for 24-hour police monitoring of her house.

    The request was allegedly denied for some yet unknown reason.

    The next month, the family’s home was broken into and all four of them were murdered.

    Naturally, this caused heavy unease in Wasilla, and the citizens wanted to hear from Mayor Palin on the matter.

    Palin, busy with her re-election campaign, directed all questions to her spokesman, who continually told local reporters that the murder had nothing to do with the harassing phone calls of previous months. “It was just a spontaneous burglary,” said the spokesman, “that culminated, unfortunately, with a murder.”

    Murder is a federal issue, of course, so, several months later, Sarah Palin herself was questioned before Congress on what exactly transpired with regard to the stalker, the family of four, and their murder. (If you were up until this point unaware of these congressional hearings, that can be attributed to Palin’s not being a major figure in politics at that time.)

    Under oath, Palin claimed that no security of any kind was ever requested. At one point, the strain of being questioned having evidently taken its toll on her, she attempted to deflect the questioning and suggested it doesn’t matter who is to blame. “What difference, at this point, does it make?” she erupted indignantly.

    The questions ultimately ceased, both by Congress and by the news media, who were content with not knowing the answers.

    But now a white paper of the mother’s formal request of that 24-hour police monitoring has been released, along with the formal denial of that request. The damning revelation: Sarah Palin’s signature is on that denial.

    This is proof–not evidence, but proof–that Sarah Palin, Mayor of Wasilla, was requested security; that Sarah Palin, Mayor of Wasilla, did deny that security, which resulted in the deaths of four women and children; that Sarah Palin, Mayor of Wasilla, committed the crime of perjury before Congress; and that Sarah Palin, private citizen and potential 2016 Republican presidential candidate, can kiss any political future goodbye and start preparing to live the rest of her days in an 8-by-10 prison cell.

    That is, if the media cares enough to report on this atrocity.

    I assume most intelligent people have figured out what this post is really about. For the record, all the claims made about Sarah Palin in this post are fictional and written for satirical purposes. The post is really about Hillary Clinton and the Benghazi scandal.

    Read more: http://politicaloutcast.com/2013/05/bombshell-mayor-sarah-palin-denied-police-protection-to-family-resulting-in-their-murder/#ixzz2Su0rBOv2

  14. Just A Citizen says:

    In a related story this morning: As one commenter put it, a random act of journalism by ABC.

    “When 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.

    ABC 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.

    White 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 attack.

    That would appear to directly contradict what White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said about the talking points in November.

    “Those 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 inaccurate.”

    Summaries of White House and State Department emails — some of which were first published by Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard — show that the State Department had extensive input into the editing of the talking points.

    State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland raised specific objections to this paragraph drafted by the CIA in its earlier versions of the talking points:

    “The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qa’ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya. These noted that, since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador’s convoy. We cannot rule out the individuals has previously surveilled the U.S. facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks.”

    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 …”

    The paragraph was entirely deleted.

    Like the final version used by Ambassador Rice on the Sunday shows, the CIA’s first drafts said the attack appeared to have been “spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo” but the CIA version went on to say, “That being said, we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.” The draft went on to specifically name the al Qaeda-affiliated group named Ansar al-Sharia.

    Once again, Nuland objected to naming the terrorist groups because “we don’t want to prejudice the investigation.”

    In response, an NSC staffer coordinating the review of the talking points wrote back to Nuland, “The FBI did not have major concerns with the points and offered only a couple minor suggestions.”

    After the talking points were edited slightly to address Nuland’s concerns, she responded that changes did not go far enough.

    “These changes don’t resolve all of my issues or those of my buildings leadership,” Nuland wrote.

    In an email dated 9/14/12 at 9:34 p.m. — three days after the attack and two days before Ambassador Rice appeared on the Sunday shows – Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes wrote an email saying the State Department’s concerns needed to be addressed.

    “We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don’t want to undermine the FBI investigation. We thus will work through the talking points tomorrow morning at the Deputies Committee meeting.”

    After that meeting, which took place Saturday morning at the White House, the CIA drafted the final version of the talking points – deleting all references to al Qaeda and to the security warnings in Benghazi prior to the attack.

    White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said none of this contradicts what he said about the talking points because ultimately all versions were actually written and signed-off by the CIA.

    “The CIA drafted these talking points and redrafted these talking points,” Carney said. “The fact that there are inputs is always the case in a process like this, but the only edits made by anyone here at the White House were stylistic and nonsubstantive. They corrected the description of the building or the facility in Benghazi from consulate to diplomatic facility and the like. And ultimately, this all has been discussed and reviewed and provided in enormous levels of detail by the administration to Congressional investigators, and the attempt to politicize the talking points, again, is part of an effort to, you know, chase after what isn’t the substance here.”

    UPDATE: A source familiar with the White House emails on the Benghazi talking point revisions say that State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland was raising two concerns about the CIA’s first version of talking points, which were going to be sent to Congress: 1) The talking points went further than what she was allowed to say about the attack during her state department briefings; and, 2) she believed the CIA was attempting to exonerate itself at the State Department’s expense by suggesting CIA warnings about the security situation were ignored.

    In one email, Nuland asked, why are we suggest Congress “start making assertions to the media [about the al Qaeda connection] that we ourselves are not making because we don’t want to prejudice the investigation?”

    One other point: The significant edits – deleting references to al Qaeda and the CIA’s warnings – came after a White House meeting on the Saturday before Ambassador Susan Rice appeared on five Sunday shows. Nuland, a 30-year foreign service veteran who has served under Democratic and Republican Secretaries of State, was not at that meeting and played no direct role in preparing Rice for her interviews.”

    • Aw hell JAC..what difference does it make what was edited? ;)

      Once again, Nuland objected to naming the terrorist groups because “we don’t want to prejudice the investigation.”

      Don’t want to prejudice the investigation? Then why have an investigation if you aren’t interested in full disclosure. :evil:

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Anita

        Good morning my Sparty friend. Getting ready for some lake time? Weather must be finally getting normal.

        Been very warm here for over a week.

  15. Just A Citizen says:

    d13thecolonel

    Good morning Sir. Your going to have to help me out with some confusion.

    Gaddafi was Arab and from Benghazi. So why did the Arabs in Benghazi suddenly wage war against him?

    You intimated that the civil war was Arab vs. Berber as in Benghazi vs Tripoli but wasn’t it the Arabs that were primarily controlling Libya?

  16. D13,

    Great article. Have thoughts and question will try to post when time allows…

    • Really need a score card to keep up. First, the attack took place on a date aimed at America, a date we should remember. This was a political message, plain and simple.
      http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/stevens.asp

      Obama was campaining on OBL was dead and Al Qaeda was on the ropes. They delivered a rebuttal and the US media and the Obama administration blocked it. A US ambassador who was also gay, was killed on 9/11 and the United States did and has done nothing. If we can’t find you & kill you with a drone, you don’t have to worry about a US response. And there are other who might like to harm the US.

      Russia has warned the US to stay out of Syria. It appears Stevens and the US were supplying arms to the Syrian rebels? I can see Russia enabling such an attack. With Syria and Iran to work thru, them pointing out where US weapons were staging from, provide intelligence and let things happen.

      Have to wonder at the “game” Russia might be playing, testing Obama’s response. I think China is more the threat, pushing in several area’s to see if we will back our protectorates…
      China and Russia could even act together without an alliance, but shared interests. In the Middle East, we have only Israel to consider a “friend”. Everyone else would like to see us fall. The only difference is those who are active and those waiting for the right time to be active.

  17. More from our transparent President-

    Transparency: WH Holds Benghazi Briefing … Off-the-Record

    Print Article Send a Tip
    by Ben Shapiro 10 May 2013, 11:18 AM PDT 0 post a comment
    In the White House’s latest efforts at transparency, the administration announced to reporters that it would brief reporters on the latest shocking developments about the Benghazi situation … behind closed doors. Politico reports that the meeting started at approximately 12:45 PM ET, and that it moved the normal press briefing to 1:45 PM ET. Jay Carney, White House press secretary, did not comment on whether the meeting took place.

    Politico reports:

    The off-the-record session was announced to reporters in the wake of an ABC News report showing that White House and State Dept. officials were involved in revising the now-discredited CIA talking points about the attack on Benghazi.

    The administration routinely exerts pressure on reporters it feels are not kind enough in their coverage. Reporters like Cheryl Attkisson of CBS News have felt the hand of their bosses for “wading dangerously close to advocacy” with regard to Benghazi. No doubt this “off-the-record” meeting was designed to get all the president’s horses and all the president’s men to put the Benghazi humpty dumpty together again.

    UPDATE: Reporters not invited to the off-the-record briefing are reportedly incredibly unhappy about it:

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/05/10/White-House-Benghazi-off-the-record

    • Just read this wasn’t “off the record” it was “deep background” Which they said meant they could report the information given but not quote who said it. This sounds worse. What is it exactly a way for the government to leak information or propaganda on a grand scale or what?

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Do you ever read the shit you link to? :roll:

    • Charlie, there is a big difference in how you respond to a bombing that is over in seconds an eight hour gun battle.

      • T … I’m pulling your chains … I too believe Obama/Clinton screwed up … but I could care less about the coverup … it’s the fact they didn’t heed the warnings … all those embassies should’ve been pulled … why take the risk? Let them clear their own shit up and then if they want us back, we go back, but not before. It was top level incompetence … start to finish and they should pay for it. It’ll be interesting to see if the press goes after them with any genuine vigor. Probably not.

    • Hey there Charlie……this is not exactly true……when a bomb was thrown at Turkish Embassy…it was not classified. When the Embassy right there in Benghazi was machined gunned last year, it was not classified as an attack……it matters how things were reported. Even so…I don’t care if there were 100 attacks under Bush and only one under Obama…..the point is that NO other president ….including Jimmy Carter….abandoned Americans and let them die. Obama/Clinton hold that distinction.

  18. Just A Citizen says:

    I saw an article this morning about Karl Roves group already running internet video go after H. Clinton on Benghazi.

    Further evidence of my proposition that Republican Leadership is STUPID. To the point of not be “leaders” at all.

    When the wall protecting your adversary finally breaks down it is far more effective and less costly to you if you let the jackels rush the breach and finish the job.

    In other words, get the hell out of the way and stay “shut up”.

    The good news in this is it could be evidence that Rove is struggling for any “relevancy”. This could represent a desperate attempt at showing strength in hope of gaining donations and support.

    I hope it BLOWS UP IN HIS FACE.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Agreed JAC, Rove is another Elitist/Globalist worthy of a rope on an oak limb.

    • I think this is where the Repug’s should do an all out assault. They should attack him on every major issue they can and show just what a crappy job he has done.
      Boston, we had warning but the system worked as they say, we catch them after.
      Benghazi, we had warnings.
      Ft Hood, we had warnings.
      Egypt, it was wondered if the rebels were friendly to the US.
      Guncontrol failed to pass the Democratic controlled senate because none of the proposals would have prevented Sandy Hook or Aurora.
      Fast & Furious, could we arrest Eric Holder already???
      ObamaCare is driving health care costs UP!!!
      ObamaCare has no state exchange in how many states?
      They are still trying to write the rules so they can implement ObamaCare?
      Have they hired all the IRS agents needed to enforce ObamaCare?
      How many parties has the WH thrown while they closed tours due to the “sequester”?

      But, do not say anything about his golf outings. Let him play as much and often til his term is up might save us more grief than impeaching him…

    • The only person with less relevance than Karl Rove (the architect?) is Dick Morris. I concur completely with why he is doing what he is doing. Unless he can quickly rebuild some type of reputation, he might have to actually start working for a living. The dri-mark and clipboard can only take you so far.

      People who think him smart amaze me.Bush won because he was not Clinton. Bush won the second time because people were:

      1. unwilling to change a leader during a war,
      2. The Iraq thing was not yet complete bollixed up,
      3. Did not trust John F. Kerry

      Mickey Mouse could have managed Bush’s campaign and had the same results.

  19. The Democrats and their left wing supports care as much about the Benghazi attacks as they do for Brian Terry. The only time they care about who lied when is if they think it was a Republican doing the lying.

    Hypocrisy, thy name is progressive Democrat.

    • Hey, genius (FLP) … ever hear of WMD and Iraq?

      • Yup, and I am still waiting for an investigation and congressional hearings on that one also. You see, I don’t care about party politics. But the further we get from an event the harder it is to get to the truth, that is why I don’t want to see politicians get a pass on a current event.

        So genius, do you care about Brian Terry and the cover up on the border or the cover up in Benghazi enough to prosecute Democrats for their crimes?

        • You see, I don’t care about party politics.

          Yeah, right. So many on the “right” say that, but it’s quite the joke. Your comments say otherwise – like the next line:

          enough to prosecute Democrats for their crimes?

          Do you think we should wait for all the facts to come out first? Or should we just start prosecuting Democrats for their crimes?

          Hypocrisy, thy name is progressive Democrat stupid conservative…

          • So, he he he, stupid is a synonym for progressive :)

            • He he he – you don’t like my SARCASM, so I’m trying to be less SUBTLE! ;)

              So then I guess FLParrot is a stupid progressive conservative?

              My (LIBERAL) thesaurus says stupid is a synonym for conservative – so I guess I’m being redundant!

            • V.H. This is what progressivism leads too, name calling. It serves no logical purpose, other than to stifle dissent against their ideology. Happy Mother’s Day :)

          • “You see, I don’t care about party politics.”

            Without reading what led up to this, I can feel very confident in saying this is ONE CROCK OF SHIT. I SERIOUSLY DOUBT IF MORE THAN 2 SUFA SYCOPHANTS (IF THAT MANY) DON’T VOTE REPUBLICAN. pa-leeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeze

            • I do not vote Republican or Democrat. Awhile back I realized what a scam the political party system really is. You like the Green party if I’m correct. I would not vote for anyone afilliated with any party. If one can’t win on his own merits, it’s just part of the big scam. No thanks.

              Pass on a Happy Mother’s day to your Mom and your better half. May they both have a wonderful day :)

              • Back at you, G … your Mom and wife and all the mothers out there.

                And Go Rangers today … you should be rooting for them, G … they’re playing a team from D.C. … (district of criminals) … :)

            • Believe what you want but I have voted for Democrats in the past and would again in the future if they would nominate a candidate that represented my principles. Don’t project your blind party loyalty on others.

        • “So genius, do you care about Brian Terry and the cover up on the border or the cover up in Benghazi enough to prosecute Democrats for their crimes?”

          Nice try, moron. You’re comparing those deaths to those in Iraq. No wonder you believe in HIM … you’re clearly a moron.

          And a liar … you don’t believe in party politics … now that’s funny.

          • Actually Charlie, you compared Iraq to benghazi and the border killing. Apples and Oranges. Try Bush and Cheney for war crimes (and every politician that voted for the war).

            Then try Obama, Clinton and a few more for treason. Fair is fair Brother :)

            • I have NO problem with that solution, G … but what I was comparing was FLP saying hypocrisy being the name of progressive democrats … vs. the Republican wars of choice … boff’ a’dem … oy vey.

              • Actually what you were doing was jumping to conclusions and name calling like a school yard bully. Stop using the mistakes of others to cover up the crimes of the current administration, the one we can actually hold accountable for their crimes. Trust me, when a republican is President again we will be on the same side looking to hold that president accountable for their actions, why can’t we do it now?

      • This is the kind of hypocrisy that makes me mad, please explain to me why it does not make you mad Todd or charlie?

        https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/946459_10151432561936733_1912558520_n.png

        And if you only answer is because a republican did something similar, save it… those kind of excuses have worn out their welcome.

        • FLPatriot,
          Context is important.

          Johnson’s question:

          No, again, we were misled that there were supposedly protests and that something sprang out of that — an assault sprang out of that — and that was easily ascertained that that was not the fact, and the American people could have known that within days and they didn’t know that.

          Clinton’s answer:

          With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator. Now, honestly, I will do my best to answer your questions about this, but the fact is that people were trying in real time to get to the best information. The IC has a process, I understand, going with the other committees to explain how these talking points came out. But you know, to be clear, it is, from my perspective, less important today looking backwards as to why these militants decided they did it than to find them and bring them to justice, and then maybe we’ll figure out what was going on in the meantime.

          Johnson was saying the American people could have known this was an attack and not protests turned violent “within days” instead of a few extra days.

          Clinton’s response was that we had four dead Americans – “What difference at this point does it make” if it took a few extra days for all the details to come out?

          If you read the entire exchange between Johnson and Clinton, you’d see she answered all his questions and he did not “object” to Clinton’s comment – because in the CONTEXT of the discussion, it make perfect sense.

          Understand now?

          • “Clinton’s response was that we had four dead Americans – “What difference at this point does it make” if it took a few extra days for all the details to come out?”

            To the dead American’s, no difference. To their friends and family, I think a huge difference. But by the time she got around to making an official response, Obama had already been re-elected. Like a good team player, she played her role just as Rice did. And now it looks as if the truth is about to come out. They all lied. They did it to get him elected. And now even mainstreem media is reporting the big lie. Mainstreem media has to try and save itself and will have to throw it’s progressive hero’s under the bus to regain any credibility with the masses.

            How’s you credibility on Benghazi there Toddster? Did you argue it was mob violence sparked by a UTube video, not a “terrorist” attack? Maybe we had to wait for a full investigation, but we would soon know the complete truth from the most transparent administration in history? And aren’t you trying to change the subject away from the fact that the Progressive Movements two greatest stars have been caught lying to keep power?

            • LOI,
              So they all lied to get Obama reelected. How many of these types of scenarios have come up about Obama? It started with the Birthers, and it’s been one after another ever since then.

              The truth is about to come out.
              They all lied to cover for Obama.
              The MSM is covering for him.
              But then the MSM has to try and save itself and it will throw Obama (and now Clinton) under the bus to regain credibility.
              (I thought you didn’t like the MSM? How much of it do you watch to know all this? Or does the American Thinker just tell you this?)

              How many times has this scenario played its self out in the right-wing media?

              And when nothing happens from the current scenario, they just move to the next one – cause this time it’s for real!

              And you just follow along…

              I’m not sure how I’m changing the subject? I didn’t understand FLPatriot’s point until Bottom Line pointed out it was Clinton in the top photo. But my comment still stands. When Clinton said “What difference at this point does it make” she was referring to the time frame for the details to come out. She was not referring to “What did the president know and when did he know it?”.

              And nobody has been caught lying yet – at least in the real world.

              • ” It started with the Birthers,” Actually the was Democrat Hillary Clinton that started the birther thing and MSNBC that keeps investigating it.

                “And nobody has been caught lying yet – at least in the real world.” Only those blinded by loyalty have not seen the evidence of the cover up.

        • FLPatriot,

          This is the kind of hypocrisy that makes me mad

          What is the “hypocrisy that makes me mad” in this photo?

          • Bottom Line says:

            Todd,

            Isn’t it obvious?

            When she was a young law student, she was questioning the integrity of the president as to get to the bottom of the truth.

            Years later when she is a politician addressing a similar situation, she says “what difference does it make?’.

            Why isn’t she exhibiting the same curiosity? Why is she not questioning the president’s knowledge/awareness now?

            Before, she valued truth and righteousness above the personal best interest of the president, …now she values keeping a lid on things as to protect the president.

            Her before and after attitude are in direct contrast, …thus hypocritical.

            • Bottom Line,
              I didn’t realize the top photo was Clinton as well. So what’s the context when she made that statement in 1974? Is there a link with video or a transcript?

              But my comment still stands. When Clinton said “What difference at this point does it make” she was referring to the time frame for the details to come out. She was not referring to “What did the president know and when did he know it?”.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Despite all the evidence, they are still trying to lie their way out of it all. Obama will never take responsibility, it’s not in his beliefs. He is a nacissist marxist who only seeks absolute power and control. He proves this over and over. It’s Bush’s fault, it’s the republicans fault, it’s the Senates fault, blah blah blah.

      His Green investments are another example. Loaning to companies going down, claiming that 5 million jobs will be produced. His Administration has spent 29 billion on green investments. Total jobs made….2300. He is a joke :roll:

  20. Brought foreward because I think it applies to this topic…

    Just A Citizen says:

    May 8, 2013 at 2:24 pm

    OK, it is time to swing for the fences to see what kind of reaction I get from the SUFA regulars.

    Mr. Obama is doing a GOOD JOB on the Syrian mess. That is assuming he wasn’t running guns to Syria last year.

    I disagree with him providing AID today. But given our modern President’s desire to ACT for the sake of ACTION, I appreciate his restraint so far.

    I also disagree with and denounce the Republican efforts to chastise him for waiting to get more information on the “chemical attacks”. Although he did jump the gun it looks like when he claimed that it “appears the Hassad govt used chemicals”. UN now reports it was the rebels.

    I am currently giving him a B or B- on Syria.

    Reply

    gmanfortruth says:

    May 8, 2013 at 4:33 pm

    HMM, interesting. The CIA is funding and supporting the rebels, just like in Libya. The only reason Obama is holding back the military is likely Russia. This also has Bengazi written all over it. The weapons used in Libya and provided by the CIA and The US (including funding and aiding AL Qeida) are now in Syria. At some point it will likely be told that it was the reason for the attack in Bengazi, to “steal” the weapons.

    With these hearings on Bengazi going on, it’s prime time for something big to happen to deflect the attention. I hope D13 can get his article on here real soon, looking forward to his views. My opinion is that this was a hit and murder, organized and ordered by the CIA. The stand down order is a disgrace. Clinton is a lying bitch, she knew everything. She gave the go ahead and Obama is just as guilty. They are criminal murderers and should be tried as such.

    So the question should be, where is almost 10K heat seeking missiles?

    Reply

    Just A Citizen says:

    May 8, 2013 at 5:03 pm

    Why would the CIA order a hit on the guy who was setting up the deal??

    That make no damn sense G.

    But it will be interesting if the gun deals come to full light. Can’t wait to hear the rationalizing.

    Reply

    gmanfortruth says:

    May 8, 2013 at 9:29 pm

    JAC, I must get information from a differnt place. Why would the CIA whack him? Simple, he was fixing to talk. He was murdered, plain and simple. Now to watch for a war or some other distraction.

    If you cannot see that the Feds are nothing but criminals, I feel for you. But I still like you

    Reply

    Just A Citizen says:

    May 9, 2013 at 2:07 am

    gman

    Your use of FEDS in this case is just far to encompassing of ALL Federal employees.

    They are not all criminals nor are they all doing shady things.

    As for the Ambassador, how do you or anyone know what he was planning to say?

    The guy was part of the elite. The very corrupt people you are talking about. There is no way in hell he was going to squeal on any operation that he was part of.

    Want proof? Try to think of ANY top tier whistleblower. Not since Deep Throat my friend.

    Reply

    gmanfortruth says:

    May 9, 2013 at 7:38 am

    JAC, my bad on the Fed’s issue. To clarify, I’m of the 536 elected ones in the District of Clowns. I could add a few more, but will leave it at that

    The Ambassador learned something that he shouldn’t have. There are lots of things that don’t get put in print that I hear, so to speak. Another strange rumor that went around for a very short time was that he was also openly gay.

    Not many top tier whistleblowers don’t live to whistleblow. The lower level one’s are just branded conspiracy theorists by the Govt and and their coward leberal media pundits.

    Despite all of this, I’m looking forward to D13′s article. Stay healthy my friend

    Reply

    d13thecolonel says:

    May 8, 2013 at 7:01 pm

    He was running guns……

    Reply

    gmanfortruth says:

    May 8, 2013 at 9:24 pm

    Why do we know this and nobody else? This was so obvious a blind man could see it. He was gonna talk, and boom.

    Reply

    d13thecolonel says:

    May 8, 2013 at 10:05 pm

    You are very benevolent in your grading system…… He gets an “F” for boots on the ground. We are there in an unofficial advisory role. He gets an “F” for involving the US in a civil war. He gets an “F” for supplying financial aid to the rebels. He gets an “F” for supplying weapons through a surrogate Rebel group aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood. ( the port of entry is Tripoli ).

    Reply

    Just A Citizen says:

    May 9, 2013 at 2:10 am

    d13

    I was using a CURVE. The same one everyone applied to Bush in the beginning. So by the same standard Obama looks like an isolationist.

    Given your intel I will lower the grade to D. For me an F is when we start interceding with our own air/sea/ground forces.

    Reply

    d13thecolonel says:

    May 9, 2013 at 8:21 am

    Ahhh…..ok.

    Damned troublemaker JAC!!!!

    I would give him a D- or F. On the surface it appears he has kept us out of what would be a no win situation for the US(like Libya). We can’t confirm he’s been supplying the rebels with weapons but we know he has supported them with “foreign aid”. He has taken a side in a civil war. That invites anyone with a hand at the table to take offense (not that they need a reason). Syria is Russia bitch. If he wants to be”active” here, call his buddy Putin out to step in and bring peace. “Come on tough guy, reach in between those
    pit bulls and pull them apart”.

    And the F because it appears we are funneling weapons to Syria thru Libya. He decided to throw rocks at a hornets nest and talked our Ambassador into walking up to close range to throw….

    • gmanfortruth says:

      I’ll stick with what I believe. Too many stand down orders from the top. I think this chat was before Israel attacked Syria by air. I’ve heard nothing from Russia. Israel given green light to bring in Iran maybe? The ME is a mess and we should leave and let them fix it for themselves.

      Watch how the media starts to report on Saudi Arabia. :wink:

  21. Nobody sees the relationship to Yemen………..

  22. IRS Inquisition Update
    By Kevin Williamson
    May 11, 2013 9:40 AM
    Comments

    Along with targeting tea-party groups, the IRS may also have given extra-special attention to the tax-exempt status of some Jewish groups for political reasons.

    From the Jewish Press:

    The passionately pro-Israel organization Z STREET filed a lawsuit against the IRS, claiming it had been told by an IRS agent that because the organization was “connected to Israel,” its application for tax-exempt status would receive additional scrutiny. This admission was made in response to a query about the lengthy reveiw of Z STREET’s tax exempt status application.

    In addition, the IRS agent told a Z STREET representative that the applications of some of those Israel-related organizations have been assigned to “a special unit in the D.C. office to determine whether the organization’s activities contradict the Administration’s public policies.”

    … And at least one purely religious Jewish organization, one not focused on Israel, was the recipient of bizarre and highly inappropriate questions about Israel. Those questions also came from the same non-profit division of the IRS at issue for inappropriately targeting politically conservative groups. The IRS required that Jewish organization to state “whether [it] supports the existence of the land of Israel,” and also demanded the organization “[d]escribe [its] religious belief system toward the land of Israel.”

    More bureaucratic snafus?

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/348013/irs-inquisition-update

    • gmanfortruth says:

      When Govt organizations become a political arm of the party in control, they are no longer Constitutional, they are tyrannical. This is more Beta tests on how much people will take. 99.9% of people will not even know about this. The gate is almost closed.

  23. Just A Citizen says:

    d13thecolonel

    Good morning Sir, a fine Saturday morning here.

    You apparently missed my question yesterday. So reposted here:

    d13thecolonel

    Good morning Sir. Your going to have to help me out with some confusion.

    Gaddafi was Arab and from Benghazi. So why did the Arabs in Benghazi suddenly wage war against him?

    You intimated that the civil war was Arab vs. Berber as in Benghazi vs Tripoli but wasn’t it the Arabs that were primarily controlling Libya?

  24. Last Sunday I had some hope that the press would finally take Obama and Clinton to task for Benghazi. I have lost all hope since then. It is obvious they are in full, “What difference does it make!” mode. I will predict the following:

    1) Hillary will come through unscathed. She will lay low for a few months and then start the NH-IA circuit. The press will not mention Benghazi and will pooh-pooh any attempts to tar her with the problem. No one will run her 3 am phone call add from 2008 and note that she got the call but rolled over and went back to sleep.

    2) Obama’s press shield will continue. There will be no consequences for lying to the public about Benghazi. There will be no impeachment attempt as his response was just a judgment call. There are no laws against poor judgment or against lying to the public. F&F all over again, no consequences.

    3) The R’s will not aggressively dig into the gun running issue as they are just as complicit in it as is Obama.

    4) The press will label all this as just political sniping, “move along, nothing here to see.”

    5) All the department heads have already changed, SecState, DoD, CIA, UN Amb…, so no one will be replaced as a direct fallout of Benghazi. Besides, when someone screws up on the job it is being insensitive to can them for it. Feelings matter.

    Let’s get back to the important stuff. What’s happening on IDOL and what is PARIS up to?

    • gmanfortruth says:

      You forgot one thing, it’s Bush’s fault :)

      • No they can not claim it was Bush’s fault but they can claim he allowed many more embassies to be attacked. Therefore it is OK.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        gman

        You missed it yesterday. It is now Romney’s fault.

        • I think I know what happened. O grew up out of the country so he doesn’t know that in America the cavalry always comes riding over the hill in the second reel. His job was to send the cavalry.

          • That pretty much says it in a nut shell-We are willing to fight for this Country that we love, we send our mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, sons and daughters to fight and represent this Country. But it is on the condition that when they get in trouble -you/the government-send in the cavalry to help them. You the government at the bare minimum-TRY to save them. Can anyone show me, anywhere, anything, this Commander-in-Chief and his appointed people did to try and help save them-Anything? Because all I see is their doing their level best to stop any attempt that was made to help them.

            • “That pretty much says it in a nut shell-We are willing to fight for this Country that we love, we send our mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, sons and daughters to fight and represent this Country. But it is on the condition that when they get in trouble -you/the government-send in …”

              Way too often without thinking, that’s for damn sure. We do it with a blind faith that mirrors religious fanatics of all stripes … we question nothing (G, hear that?) … and get involved in shit that doesn’t concern us AT ALL (vietnam, afghanistan, iraq) … and who and what do we do it for? Liberty? Try again. The people? Yeah, right. We do it so the 1% can protect their interests (or expand them) … we do it based on overzealous nationalism pumped up by the media that is controlled by the 1% … we do it willingly … the same way we took it up the asses with the bailouts (some applauding them) … and the same way we didn’t prosecute those who bankrupted the country … we aren’t half as badass as we think we are when you consider we haven’t won any of the three wars mentioned above. In fact, we kind of got our asses kicked, and it really doesn’t make a difference whether you blame pols for that or not. It’s we, the collective flag wavers that allowed it … the same way we allow two parties exclusive rights to rule the roost … both of them bought and sold. Yeah, we’re number 1 … keep telling yourselves that.

              • You know Charlie-we can argue what we should do and shouldn’t do-but in this instance we had already done it-they were there-protect them and if you aren’t willing to protect them then get them the hell out of there. All the, IMO, bad decisions made before the attack and all the justifications and lies after the attack are important but for me it boils down to-in the end, when the shit hit the fan-did you do every reasonable thing that you could to save our people. The answer to that question seems to be NO! And that isn’t acceptable-there is no justification for that-there is no argument that supports doing nothing. Oh wait they did finally send a plane to pick up the pieces after it was all over. Wonder where they got the money for that.

              • Wilsonian democracy my friend which incidentally helps certain people financially..

              • Careful charlie, you are sounding more libertarian than socialist. A good socialist recognizes the need for the government to assert power in order to take from the rich to give to the masses, without that show of military power the rich might think they still have rights.

    • $57M is a lot of emotional salve.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      If THEY want to pay for it then they are free to do it.

      Just don’t be askin for any FEDERAL money for it.

      The rest is up to the people of the State.

    • Let’s see how good I am at prognostication. The Great Carswell predicts: The school will be torn down and replaced with a garden of remembrance. The central feature will be a waterfall which will be lit 24 hours a day. The dead will be remembered by strange statuary which looks like nothing in particular but will “represent” the hopes, aspirations and dreams of those lost. The design will be chosen by a committee after an exhaustive national competition. The designer will be a female, a Muslim and will be wearing a hijab.The project will be paid for by a special tax on firearms and ammunition. Obama, in office or out, will dedicate the memorial. He will call for “common sense” gun laws but will not mention the need to control dangerous psychotic individuals.

  25. A Big Happy Mothers Day to all the SUFA Mom’s today. :)

    Have a great day and enjoy :)

    • Stayed up way too late reading that thread again..every word. I was thinking as the Colonel was deciding weather to write this current article, that this is exactly the topic when the shit really hit the fan at SUFA. Everyone was very passionate about whatever their position was. Looking back now it’s easy to see how easily TPTB can distract us from the heart of the problem..any problem. Also couldn’t help thinking that those were some fun days at SUFA. Matt, Buck, USW, and Flag come on back! Ain’t none of us gonna solve the world’s problems..but it’s fun thinking that we can.

      • I think we are solving the worlds problems, at least our small part of it. We are educating ourselves and no longer allowing the MSM to spoon feed us their version of reality. Maybe the blog should be “Wake Up America”! We are part of the new media and hopefully will overcome the low information voter syndrome someday….

        Good Mudders Day I hope? We watched Iron Man 3 and had a nice meal.

  26. @VH ….”and if you aren’t willing to protect them then get them the hell out of there.”

    You are 1,000% right. No argument here. Obama and Clinton (or both) were incredibly incompetent regarding Benghazi … they asked for help and didn’t get it. In that part of the world, there’s no excuse, end of story.

    But let’s not kid ourselves about the political hay this is being made into. To hear the Republican Party, you’d think there were WMD in Iraq …

    Impeach the guy … I’d like to see him go for a bunch of other reasons, including being a republican in drag …

  27. Robert Gates has some interesting comments on the military capabilities in the Middle East.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57584087/gates-some-benghazi-critics-have-cartoonish-view-of-military-capability/

    • All points are well taken, however…..we are supposed to be on heightened alert and, as I repeatedly bitch, nothing was even tried. It was too hard! If there was a failure in not acting, there is even a greater failure in not being prepared to act.

      So, in retrospect, you are confronted with two possible failures.Either a “stand down” order was given (as testified) or there was nothing to stand down.

    • Gates would not have sent one plane into danger to help a US Ambassador? Funny, families of Seal Team Six can’t find out what was the mission that was so urgent where they lost their lives. Procedures were ignored. No pre-planned mission, last minute substitutions of Afghan troops…
      http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/09/lies-and-deceit-see-what-the-families-of-the-seal-team-6-members-slain-in-chopper-crash-alleged-at-their-press-conference/

      • gmanfortruth says:

        The Obama Admin is not making any friends in the military. Most vets wouldn’t piss on him if he were on fire :)

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Todd

      The initial response of virtually every person in high seats of authority when the flit hits the shan is to circle the wagons and CYA.

      Gates has shown himself to be no different than others. Too bad, as I had previously thought better of him.

      My regard for him has now dissipated. He has measured himself and been found unworthy.

  28. gmanfortruth says:

    http://www.prisonplanet.com/parents-have-no-right-to-homeschool-their-kids-says-justice-department.html

    Why hasn’t Holder been held accountable for Accessory to Murder?

  29. gmanfortruth says:
  30. Here is one where Charlie, Todd, Buck, Matt and I would all probably agree. This day in history.

    http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2013/05/this-day-in-labor-history-may-12-1902#.UZDsqiPUBxs.email

    Please note the “kind” and concerned sentiments about my relatives that the mine owners reps expressed back in the day. Glad they were all “christian” men just imagine what it would have been like had they not been.

    “Violence is as American as Cherry Pie”- H. Rap Brown.

    “Extraordinary circumstances call for extraordinary measures”- Capt. Arron Sheffield

  31. gmanfortruth says:

    For those looking for .223 ammo, here’s a link: http://www.gunsammodepot.com/223-5-56/

  32. Kermit Gosnell Jury Hung on Two Counts, Doesn’t Say Which Ones

    by Steven Ertelt | Philadelphia, PA | LifeNews.com | 5/13/13 10:33 AM

    Reports this morning indicate the jury in the murder trial of abortion practitioner Kermit Gosnell is hung on two counts, but reports do not indicate which ones.

    The jury has indicated that it has reached verdicts on 261 other counts. Judge Minehart took less than five minutes to instruct the jury to go back and reconsider the two hung charges and attempt to come to a consensus without violating anyone’s conscience. He told them that their disagreement is a sign that they are taking the case seriously, according to reporters inside the courtroom.

    If verdicts cannot be reached, the judge may accept the guilty verdicts and declare a mistrial on the two hung counts.

    Partial -go to link if you want to read whole article

    http://www.lifenews.com/2013/05/13/kermit-gosnell-jury-hung-on-two-counts-doesnt-say-which-ones/

  33. Just A Citizen says:

    How many witnessed the Tin Cup moment at TPC Sawgrass yesterday?

    Another great tourney finish!!

  34. Another perspective on the e-mails.

    Reassessing Victoria Nuland’s Role in the Benghazi Cover-up: Was the CIA Trying to Set Up the State Department?
    May 12th, 2013 – 9:36 am

    In my last column at PJM, I wrote that Jonathan Karl of ABC News held Victoria Nuland, the State Department spokesperson, and White House Press Secretary Jay Carney responsible for dissembling about Benghazi.

    Now, in the Washington Post, conservative columnist Jennifer Rubin — once the D.C. bureau chief of PJ Media — casts grave doubt about Victoria Nuland’s involvement in a cover-up, and puts Nuland’s e-mail in a very different context than that put forth by Jonathan Karl of ABC News. Rubin writes:

    A summary of e-mail exchanges involving her has circulated to news outlets, and it places [Nuland], falsely, in the thick of the controversy about the talking points that U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice eventually used on the Sunday shows.

    As Rubin explains, most of the people working at the State Department believed what took place at Benghazi was a terrorist attack, but that they could not publicly state that since they were awaiting confirmation from the CIA, which ran the second compound at the Benghazi consulate.

    When Nuland received another e-mail with talking points from CIA chief David Petraeus, it included points State was not allowed to make which made it seem that the agency was trying to implicate the State Department as the government agency that was ignoring warnings, rather than the CIA. Rubin is arguing that the CIA was engaged in a PR exercise meant to make it look good and was trying to cast blame for the Benghazi tragedy on the State Department. As Rubin writes:

    This, by the way, gets to the heart of the matter involving Benghazi. It was primarily a CIA operation, as others have reported. If there really were warnings, why had the CIA’s station chief not been alerted? Why was its men in peril? It is not atypical for the CIA to point fingers at other agencies, but it was particularly jarring when their own personnel were victimized.

    When Nuland wrote that concerns in her “building” were not being addressed, she meant only that “her department was being singled out inaccurately and unfairly by the CIA.” Rubin also stresses that all of these e-mail exchanges involved communications staff, and did not include policy-makers or high-level administration appointments at State: Rubin writes:

    It is not the communications people who bear any responsibility for the scrubbing that went on over the weekend. In my own reporting, I have previously noted that Nuland studiously refused to confirm the “video made them do it” story line or the spontaneous demonstration cover story coming out of the White House. The difference between what she was saying (it’s under investigation, we don’t know, ask the White House) was noticeably different from what we heard coming from the White House, which perpetuated the video narrative again and again.

    So, please read Rubin’s post in its entirety. We can all agree, I think, on her ending. Rubin writes that Petraeus and Hillary Clinton have to be brought back to testify before Rep. Darrell Issa’s Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. It was the secretary of State herself who called on her top deputy Cheryl Mills to cover for her. I also think that Victoria Nuland should voluntarily appear to clarify her role, and to be given a chance to answer those like Jonathan Karl who made her the centerpiece of their stories.

    This entire episode, which is getting so convoluted, needs clarity and, above all, careful assessments from commentators. If we get something wrong, it needs to be pointed out how we did. At Powerline, Scott Mirengoff argues that while Obama is likely to get out of any responsibility for Benghazi, Hillary Clinton will not be so lucky. He writes

    If the CIA and the State Department disagreed, the administration should not have included State’s spin merely because that’s what Hillary Clinton wanted.

    This notion is so basic that it casts serious doubt on the White House’s “deference to the State Department made us do it” explanation — an excuse that, it should be noticed, won’t warm the heart of Hillary Clinton. In all likelihood, Team Obama endorsed State’s spin because it presented the version of events that best suited the president’s campaign purposes.

    Hillary, he has argued earlier, is possibly the most likely candidate to have orchestrated a cover-up. It is clearly of great importance that she not be let off the hook, and that her underlings not be taken out to roast. Even though she is no longer in office, Hillary Clinton must not be allowed to escape any responsibility for what happened at Benghazi.

    All this will hopefully be uncovered as the investigation continues.

    http://pjmedia.com/ronradosh/2013/05/12/reassessing-victoria-nulands-role-in-the-benghazi-cover-up-was-the-cia-trying-to-set-up-the-state-department/?singlepage=true

  35. Just A Citizen says:

    GREAT words from Mr. Obama on the IRS scandal.

    “”This is pretty straightforward,” said Obama. “If, in fact, IRS personnel engaged in the kind of practices that have been reported on and were intentionally targeting conservative groups, then that is outrageous, and there is no place for it, and they have to be held fully accountable, because the IRS as an independent agency requires absolute integrity and people have to have confidence that they are applying the laws in a non-partisan way. You should feel that way regardless of party.”

    “But I have got no patience with it, I will not tolerate it, and we will make sure that we find out exactly what happened on this,” he added.”

    Okie Dokie then…………. lets see what the final response is……………….. waiting patiently.

    In the meantime, Mr. President allow me to offer up two actions which would immediately ELIMINATE this kind of thing in the future.

    1. Flat Tax……………NO DEDUCTIONS.
    2. FAIR TAX

    • LOL! and he just found out about it on Friday while watching the news.

      Never seems to know about anything going on around him – unless it’s Sandra Fluke or the gay basketball player. How does that work, exactly?

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Obama say’s it’s political, I think he should be hanged for treason live on TV!

  36. Just A Citizen says:

    At last………….UTOPIA.

    OK, Todd, Mathius, Buck, Bob, and Charlie, are you guys all on board with this idea?

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/11/thinking-utopian-how-about-a-universal-basic-income/

  37. FLASH: ABORTIONIST GOSNELL GUILTY OF MURDER…
    KILLED THREE LIVE BABIES…

    Involuntary manslaughter for death of mother

  38. gmanfortruth says:

    I agree with these words and I am personally disgusted with what continues in DC. It is coming time to call upon the 2% to uphold their oath and remove the criminals. Sad, very sad!

    98 percent of Americans wake up and enjoy freedom…. 2 percent will wake up and defend it.

    I thank God for that 2%…. Those brave men and women are the true heroes…. and should be treated as such…. always.

    Lets compare how we treat our Veterans versus our Legislators

    Our elected officials sit on their A–es and accomplish NOTHING, yet draw large salaries, get exclusive healthcare and benefits, get rich off of special interest money and face a lifetime of retirement income that allows them an opulent life style,

    Meanwhile, our Veterans who put their lives on the line and often return home with blown off limbs, (if they make it home alive ) are treated like 2nd class citizens with substandard healthcare, little or no monetary compensation/retirement benefits and now, the government even wants to take away their rights to own guns, using the stressful environent of war as an excuse.

    I am ashamed of the way America treats its finest…
    I apologize to all Veterans and pray that one day, we will have enough people in Congress with integrity to reverse

    Read more: http://janmorganmedia.com/2013/04/the-disgracefull-way-we-treat-our-veterans-speaks-volumes-about-the-character-of-our-nation/#ixzz2TCvjhTJo

  39. BREAKING: Obama Justice Department Secretly Monitored AP Reporters’ Phone Records
    Guy Benson | May 13, 2013
    Guy Benson
    Recommend this article

    Comments 1

    What the hell is going on within the Obama administration? Another huge scandal rears its head, and I’d bet the press won’t take this one lying down:

    The Justice Department secretly obtained two months of telephone records of reporters and editors for The Associated Press in what the news cooperative’s top executive called a “massive and unprecedented intrusion” into how news organizations gather the news. The records obtained by the Justice Department listed incoming and outgoing calls, and the duration of each call, for the work and personal phone numbers of individual reporters, general AP office numbers in New York, Washington and Hartford, Conn., and the main number for AP reporters in the House of Representatives press gallery, according to attorneys for the AP. In all, the government seized those records for more than 20 separate telephone lines assigned to AP and its journalists in April and May of 2012. The exact number of journalists who used the phone lines during that period is unknown but more than 100 journalists work in the offices whose phone records were targeted on a wide array of stories about government and other matters.

    The Associated Press is understandably livid:

    In a letter of protest sent to Attorney General Eric Holder on Monday, AP President and Chief Executive Officer Gary Pruitt said the government sought and obtained information far beyond anything that could be justified by any specific investigation. He demanded the return of the phone records and destruction of all copies. “There can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection of the telephone communications of The Associated Press and its reporters. These records potentially reveal communications with confidential sources across all of the newsgathering activities undertaken by the AP during a two-month period, provide a road map to AP’s newsgathering operations, and disclose information about AP’s activities and operations that the government has no conceivable right to know,” Pruitt said.

    Was the DOJ snooping for leakers and potential whistle-blowers? That’s my initial gut reaction. Stay tuned for details. If you’re keeping score at home, here’s what we’ve discovered since last Friday:

    (1) The Obama administration changed its Benghazi talking points 12 times, scrubbing politically unhelpful elements, and radically changing the best analysis of the intelligence community. The White House had previously denied presiding over anything but minor, cosmetic changes to the talking points.

    (2) The IRS targeted conservative groups for extra harassment from 2010 to 2012, and top officials knew about it since at least 2011. No disciplinary action has been taken so far.

    (3) The Obama Department of Health and Human Services is requesting “voluntary” donations from the healthcare companies over which it wields enormous power in order to help fund Obamacare’s implementation, perhaps in violation of the law.

    (4) The Obama Justice Department secretly monitored dozens of Associated Press journalists’ work and personal phone records for purposes that remain unclear. This lasted for at least two months.

    I’d toss in some “what if Bush had done it?” snark, but that hardly seems necessary. This is quite simply astonishing. And to think, Ron Fournier’s piece about President Obama’s credibility crisis was written before this latest bomb dropped. Last week, Obama told Ohio State graduates to “reject” those “cynical” voices who warn of government abuse and tyranny. Then the IRS and AP stories broke. Listen up, grads. And all other citizens.

    http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2013/05/13/breaking-obama-justice-department-secretly-monitored-ap-reporters-phone-records-n1594033

    • Will this finally open the MSM’s eyes?

      • I don’t know, before I would even bother contemplating the question, someone would have to convince me that most of them give a crap and weren’t complicit in covering up all this crap with their eyes wide open.

    • Just got done reading this too. Directly from AP:

      The May 7, 2012, AP story that disclosed details of the CIA operation in Yemen to stop an airliner bomb plot occurred around the one-year anniversary of the May 2, 2011, killing of Osama bin Laden.

      The plot was significant both because of its seriousness and also because the White House previously had told the public it had “no credible information that terrorist organizations, including al-Qaida, are plotting attacks in the U.S. to coincide with the (May 2) anniversary of bin Laden’s death.”

      The hubris of this administration is unbelievable. Maybe this is the catalyst for the press to actually start doing their jobs.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Maybe the sheeple will pull their collective heads out of the ass’s and demand some justice. DC is disgusting and needs replaced.

  40. Here we go again…

    Man traveling from Saudi Arabia arrested at Metro Airport with altered passport & pressure cooker

    Read more: http://www.wxyz.com/dpp/news/region/wayne_county/man-traveling-from-saudi-arabia-arrested-at-metro-airport-with-altered-passport–pressure-cooker#ixzz2TDCQoLvJ

    You skated through just in time Kathy!

  41. gmanfortruth says:

    http://www.prisonplanet.com/hungry-lacking-protein-eat-an-insect-un-says.html

    So which fast food joint will be the first to have the “grasshopper wrap” ?

  42. Can’t resist posting this. Not so much for the biased article but for the comments underneath.

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/plastic-gun-maker-rebukes-nanny-state-article-1.1342166?localLinksEnabled=false

    I just spent an enjoyable 20 minutes, bursting bubbles and calling out name callers. Have at it folks!

    • gmanfortruth says:

      That’s funny SK ! While the technology is cool, it’s not a game changer. Even zip guns are a rarity. I could make far better firearms with plumbing parts and some inovation. Funny how some react to the very thing that may save their life one day. Braindead idiots. Now I see why we worry about a zombie apocolypse :)

  43. Just A Citizen says:

    Based on 40 minutes of watching MSNBC tonight I will make a prediction for the coming days.

    The Dems are going to try and turn the IRS scandal into a “Bush” era scandal. They will argue that the IRS has been used as a political weapon before, most recently by Bush. One example was a church being audited because it had an anti-war sermons.

    Thus the problems are deeper in the IRS and not the Administration proper.

    Furthermore, the secrecy requirements of IRS data PREVENTS a reasonable investigation of the IRS itself. Short story……………. the data itself needs to be more transparent.

    And finally, the whole thing is because the tax exempt status is a “SHAM”. Groups are sprouting up to “funnel massive amounts of money to political campaigns” which is against the code. Congress needs to focus on fixing this “sham” instead of the details of the current scandal.

    I will hold off on my rebuttals until these predictions actually materialize. At least gain traction beyond MSNBC.

  44. Just A Citizen says:

    I don’t know if this has been presented before, but I just saw it.

    Apparently those of us who express concerns about Islam are not restricted to SUFA, or the South, or the Red State or even the United States.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/05/survey_says_islam_is_a_global_menace.html

    Most interesting value to me was that over 30% of Muslims in Germany view their religion as “superior to all others” and want to see their religious values mixed with Government.

    If they had a “Progressive” Govt this would be a large enough support to push through legislation in support. It would be called “an overwhelming majority”. As in the same “overwhelming majority” who supported passage of Obama Care, and Stimulus and TARP.

  45. Some kind words about Capitalism? Nah, another indictment of it …

    http://www.thebigclickmag.com/noir-the-marxist-art-form/

    Go Rangers.

    • No this can’t be, I am about to agree 100% with charlie…. GO RANGERS!!!

    • “in the absence of Capitalism, crime could not exist”. Huh?

      Not to mention things like the black market, theft, vandalism and good old thuggery, there is the added attraction in countries that have forsaken capitalism like Soviet Russia, China, Korea, Rumania, Cambodia, Albania of murder and genocide to degrees never before seen or imagined.

      I’ve seen Noir differently, more as the hidden, deepest, darkest part of the human soul.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 119 other followers

%d bloggers like this: