BREAKING: The president knew the truth about Benghazi

[The_Grand_Illusion]

http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ri...5445_blog.html


BREAKING: The president knew the truth about Benghazi

By Jennifer Rubin, Published: NOVEMBER 16, 5:18 PM ET


In a blockbuster report, John Solomon, the former Associated Press and Post reporter, has ferreted out the president’s daily brief that informed him within 72 hours of the Sept. 11 attack that the Benghazi attack was a jihadist operation.

Citing officials directly familiar with the information, Solomon writes in the Washington Guardian that Obama and other administration officials were told that “that the attack was likely carried out by local militia and other armed extremists sympathetic to al-Qaida in the region.”

He adds:

The details from the CIA and Pentagon assessments of the killing of Ambassador Chris [Stevens] were far more specific, more detailed and more current than the unclassified talking points that UN Ambassador Susan Rice and other officials used five days after the attack to suggest to Americans that an unruly mob angry over an anti-Islamic video was to blame, officials said.

Most of the details affirming al-Qaida links were edited or excluded from the unclassified talking points used by Rice in appearances on news programs the weekend after the attack, officials confirmed Friday. Multiple agencies were involved in excising information, doing so because it revealed sources and methods, dealt with classified intercepts or involved information that was not yet fully confirmed, the officials said.

Solomon cautions that there were bits of evidence pointing to a spontaneous attack but, as Eli Lake of the Daily Beast and others have reported, he writes: “Among the early evidence cited in the briefings to the president and other senior officials were intercepts showing some of the participants were known members or supporters of Ansar al-Sharia — the al-Qaida-sympathizing militia in Libya — and the AQIM, which is a direct affiliate of al-Qaida in northern Africa, the officials said.”

How could the president and his senior staff then have allowed (or rather, sent) Rice to go out to tell an entirely different tale to the American people on Sept. 16 on five TV shows?

This report indicates that the president certainly knew that Benghazi wasn’t a rogue movie review gone bad. He had information that plainly spelled out what was later confirmed by additional intelligence. If this information was too confidential to share with the public, at the very least the president and others should not have mislead voters.

This is a full-blown scandal, and in light of this information, the press corps’s slothful indifference to uncovering the truth at Wednesday’s news conference with Obama is all the more shocking. It is time for the president to come clean. The scandal has now enveloped the Oval Office and will define his second term, if not resolved satisfactorily.

The irony of this is that Rice may well have been used as a patsy, unaware that she was sent out to spin a misleading tale. My colleague Dana Milbank recounts Rice’s long-standing inability to get along with others and to be circumspect in her pronouncements:

It’s true that, in her much-criticized TV performance, she was reciting talking points given to her by the intelligence agencies. But that’s the trouble. Rice stuck with her points even though they had been contradicted by the president of the Libyan National Assembly, who, on CBS’s ‘Face the Nation’ just before Rice, said there was “no doubt” that the attack on Americans in Benghazi “was preplanned.” Rice rebutted the Libyan official, arguing — falsely, it turned out — that there was no evidence of such planning. . . . Obama can do better at State than Susan Rice.

Frankly the same could be said of many national security positions at this point. The American people made their choice in November on the president, but it now appears they were duped regarding the real facts concerning Benghazi. What are we going to do about that?

[dirk digler]

So now the new conspiracy theory since Rice is off the hook because Patreaus and other intel people confirmed they gave her the talking points because they didn't want to tip off anybody is that the POTUS should have tipped off the terrorists?

I am so confused

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

So now the new conspiracy theory since Rice is off the hook because Patreaus and other intel people confirmed they gave her the talking points because they didn't want to tip off anybody is that the POTUS should have tipped off the terrorists?

I am so confused

It doesn't matter what your premise is as long as your conclusion is impeach Obama.

[alpha_omega]

Of course he knew. duh.

[HonestChieffan]

Who would it "tip off"?

[theelusiveeightrop]

Obama knew, and lied.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by J Diddy

It doesn't matter what your premise is as long as your conclusion is impeach Obama.

I think the main premise is... why does it seem like all this shit is coming to a head right after the election? Why did major media outlets purposely duck away from asking the hard questions (60 Minutes waited until a week or 2 before the election to disclose Obama's take on Benghazi. CNN exaggerated Obama's original stance on Benghazi weeks before the election).

Regardless of party, we lost the ability to have fair debate on this matter. And that is a tremendous, tremendous shame.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by J Diddy

It doesn't matter what your premise is as long as your conclusion is impeach Obama.

Of course when you are dealing with people like loser Grand Idiot

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by HonestChieffan

Who would it "tip off"?

According to Patreaus and the CIA they didn't want to tip off the terrorists they knew who they were so they could monitor them. I posted this yesterday.

David H. Petraeus, the former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, told lawmakers on Friday that classified intelligence reports revealed that the deadly assault on the American diplomatic mission in Libya was a terrorist attack, but that the administration refrained from saying it suspected that the perpetrators of the attack were Al Qaeda affiliates and sympathizers to avoid tipping off the groups.

Mr. Petraeus, who resigned last week after admitting to an extramarital affair, said the names of groups suspected in the attack — including Al Qaeda’s franchise in North Africa and a local Libyan group, Ansar al-Shariah — were removed from the public explanation of the attack immediately after the assault to avoiding alerting the militants that American intelligence and law enforcement agencies were tracking them, lawmakers said.

The talking points initially drafted by the C.I.A. attributed the attack to fighters with Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, the organization’s North Africa franchise, and Ansar al-Shariah, a Libyan group, some of whose members have Al Qaeda ties.

Mr. Petraeus and other top C.I.A. officials signed off on the draft and then circulated it to other intelligence agencies, as well as the State Department and National Security Council.

At some point in the process — Mr. Petraeus told lawmakers he was not sure where — objections were raised to naming the groups, and the less specific word “extremists” was substituted.

[The_Grand_Illusion]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

Of course when you are dealing with people like loser Grand Idiot

Be in denial all you want. It appears more and more that Obama lied to the American people. Just because you don't like that doesn't mean it's true. That also means where you get your info from, the liberal media, did their best to run out the clock on this before the election. How messed up is that? Of course you libs don't care because your line of thinking is messed up too.

TGI

[stonedstooge]

O'Bama told the UN the same story. Afraid to tip off other countries too?

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by The_Grand_Illusion

Be in denial all you want. It appears more and more that Obama lied to the American people. Just because you don't like that doesn't mean it's true. That also means where you get your info from, the liberal media, did their best to run out the clock on this before the election. How messed up is that? Of course you libs don't care because your line of thinking is messed up too.

TGI

What did he lie about?

[The_Grand_Illusion]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

What did he lie about?

You're kidding me right? The dig about your liberal media keeping you in the dark about this is so true.

TGI

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by The_Grand_Illusion

You're kidding me right? The dig about your liberal media keeping you in the dark about this is so true.

TGI

I want you to tell me what you think he lied about.

[The_Grand_Illusion]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

I want you to tell me what you think he lied about.

If you truly want to catch up, fine but if you are just trying to be an ass because there are plenty of threads here on Benghazi to inform yourself.

With what Petraeus said yesterday and this report above, this absolutely had nothing to do with a video that many in his administration tried to pull off on the American people for almost 2 weeks. There is much more to this before, during, and after the event that shows much incompetence from this administration.

TGI