Posted on 10/14/2012 8:29:54 AM PDT by kingattax
The State Department has released a transcript of a briefing that two high-ranking department officials gave to a number of reporters via conference call on October 9 (Tuesday).
I am not certain about this, but I believe the transcript was only made public today. You should read it in its entirety; it is the most detailed description I have seen of the events in Benghazi on September 11.
While this is by no means clear, it appears that the State Department may have released the transcript as part of the escalating conflict between Barack Obama and Joe Biden and the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton.
In their desperation to avoid responsibility for the Benghazi debacle, Obama and Biden have pointed fingers in two directions: at the intelligence community for reporting incorrectly that the incident was a protest over a YouTube video clip, and at the State Department for not providing adequate security for the Ambassador.
(Excerpt) Read more at powerlineblog.com ...
Even if its State’s or Intelligence’s fault, it still reflects badly on Obama. It shows he doesn’t run a tight ship, is disengaged and doesn’t really want to get involved when a crisis occurs. Particularly after the ambassador’s assassination, most any executive would at that point want to get involved, find out absolutely everything and keep informed, and maybe even talk to the American people about this. Zero didn’t do any of that, but went to sleep and then flew out to Vegas, and then spent subsequent days partying with JayZ and Beyonce, and hanging with the harpies from the View and Letterman. This guy is not a responsible chief executive and needs to go. I sure hope the voters are paying attention here.
The list, Ping
Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list
It's a safe bet that exactly what was going on was known. Nothing was done.
To add to the fun, what sort of communications devices, protocols, etc. and actionable intelligence data was scrounged from the embassy? Are our communications now compromised as a result?
What do you call it when a person deliberately lies - even when the truth is more beneficial to his cause?
Perhaps someone should put these traitorous bastards under oath and ask them.
Last evening there was a thread posted on information from one of the folks who was at the compound the whole duration of the attack. He gave a minute by minute, play by play of the action from beginning to end when they arrived at the outpost 2 kilometers away from the embassy.. I can't find it now,, please someone repost if you're aware of the article I am speaking of,,,,
PING!
At this point I don’t know if it’s true, but it sure would explain a lot if the whole thing turns out to be a botched plan for Obama’s October surprise as suggested on this thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2944654/posts?page=1
.
- Black African Muslim terrorists torturing and killing four white American citizens?
- What’s the big problemo there?
.
Michelle Bachmann tried to warn everyone a couple of months before and was given a bunch of grief for her efforts, much of it came from her side of the isle (McCain and co.)
“What do you call it when a person deliberately lies -even when the truth is more beneficial to his cause?”
I don’t know but Bill Clinton taught them how to do it and get away with it.
The former regional security officer in Libya, Eric Nordstrom, recalled talking to a regional director and asking for twelve security agents.
“His response to that was, ‘You are asking for the sun, moon and the stars.’ And my response to him – his name was Jim – ‘Jim, you know what makes most frustrating about this assignment? It is not the hardships, it is not the gunfire, it is not the threats. It is dealing and fighting against the people, programs and personnel who are supposed to be supporting me. And I added (sic) it by saying, ‘For me the Taliban is on the inside of the building.’”
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/security-officer-on-state-department-blocking-requests-for-me-the-taliban-is-inside-the-building/
Col. David Hunt explains how at least 12 command centers got near INSTANTANEOUS info when the Benghazi consulate was attacked, including a manned WH situation room. Hundreds of government personnel listened/watched for 6 hours in real time as the attack ensued. Hunt says it is standard operating procedure when an embassy is attacked.
WH gave no military order to intervene.
They knew almost immediately that there was NO protest, NO mob-— just a surgical jihad operation viewed instantaneously in real time by governmental operations centers all over the world, including CIA, Dept of State and WH situation room, for over 6 hours.
In short, everyone knew, almost immediately, what happened in Benghazi was an act of war.
It’s the manpads! Those Americans were killed by al-Qaeda to keep the manpads from being sold to the US. My God, if they link this to Obama and Hillary, it’s the end of the Democrat party! That’s why all the lies and cover-up! They’re not just protecting Obama and Hillary, they’re trying to save the entire Democrat party!
Thanks bitt.
What do you call it when a person deliberately lies - even when the truth is more beneficial to his cause?
I've been asking that question since this attack happened. I'm glad you posted the question. Plus, why was the ambassador there in the first place?
Something is rotten at Foggy Bottom.
5.56mm
Thanks. You are aware that there was intel (not too specific but should still have been alarming) of potential terrorist activity that was presented to state before Stevens returned to Benghazi?
They knew and sent him in anyway.
Reported Attack Page!
This web page at www.nachumlist.com has been reported as an attack page and has been blocked based on your security preferences.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.