Posted on 10/02/2012 5:20:06 AM PDT by chessplayer
You already knew that the White House had reason to believe that Benghazi was a bona fide terror attack within 24 hours of it happening, no matter what Susan Rice said four days later, but I want you to watch this for two reasons. One: After the post on media bias, let’s give credit where it’s due. CNN has followed this story, and on primetime shows like this one and Anderson Cooper’s too. Two: Per Eli Lake’s piece in Newsweek today, someone has started leaking preliminary intel assessments made by the CIA that pointed to a spontaneous attack. (I wrote about that here.) I think you’re going to hear more about that from the White House in the next days and weeks, e.g., “We were only telling you what the CIA told us.” Read Lake’s piece to see why that won’t wash, then watch this clip as CNN’s own foreign affairs correspondent reveals that her intel sources were pointing to a full-fledged attack on the consulate within the first 24 hours. Essentially, to believe that the White House had clean hands in this, you need to believe that the CIA is so inept that the media’s contacts in the intelligence community are more astute than the people advising the president. Nothing would surprise me at this point, but given O’s strong electoral incentives to downplay what happened, the cover-up theory seems more likely.
Exit question: Who made the decision to cherry-pick the intel in order to push the “spontaneous protest” theory?
Hilary having another vast right wing conspiracy moment?
Who cares, who really cares? So an ambassador and 3 other Americans were killed unnecessarily. So what? If Obama is reelected, Ms. Fluck and her peers will have free birth control, and Steve and Bill can get married. THAT is what folks care about.
Her statements were intended to get the left wing rumor mill running.
There is no way possible for the terrorist to plan an attack against a particular person on a particular day at a particular location without having some guarantee the person would be at that particular location on that particular day.
The person that guaranteed Stevens would be there on that day was Hillary.
Being an attorney, Hillary was creating her own defense by implying someone else had done it. She did the exact same thing with 9/11/2001 when she made the claim "Bush Knew".
This causes us a problem. We hated Gadaffi because he gave the OK to blow up an airplane over Lockerbee.
We hated the rebels because WE knew they were many Al Qida in it.
Who to support?
Same for Egypt and all the other uprisings. I believe Moslems need a real dictator to keep the radicals in line. Democracy is unknown in the moslem world as, if given the chance, they will mostly choose a religious Iman to lead them.
That is actually VERY easy.
Daffy Gadaffi isn’t a problem RIGHT NOW; Al Qaeda is.
So “support” Daffy.
I think you’re probably right. There had to have been inside info for that and she’s used the VRWC theory before to cover for Bill. I just can’t see Romney or the VRWC colluding with terrorists or the MB to attack our own consulate just to embarrass obama. This sounds like obama and his crew. A false flag event that got out of control. Or there’s a mole in the State Dept. Maybe his name is Bill.
Had that not happened more than likely Stevens would have been taken hostage. a repeat of Carter and the Iranian hostages. Strictly from a terrorist perspective it's better to have a hostage for bargaining than a body.
I believe the plan was to take Stevens hostage and hold him hostage until the day Romney was sworn in, just like with Carter and Reagan. This would give credibility to the claim Romney was behind it.
Everyone above the level of idiot knows Obama’s economic policy is a complete failure. If he is reelected it's only going to get worse. In fact it's probably going to get worse with Romney, but for the dems it's better to have a repub in the WH to blame than having a dem in the WH to take the blame. Dems can then claim Romney undoing Obama’s policies is what caused the economy to crash.
They also have to create a cover for Hillary's foreign policy mess. By making a claim the repubs were collaborating with the terrorist they have that cover.
I have no doubt this attack was set up for Hillary to run against Romney in 2016.
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.