Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Did Intelligence Tell WH There Were Protests in Benghazi?
Commentary ^ | 10/12/2012 | Alana Goodman

Posted on 10/12/2012 3:30:19 PM PDT by mojito

The White House has clarified Vice President Biden’s comment that he wasn’t aware of security requests, saying he was speaking for himself and President Obama, not the State Department. But they still haven’t explained Biden’s even more troubling claim that the intelligence community told the White House there were protesters outside the Benghazi embassy:

MS. RADDATZ: What were you first told about the attack? Why were people talking about protests? When people in the consulate first saw armed men attacking with guns, there were no protesters. Why did that go on for weeks?

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Because that’s exactly what we were told —

MS. RADDATZ: By who?

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: — by the intelligence community. The intelligence community told us that. As they learned more facts about exactly what happened, they changed their assessment.

When the Obama administration rolled out its initial “blame the video” storyline in the days after the attack, they strongly implied that there was a protest outside the Benghazi consulate, but usually avoided stating it explicitly. If you listen to Jay Carney, Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice, they tended to use vague words like “spontaneous reaction” and “unrest.” When they did use the word “protests,” it was usually in reference to the demonstrations across the Muslim world, not Benghazi specifically.

This is because the CIA intelligence at the time didn’t support the idea that there was a protest outside the consulate....

Biden’s unequivocal claim that the intelligence community told the White House there were protesters is simply not credible, and, worse, it glues the administration to its failed initial narrative. White House spokesperson Jay Carney had spent weeks slowly backing away from the protest story, and Biden has now made that impossible.

(Excerpt) Read more at commentarymagazine.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: benghazi; biden; damagecontrol; debates; impeachnow; libya; waronterror
Oh yeah, that Joe was sure a fiesty, rip roarin' success at last night's debate.
1 posted on 10/12/2012 3:30:26 PM PDT by mojito
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: mojito

If we didn’t have a cover-up here, why do we still not know the sequence of events? COVER-UP!!!!!!


2 posted on 10/12/2012 3:34:44 PM PDT by Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mojito

Biden is a liar: From an email today - “Well, we weren’t told they wanted more security again.” Biden lied through his teeth about the fact that the administration—specifically, the State Department—had been told again and again that security on the ground in Libya, and in Benghazi in particular, was inadequate. The day before, in Congressional hearings on the Libya attacks, former regional security director Eric Nordstrom described his frustration with having those requests turned down by the government bureaucracy: “For me the Taliban is on the inside of the building.”


3 posted on 10/12/2012 3:39:09 PM PDT by bigbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mojito
When an ambassador requests more security personnel, he needs to state why. The reasons given to the State Department by the ambassador would be immediately flagged and sent straight to the President's desk for viewing, discussion and decision. It is IMPOSSIBLE for such a request not to be directed straight up the food chain to the highest officer, the president. When Biden stated he didn't know of the request and then today at news briefing, they claimed neither the President nor the VP knew had to be a COMPLETE LIE. Nothing new for this administration that said they would be the transparent administration. On the contrary, this regime under Obama has been nothing but opaque with their dealings. Lie after lie after lie last night at the VP debate and tag teaming Ryan with the moderator.
4 posted on 10/12/2012 3:41:23 PM PDT by Nitehawk0325 (Credo quia absurdum, I believe it because it is absurd.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mojito

maybe they would have if the president ever attended his own intelligence briefings.

we need every PDB for the past six months.


5 posted on 10/12/2012 3:41:35 PM PDT by JohnBrowdie (http://forum.stink-eye.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mojito
If the DoS staff, Ms. Lamb, as she testified, was watching the attack in real time, is it possible the Intelligence Community had less resources, and did not know information available to lower level government employee's?
6 posted on 10/12/2012 3:45:19 PM PDT by swamprebel (a Constitution once changed from Freedom, can never be restored.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mojito

We all know that Joe Biden is a known purveyor of untruths.

Joe Biden wouldn’t know the truth if it bit him.

This time it might.


7 posted on 10/12/2012 3:48:27 PM PDT by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mojito

. . . even if you buy their entire lie, candidate obama certainly didn’t allow “faulty intelligence” to explain the (apparent) lack of WMD in iraq. remember “bush lied, people died”?

and that was in 2008, when candidate obama was curiously running against GWB, who wasn’t even on the ballot.


8 posted on 10/12/2012 3:48:48 PM PDT by JohnBrowdie (http://forum.stink-eye.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mojito
...Carney had spent weeks slowly backing away from the protest story, and Biden has now made that impossible.

Not to Minitru! They can take any straw from the Zero White Hut and spin it into gold.

Only intelligent people can see it for what it really is, but the libs only have to reach the people who pay half attention. Like when they put out an ad but withdraw it after criticism: the only point was to get it into the public's mind. It's irrelevant whether it was true or not.

9 posted on 10/12/2012 3:55:09 PM PDT by jeffc (The U.S. media are our enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mojito

How would they know? 0bama only attends a small percentage of his Presidential Daily Briefings. When the cat is away, the mice will play. He may have delegated such matter to Hilary anyway. Complete dereliction on so many levels.

24 days left.


10 posted on 10/12/2012 3:58:19 PM PDT by SueRae (See it? Hell, I can TASTE November from my house!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mojito

The White House had no intelligence.

I believe that!


11 posted on 10/12/2012 4:01:46 PM PDT by austinaero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mojito

Well Joe did make news last night. Not sure if this is the kind of debate the White House wants to have from now till Tuesday.


12 posted on 10/12/2012 4:06:03 PM PDT by kempster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mojito
Col David Hunt has been on with Howie Carr, (local radio host in boston) the last couple of days and he has explained in detail what happened and how the administration is lying. He had a good segment in the 4 o'clock hour today but the audio isnt up yet. Follow the link below for his comment on Wednesday and Thursday and save the link for his comments today which will probably be up later or maybe tomorrow.

Today he described how biden is lying through his teeth. He described the chain of command as far as who hears what and who is notified. He said there are hundreds of people who hear the transmission simultaneously including hillary, biden and HUSSEIN and they are also sent pictures of the action on the ground. The incident in Benghazi went on for 6 hours and no one did a damn thing.

click here

13 posted on 10/12/2012 4:08:05 PM PDT by rockabyebaby (We are sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo screwed!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rockabyebaby

Thanks for that link. I’m going to listen to the whole thing this weekend.


14 posted on 10/12/2012 4:20:31 PM PDT by mojito (Zero, our Nero.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: mojito
take a moment to explain: an embassy is located in the capital city of the host country, a consulate, is a secondary office building located in a distant city, normally it houses, trade, visa, and other auxiliary functions....under normal circumstances, the Ambassador is not/not accommodated in a consulate....hence a question arises, why was the Ambassador there....
15 posted on 10/12/2012 4:25:33 PM PDT by B212
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: B212

It’s my understanding that he was there to inaugurate a new hospital/clinic opening in Benghazi.


16 posted on 10/12/2012 4:34:55 PM PDT by mojito (Zero, our Nero.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: mojito
If he and bozo didn't know then they are truly incompetent and should resign. The State Department was talking to the consulate real time during the attack. An Ambassador and 3 other Americans were killed and they didn't want to be briefed on what happened the next day? For sure they should have known the next day at the intelligence briefing or should have called a security meeting to find out. We have two bassoons running the country.

By the way, Hillary should have known too! She heads the Department of State. Make that three bassoons.

17 posted on 10/12/2012 4:42:48 PM PDT by Keen-Minded
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnBrowdie

I was wishing that Ryan had looked at Biden, and asked “Is that because the President skipped his daily security briefings during the period leading up to the attack, or were they just ignoring what the State Department’s Career people told them?


18 posted on 10/12/2012 5:07:22 PM PDT by greeneyes (Moderation in defense of your country is NO virtue. Let Freedom Ring.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: rockabyebaby

Appreciate the links to Col. Hunt’s three discussions with Howie Carr.


19 posted on 10/12/2012 5:38:04 PM PDT by Prospero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: mojito
I wonder if there was supposed to be a (planned) spontaneous protest but that didn't happen.....
20 posted on 10/12/2012 5:42:25 PM PDT by uncitizen (Religion of Peace my hind end !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mojito

The most incredible thing about this “protest” story is that the intelligence community would regard a video as the cause of the attack. It’s just not in their nature as trained paranoids.


21 posted on 10/12/2012 5:54:50 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (Islam offers us choices: convert or kill, submit or die.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mojito

Mojito

What if they are covering the fact someone on Holders staff had the leader released from GITMO. What if that person was their contact for the transfer of weapons during the uprising. Can you say fast and furious Libya ?

Follow the trail from Holder and his staff to Gitmo terror subject who was sprung in 2007 by Jennifer Daskal who is currently working in Justice. Does she still have his phone number? What would be the blow back if a person trusted in Justice directly helped the killer of our ambassador?

http://www.thedaily.com/article/2012/09/20/092012-news-libya-attack/

DOJ Lawyers Who Represented Terrorism Suspects Detainees Are Identified
Wednesday, March 3rd, 2010
Fox News has identified the seven anonymous Justice Department lawyers who previously represented Guantánamo detainees or terrorism suspects.
Justice Department spokesman Matthew A. Miller confirmed the names to Fox News’ Mike Levine, but did not say whether any of the seven previously anonymous lawyers now work on issues related to Guantánamo detainees.
“Each of the nine people referenced in the letter filed legal briefs that are available by using something as simple as Google,” Miller told Fox News. “We will not participate in an attempt to drag people’s names through the mud for political purposes.”
Miller said “politics has overtaken facts and reality” in the battle over the lawyers’ identities. (Full statement below)
The current Justice Department employees who previously represented Guantánamo detainees or terrorism suspects are:
·         Tony West, the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division.
·         Jonathan Cedarbaum, of the Office of Legal Counsel.
·         Eric Columbus, senior counsel in the Office of the Deputy Attorney General.
·         Karl Thompson, of the Office of Legal Counsel.
·         Joseph Guerra, Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General.
·         Tali Farhadian, an official in the Office of the Attorney General.
·         Beth Brinkmann, Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Civil Division.
Two other DOJ lawyers — Principal Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal and National Security Division Attorney Jennifer Daskal – also formerly represented detainees, but their identities had already been known.
In response to the DOJ confirmation, Keep America Safe spokesman Aaron Harison said the organization still wants information on which of the lawyers works on detainee issues within the DOJ.
“The American people have a right to know whether lawyers who voluntarily flocked to Guantanamo to take up the cause of the terrorists are currently working on detainee issues in President Obama’s Justice Department,” Harison said. (Full statement below)
Details about the DOJ lawyers’ involvement in Guantánamo detainee cases are available in the article, which also points out that the Justice Department hired several lawyers who represented Guantánamo detainees during the George W. Bush administration

Holder’s former firm, Covington & Burling represented 14 Gitmo detainees. Still looking to see which ones:
“Guantanamo Bay Detainees
We currently represent fourteen men detained at the United States Naval Station at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. Most of the men have been detained for approximately eight years and none have been charged with any crimes. Following the decision by the Supreme Court in Boumediene v. Bush, 128 S. Ct. 2229 (2008), holding that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus extends to detainees held at Guantánamo Bay, we are challenging the legality of our clients’ detentions in habeas proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Of the seven cases that have gone to merits hearings thus far, Covington has won four, lost two, and is awaiting a decision in one other. Two prior clients were released without a hearing.
The firm has been involved in the Guantánamo related litigation for the last six years. In addition to the on-going habeas corpus proceedings, our efforts have included: bringing cases for review of enemy combatant classification decisions in the D.C. Circuit under the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005; challenging the destruction of CIA torture tapes in federal court; filing amicus briefs and coordinating the amicus effort in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006); filing amicus briefs in support of Supreme Court review in Moussaoui v. United States, 382 F.3d 483 (4th Cir.), cert denied, 544 U.S. 931 (2005); challenging the government’s practice of redacting information from documents given to security-cleared habeas counsel; and challenging the abusive medical and living conditions that the detainees experience at Guantánamo.”
http://www.cov.com/probonooverview/probono.aspx?show=morehighlights
I believe the CCR represented him. The CCR has strong ties to Covington & Burling:
“And then there is the Center for Constitutional Rights, a Marxist organization that for years has coordinated legal representation for terrorists detained at Guantanamo Bay. The CCR has been attempting to convince Germany, France, Spain, and other countries to file war-crime indictments against former Bush administration officials, including President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Secretary Rumsfeld. In representing America’s enemies, CCR has collaborated with many private lawyers, who also volunteered their services — several of whom are now working in the Obama Justice Department. Indeed, Holder’s former firm boasts that it still represents 16 Gitmo detainees (the number was previously higher). And, for help shaping detainee policy, Holder recently hired Jennifer Daskal for DOJ’s National Security Division — a lawyer from Human Rights Watch with no prior prosecutorial experience, whose main qualification seems to be the startling advocacy she has done for enemy combatants
 
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/228146/eric-holders-hidden-agenda/andrew-c-mccarthy
Jennifer Daskal
Jennifer Daskal is an American lawyer who serves as senior counsel for Human Rights Watch, and focuses on issues of terrorism, criminal law and immigration.[1][2] She is also currently a political hire at the Department of Justice, which is seeking to prosecute terror suspects through the criminal justice system instead of through military tribunals.[3][4]
A graduate of Harvard Law School, Cambridge and Brown University and a Marshall Scholar,[5] Daskal garnered attention after traveling to the countries to which Guantanamo captives have been released, to verify that those countries are abiding by the undertakings they made to the US Government to respect the returned captives’ human rights.[6]
On February 23, 2010, the New York Post reported that Daskal, Neal Katyal, and three other lawyers who had worked on behalf of the civil rights of Guantanamo captives, had been serving on the Obama administration’s task force reviewing the status of the remaining Guantanamo captives.[7] The paper had first questioned her appointment to the Department of Justice’s National Security Division, in July 2009, and then again in January 2010


22 posted on 10/12/2012 6:05:56 PM PDT by crosslink (Moderates should play in the middle of a busy street)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: mojito

Exactly - to believe him is to believe that instead of just getting something wrong, the intel folks actually concocted made-up stories, that had no chance of withstanding scrutiny, and passed that on as a briefing.


23 posted on 10/13/2012 3:11:59 AM PDT by trebb ("If a man will not work, he should not eat" From 2 Thes 3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson