Posted on 10/19/2012 9:37:59 PM PDT by Jeff Head
Fox special, "Death and Deceit in Benghazi," to be re-broadcast at 1AM Eastern Time on Fox.
If you can...watch it.
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
Thanks!
I saw the first broadcast last night, too. My only criticism is of the compound piece that Jeff (Palcott?) walked us through. They went too fast through many movements and actions throughout their timeline. I’d have slowed that down a bit or found some other way to help people keep the details together. I’ll have to watch it a few times, because the actual defense of compound and murders timeline is an important understanding.
The bottom line is that it lasted long enough that one wonders if a readiness team from the military couldn’t have reached there if someone watching “real time” at a higher level had given the order to save those guys’ lives.
Charlene Lamb admits to watching real time, and if she had the authority to send immediate relief and didn’t do so immediately, since she already knew Stevens was begging for security, then she should be legally charged with gross dereliction or drummed out of service at a minimum. If she did pass it up the chain, and THEY didn’t send immediate aid, then they need to be tried for dereliction.
It DOES sound stupid for them to repeatedly declare that the government had nothing to do with the video. But there’s clearly some kind of method to their madness.
Your question of “who are they trying to convince”...ie WHO are they aiming for when they utter this denial, is on target, and in your reasonings you seem to discount every possibility and so, are left with a mystery.
I’m thinking it might be simply a generalized denial...what does the world think of us (even though “the world” isn’t likely to think they were complicit in the video), what is in the media that we need to answer, etc. In other words, general PR. But that has to be tied in with the fact that they are claiming - and this is key - they are CLAIMING that the Arab street is aflame BECAUSE of the video. Therefore as a government (engaged in that fictitious claim about the video) they think it’s pro forma, it’s expected of them to deny the U.S. government had anything to do with it.
I put it in the same category as their tv ads on arab media apologizing about the video. And condemning...don’t ever forget...CONDEMNING the video. And sympathizing with the poor little Muslims who have their feelings hurt by the video. All their actions are part of the same piece. I doubt they thought they were talking to anyone in particular when they denied complicity with the video.
It was part of their phony “narrative” that they wanted to get out there, for one and all.
It was that apologetic attitude they took, that caused Mitt Romney to come out with his statement...because the State Dept. people in Cairo issued a very apologetic statement in response to the violence on our embassy there, soon to be followed by Steven’s death in Benghazi from a military assault.
And in all of it, the video was being held culpable. Which is hogwash.
But it IS being used for propaganda and to whip crowds up after mosque worship services. And, ayman al zawahiri has issued a call for all Muslims to attack America everywhere in revenge for that video. That is true, he has done that.
But it’s the tail wagging the dog, at this point.
Greg Palcott.
I would love to know the details of the elevation of that childish, silly video from total obscurity to national security status.
Who in the administration, state, or intelligence first knew about the video? then who elevated it?
The video remains a puzzle. Arresting the artist in a police sweep also seems odd given we now know it was not the precipitating cause of the attack.
Also, General Dempsey’s publicized call to Pastor Jones in Florida really sets my alarms off, given that he, too, would have known there was no connection to the video.
They better retire him soon if they lose this election, because he’ll be ordered to appear and explain.
In the case of Susan Rice the UN ambassador and all her media appearances about the video...I saw something and can’t recall where...that in her defense it’s being claimed an initial intel report said something about the video. Not any later ones, but maybe the very first one, but don’t know who the intel was from. And that Susan Rice is going to always claim that she was going by THAT single reference in a single early report. The others can claim that as well.
General Dempsey had no business intruding upon that area...it’s not his area and he should know it.
In any investigation, even if necessary to have private sessions not public, at first, to get at the truth, investigators need to focus on demanding that the supposed initial intel report that did mention the video, be offered up as PROOF that Susan Rice, Hillary, Dempsey, Obama, Jay Carney etc have any defense for claiming they went on early intel when they started blabbing.
As for the video itself, apparently it was on the internet but so were many many others that were anti Islam available on the net. This one was so dumb and obscure it had gotten very little attention. The attention our government gave it could well have been intentional and they could well have known the maker of it was on federal parole for past crimes and could be isolated as “the cause” and could be arrested for his parole violations, thereby making it look to the world that we had cracked down on the video. Appeasement to radical Muslims, IOW.
When you say something is “now known”, that depends on the meaning of “is”, I think.
Bump for later.
Trick question. Thanks Jeff Head.
Do you believe that Lamb was the ONLY one watching?
Do you believe that there weren't many more offices, including the WH situation room that were also watching at the same time?
Why Bret, and others here, do not push this point is laughable were it not so serious. The administration PANICKED when its little October Surprise took a bad turn. Just as J F'n Kerry sat speechless for 45 minutes on 9/11/01, the administration FROZE as it watched their little plan go down the tubes.
It is inconceivable to me that someone called a “commander”, as in commander in chief, does not have in place a standard procedure that requires serious situations to be immediately reported to him, the CJCS, the NCA, and whatever situation room he maintains.
It’s like assuming that a general in the field allows his brigade and battalion commanders to undergo an attack and not report it up the chain to him, much less get him personally messaged, radioed, called, etc.
A general would never dream of allowing the standard operating procedure to be: “Get in touch with me when you damn well feel like it.”
Don’t know if you’ve listened to it yet, but here are links to Col. Hunt on the Howie Carr show explaining the protocols that take place when such an attack hapens.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2944272/posts
Somebody tipped off the ME talkshow mullah about that video trailer, apparently when it was languishing with 10 YouTube views. My guess would be that in her denial, she was communicating with some distant friendly not to expose how the ME came to learn of the video's existence.
Administration complicity in informing the ME about the video becoming known could awaken a political firestorm, but yet another layer atop that (affixing tin foil hat) would be if someone in the administration actually caused either 1) the video to be made or 2) caused someone to dub an existing video with "more provocative" dialog to color the production for just such a nefarious purpose. The original actors claim there was nothing in an original version that had reasonable cause to end lame Islam.
Ok, Hillary does have a tin ear, so many will say that's her excuse, but I've seen time and again that not even conniving attorneys come close to the deviousness of an avowed Alinskyite, as Hillary certainly has been for most of her life.
HF
Thanks, Roccus. Great link.
an interview with the only legit news source left in this country?! Hmph! Not in this lifetime!
bttt
Has anything come out as to the first source of the video as the basis for anything that happened?
They are also not, “bumps in the road.”
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.