Skip to comments.Benghazi 'Narrative' Reads Like TWA 800's (Jack Cashill)
Posted on 11/30/2012 6:01:34 AM PST by RoosterRedux
Although the word was not used back then, the Clinton White House, with the help of a complicit media, rewrote the event's "narrative" to assure re-election. Again, as with Benghazi, that narrative was clumsily improvised almost on a daily basis. Knowing the media had his back, Clinton responded much as Obama did: deny, obfuscate, and kick the investigatory can down the road until after the election.
One central figure appeared in each drama: Hillary Clinton. She stood by Obama's side in the Rose Garden on September 12 as he spun reality into confection. She, Bill, and Sandy Berger holed themselves up in the White House family quarters, assessing their narrative options throughout that long night of July 17, 1996.
On that fateful night, FAA air traffic controllers saw an unknown object "merge" with the doomed 747 seconds before it exploded, and they rushed the tape to the White House. Hundreds of people saw what the controllers did from the ground. FBI witness No. 73, an aviation buff, watched a "red streak" with a "light gray smoke trail" move up toward the airliner and then go "past the right side and above the aircraft before arcking [sic] back down toward the aircrafts [sic] right wing." She even reported the actual breakup sequence before the authorities figured it out on their own.
High-school principal Joseph Delgado told the FBI that he had seen an object like "a firework" ascend "fairly quick," then "slow" and "wiggle," then "speed up" and get "lost." Then he saw a second object that "glimmered" in the sky, higher than the first, then a red dot move up to that object, then a puff of smoke, then another puff, then a "firebox." He drew a precise image of the same for the FBI.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Exactly. We don’t know what really happened, what was being covered up or why. What we do know in each case the unmistakable footprints of a government coverup were there for all to see.
I see Benghazi going the same way. It's "settled science" as they say, so shut up already.
Throughout history it’s been rare when our government hasn’t lied to us. It’s just the way it is.
Bubba;s re election narrative was “peace and prosperity”, but telling the inconvenient truth would have required fear and expensive fighting. Bubba and hitlery preferred, “We;re rich and everyone loves us”.
And so they ORDERED that investigational result.
WHY did the twin tower bombers attack TWO buildings? I mean just ONE was huglely spectacular, right...? Simply “cuz they were mean”...?
Ruminate on that answer verrry hard, because the attackers hadobserved there was a vital NEED to attack TWO seperately and not just one.
For supposedly being a paragon of what a woman can become, she spends a lot of time "standing beside her 'men'" even as they shamelessly use women to their advantage...
Don’t you mean 4 buildings?
Anyone wanting on or off this ping list, please advise.
By JOHN SOLOMON, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - Just weeks before Timothy McVeigh ( news - web sites) bombed the Oklahoma City federal building in 1995, U.S. intelligence and law enforcement received several warnings that Islamic terrorists were seeking to strike on American soil and that a likely target was government buildings, documents show.
The information, though it was never linked to McVeigh, was stark enough that the Clinton administration urged stepped up security patrols and screening at federal buildings nationwide, including those in Oklahoma.
The government, however, didn't fortify buildings with cement barriers like those hurriedly installed after McVeigh detonated his explosive-laden truck at the curb of the Murrah building on April 19, 1995, officials said.
Islamic extremists are determined to "strike inside the U.S. against objects symbolizing the American government in the near future," said one warning obtained by The Associated Press.
The intelligence that prompted the warnings was gathered across the globe from Iran and Syria to the Philippines and became more specific as to the potential type attack (suicide bombing), target (government building) and likely date (after the third week in March 1995), the documents show.
The U.S. Marshal's Service issued an alert on March 15, 1995, to federal courthouses it protects, including the one in Oklahoma City across the street from where McVeigh's truck bomb killed 168 people, the documents show.
"Iranian extremists want it made clear that steps are being taken to strike at the Great Satan," a term used frequently in the Mideast to describe the United States, the marshal's memo said. It said a fatwa a religious order had been issued to attack marshals or their buildings.
"There is sufficient threat potential to request that a heightened level of security awareness and caution be implemented," the memo added.
Separately, the General Services Administration received a warning from the FBI ( news - web sites) and asked hundreds of federal buildings it operates to increase security details, including the Murrah building, officials said.
"We were told there was a fatwa threatening to target federal buildings," GSA spokeswoman Viki Reath said this week. "We increased our patrols to 12-hour shifts."
More than two dozen current and former intelligence and law enforcement officials interviewed by AP said the period of spring 1995 was a time of heightened "chatter" among terrorists seeking to strike the United States.
But the officials cautioned the FBI and CIA ( news - web sites) exhaustively investigated whether McVeigh could have been aided by Mideast terrorist and found no credible evidence linking him to any Islamic extremists, including those who prompted the 1995 warnings.
The information about 1995 emerges as a joint House-Senate panel examining the intelligence and law enforcement failures that preceded Sept. 11 has expanded its mission to look back at the late 1980s and 1990s.
John Gannon, former deputy CIA director for intelligence under President Clinton ( news - web sites), said spring 1995 was one of a handful of periods in the 1990s when intelligence on terror threats peaked as the government increasingly turned its attention to Osama bin Laden ( news - web sites) and his emerging terrorist network.
Gannon said the 1995 warnings were plentiful enough that he initially assumed Islamic extremists had struck when the bomb exploded in Oklahoma City. Law enforcement too issued initial bulletins looking for Arab suspects and borrowed Arabic translators from the military.
"When I first heard about the Oklahoma bombing, the first reaction I had was I wonder if this were a foreign group that had done this or the Islamic extremists that had come up on our screen," Gannon said.
He said it was in 1998, after bin Laden issued a fatwa urging specific attacks on America and two U.S. embassies in Africa were bombed, that U.S. anti-terrorism efforts escalated markedly.
"If there was a watershed year, it was 1998. That significantly elevated our concern and resulted in a concerted effort, and a very strong program to go get Osama bin Laden," he said.
The 1995 intelligence was specific enough that "if that was today, you'd have (Bush Homeland Security Director) Tom Ridge going out and saying we have this threat," said former Rep. Bill McCollum, R-Fla., who in 1995 was a member of the House Intelligence Committee.
McCollum formed a congressional task force in the late 1980s that began warning of the growing threat of terrorism, and which issued some of the 1995 alerts.
"For a good number of years, there was a failure to acknowledge the severity of the threat," he said. "There really had been this disbelief or unwillingness to scare people."
Former Clinton White House press secretary Joe Lockhart said "protecting America against terrorists was a high priority" during the 1990s. "Threat information regularly came in and steps were taken to deal with it," he said.
"In general, the record is very clear that the Clinton administration increased counterterrorism funding and focus more than any other prior administration based on the emerging threats," Lockhart added.
Some of the 1995 warnings were pointed.
"Iranian sources confirmed Tehran's desire and determination to strike inside the U.S. against objects symbolizing the American government in the near future," said a Feb. 27, 1995, terror warning by the House Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare.
The warnings became increasingly specific as to the possible location, type of attack and likely dates.
"These strikes are most likely to occur either in the immediate future or in the new Iranian year starting 21 March 1995," the congressional task force predicted.
U.S. intelligence monitored a series of meetings and conferences between senior officials of Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and other terror organizations in mid-February 1995 in which the subject of killing Americans on U.S. soil came up, officials said.
During these conferences, known terrorists made specific mention of Congress and the White House as "institutions that are great enemies of the Islamist movement," according to a congressional warning.
"This is a deviation from past discussions beyond referring to the U.S. as a single entity to pointing to specific branches of government as their true enemies," it added.
Around the same time, the FBI received intelligence from the Philippines that two men later convicted in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing had been arrested as they were plotting to blow up U.S. airliners. The men planned to hijack one airliner and crash it into the CIA, Pentagon ( news - web sites) or White House, documents show.
The marshal's warning explained that Islamic extremists had issued a fatwa to kill marshals personnel or strike their buildings because of an episode at the end of the World Trade Center bombing trial in which deputy marshals accidentally stepped on a copy of the Koran during a scuffle.
"Allegedly, the fatwa is being disseminated to persons in the United States who have the capability to carry it out," the memo said.
The terrorists could be suicide bombers who may "target as many victims as possible and draw as much media coverage as possible," it added. "Once the press is on the scene the new plans call for blowing up everyone."
a spark in the center fuel tank could have possibly been the cause.
center fuel tank my ass ,,, kerosene is stable ... if a wire sparked inside grounded metallic conduit within a tank full of a stable fuel nothing would happen.
In each of our cars we have a fuel tank full of unstable highly volatile gasoline with not just wires but electric motors (the fuel pump and all electric motors spark to some limited extent) submerged/semi-submerged or exposed in a cloud of volatile vapor (depending on the fuel level) , with exposed wires not in conduit , driving on bumpy roads and with trip count numbers worldwide millions of times greater than flight hours for jets.... yet I never hear of spontaneous explosions except in the case of a crash..
The early reporting was an accident, as you well know. Then the second plane hit with all eyes on it.
We dont know what really happened, what was being covered up or why.
Someone wanted at least Ambassador Stevens very, very dead. This was not mere incompetence; this was a Urriah the Hittite style of setup.
I have great respect for Jack Cashill.
BUT, it do not think this was a on the fly spin by the Dems. I think they intended to use the excuse of the movie as a way to suppress Freedom Of Speech granted in the 1st Amendment by this event.
They had already planned to use this.
There are “some” who think that Obozo planned to allow Amb. Stevens to be “captured” and exchanged for the Blind Sheik.
Not sure I agree with them, but it is clear the movie was being used as an excuse to silence 1st Amendment speech in the US.
The producer of the movie was arrested. Is he still in prison? Has he actually been charged with anything? There is a Fatwa against him. Think I read he was sentenced to death in absence in some ME country.
We cannot let that happen. Where was the President? Who gave the order to stand down? Why no photos from the situation room? Was there any one there?
Too bad for the Clintons it wasn't true.
Would have been a perfect opportunity for Little Willie Wager to seize absolute power.
What's even funnier is how the Clintons /dems have their talking points in place prior to each and every terrorist attack.
Yea, sure is funny.
He makes a very good point, which is that Clinton got away with declaring the other terrorist attacks to be non-events because it was in the pre-You Tube, pre-FB, pre-Twitter age when witnesses can report immediately on things they see in a form that leaves a permanent record. (Of course, the government is getting pretty good at erasing these records, but that’s another story...)
Interesting to see the names that cropped up in the FLight 800 cover up: Bill, Hillary...and Sandy Berger. It’s very possible that this was the information he was trying to sanitize once and for all when he stole the records (which contained Bill’s marginal notes) from the National Archives.
They attacked TWO towers seperately specifically because they obseverved in TWA 800 just what happens when you have a liberal administration and an adoring liberal media: a coverup.
In bengazi we see NOTHING HAS CHANGED.
I think they had planned to use the video, just as they had planned to use their knowledge of Petraeus’ affair...but not necessarily for a specific thing at any particular moment. They were just insurance; the Petraeus affair was originally meant to be used if he became the GOP nominee, and when he didn’t, they just put it back in their arsenal for later use.
And I think the video (which the US may have funded without Nakoulah’s even having been aware of this) was also just something Obama and Co. thought they might be able to use at some point, probably in whipping up frenzy during the “Arab Spring” in Egypt. But they didn’t need it then, so they just kept it on hand for when they did need it.
Probably they then encouraged its showing in Egypt around 9/11 (because they knew there were going to be “commemorative” anti-US protests and possibly even attacks on that date) to provide a cover-story for Islamist violence that would make it look as if the Islamists were somehow justified and it had nothing to do with 9/11. And they hoped it would work for Benghazi too.
Hillary has done nothing but “stand by her man” for all of her career. I never understood how she could have been presented as a feminist model, because she had no ideas of her own, no power of her own, and all she has done is to spend her life cleaning up the messes of powerful men (Bill, Obama, etc.).
That said, there’s another name that appears in Bill’s list of handy accessories after the fact, and has reappeared in Benghazi. That would be Susan Rice, who was in charge of African affairs at the time of the Kenyan and Nigerian bombings (AQ attacks) and couldn’t explain why security hadn’t been increased even though there were known threats from AQ, why Islamic terrorism was not being taken seriously by the Clinton regime, etc. The more things change...
I see Benghazi going the same way. It's "settled science" as they say, so shut up already.
Like the airplane crash in Smolensk, Russia that killed Polish President Lech Kaczynski and 95 others?