FR is funded solely by the freedom loving folks who love and use it.
Stand with Free Republic.
Please donate today!
Posted on 05/09/2013 9:14:14 AM PDT by thouworm
[FLASHBACK]
As you'll recall, I was very skeptical [Report: US "Warned of Embassy Attack But Did Nothing] this morning of initial US government assertions that there was "no intelligence" indicating the deadly Benghazi raid was premeditated or planned in advance. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney repeated this heavily-parsed denial at his briefing today (note that he appears to be reading a verbatim statement), only to give a markedly different answer just 45 minutes later:
Carney Contradicts On Whether There Was Advance Warning Of Embassy Attacks [YouTube]
ABC's Jake Tapper notes that the Defense Secretary briefed the Senate Armed Services Committee on the attack, telling Senators that the US Government believes it was a premeditated terrorist act. At first Carney ducks, suggesting that reporters "wait to hear more from administration officials" (does he not qualify?), then concludes that the violent incidents are "under active investigation." So which is it? No indication of premeditation, or substantial indication of premeditation with an ongoing investigation?
I'll repeat the point I made earlier: Administration officials are very carefully denying something that nobody is alleging. They're saying, "no, there was no direct, actionable intelligence that the Benghazi mission specifically was at risk of an imminent attack. False, wrong, bad." But the Independent story said the intel warned of attacks on our diplomatic missions in the region more generally. They're not denying that. In fact, they're taking pains to write out statements that sound like broader denials, but that are actually extremely narrow, by design. Even so, might our government have extrapolated which locations were most likely to be in the cross-hairs based on, say, previous bombings and specific threats? From CNN:
A pro-al Qaeda group responsible for a previous armed assault on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi is the chief suspect in Tuesday's attack that killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya, sources tracking militant Islamist groups in eastern Libya say. They also note that the attack immediately followed a call from al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri for revenge for the death in June of Abu Yahya al-Libi, a senior Libyan member of the terror group. The group suspected to be behind the assault -- the Imprisoned Omar Abdul Rahman Brigades -- first surfaced in May when it claimed responsibility for an attack on the International Red Cross office in Benghazi. The following month the group claimed responsibility for detonating an explosive device outside the U.S. Consulate and later released a video of that attack.
I wonder if this information was in any of the intelligence briefing books that our president supposedly reads cover-to-cover every single day. Even if these seemingly obvious bread crumbs didn't exist -- although we cannot escape the fact that they do -- it's still an enormous scandal that no security reinforcements were provided. If you want an idea of how pathetic our diplomats' defenses were prior to their brutal murders, go back and read these posts.
But what about Romney's gaffes?! While we're on that subject, kudos to Obama supporter Kirsten Powers for mercilessly slamming the press over their outrageous and overtly partisan concern-trolling about Mitt Romney's accurate (and eventually echoed by the White House) statement about the Cairo embassy's pathetic response to violent protests. This video is a day old, but it's worth a watch. Powers is en fuego:
TAPPER: While we we're sitting here, Secretary Panetta and the vice chair of the joint chiefs briefed the Senate Armed Services Committee, and the senators came out and said their indication was that this — for the attack on Benghazi — was a terrorist attack organized and carried out by terrorists, that it was premeditated, a calculated act of terror. Levin said — Senator Levin, I think it was a planned premeditated attack, the kind of equipment that they had used. There is evidence it was a planned premeditated attack. Is there anything more you can — now that the administration is briefing senators on this, is there anything more you can tell us?
CARNEY: Right. Well, I think we wait to hear from administration officials. Again, it’s actively under investigation, both the Benghazi attack and incidents elsewhere, you know. And my point was that at — we don’t have and did not have concrete evidence to suggest that this was not in reaction to the film.
But we’re obviously investigating the matter, and, you know, I’ll certainly — you know, I’m sure both Department of Defense and the White House and other places will have more to say about that as more information becomes available.
Mesta: I found this thread keywording “allibi” (Al-Libi]
There aren’t too many comments on this old thread, but in light of yesterday’s hearing, the article deserves another look.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2931316/posts
ONLY two different answers?!?!
He’s used to giving 7 or 8 different answers.
I wonder how he keeps his lies straight enough to narrow it down to two...
Ghost of Baghdad Bob?
Carney. What a tool. I wonder what he’s getting in return for all the lies he’s telling.
” Carney. What a tool. I wonder what he’s getting in return for all the lies he’s telling.”
Eternity in hell.
Truth. LOL!
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.