Skip to comments.APNewsBreak: Different attackers in Benghazi?
Posted on 07/09/2014 4:28:31 PM PDT by don-o
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Newly revealed testimony from top military commanders involved in the U.S. response to the Benghazi attacks suggests that the perpetrators of a second, dawn attack on a CIA complex probably were different from those who penetrated the U.S. diplomatic mission the evening before.
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
The first group broadcast that Huma’s and Clinton’s
stolen weaponry from the USA was A-OK at
helping Islamic self-esteem.
Like the Southern border, it is open season for
weapons to kill Americans .... supplied by
Was this second group also peed off about the anti-Islam video on Youtube or was it something else this time?
We’re coming up on two years since this happened and the AP NOW thinks that the mortar crew might have to have been trained?
Good thing these reporters didn’t cover Pearl Harbor. Two years after that attack, they’d have been trying to decide if the Japanese attacked or if they were just putting on an airshow.
The story is that 1100 pages of testimony (I assume from closed hearings) has been released. And posted, according to the article.
On September 12, 2012, there was a lady (I forget her screen name) who posted on Free Republic asking if heavy machine guns and mortars are something that rioters normally carry around with them. That was the day after the attack. Now, I know that FReepers are brilliant, but the AP should have been asking that same question of their military experts at that time, too. That they didn’t, shows that they should be selling slurpees.
One was Al-Qaeda, the other was MB.
I heard the 2nd guys were hired either by Russia or by Iran.
Impressive munitions and skills that pounded the complex from a reasonable distance.
The second attack was because of an Oscar Meyer weinermobile facebook ad.
This article is more detailed and objective than I expected from AP. Falsehoods are likely entwined within it, but it reveals a steady evolution of the regime’s story, and the media’s movement away from slavish acceptance. To paraphrase, “Obama was running for reelection on a ‘saved GM, killed Bin Ladin, whipped the terrorists’ claim. After 5 days of massaging talking points post-Benghazi, Susan Rice emerged with a narrative that was er...’inaccurate’. Mean Republicans accused the administration of twisting the facts for politics.” I guess that’s a “subtle” way of admitting Obama, Hillary, et al, deliberately lied like a prayer rug. They forgot to mention the role of the media in delivering the lies and influencing the election.
The interesting part involves Ham’s spin. You see, the military was in the dark about the scope of CIA and State Dept programs, so naturally all the rapid security response forces were unavailable. I mean, why be in a state of heightened readiness on 9/11? Then the time gap between waves of attackers fooled and paralyzed them (even though he admits a military presence would have deterred the second phase and doesn’t explain how having hours of extra time would deal a response to the first attack). And a handful of security forces were “held up for hours in Tripoli by the Libyan gov’t”. I recall that Obama, Biden, NSC, SecDef, and everybody BUT Hillary, were involved on the White House end, and had live surveillance from the drone. Was it their job to connect the secret dots and clue the military command in on the situation? Was it Obama’s job to call the PM of Libya and offer to accept his immediate 100% cooperation RIGHT FREAKING NOW. Oh, no...
Article also says that 1100 pages of closed door testimony is supposed to be posted. I can’t find it.
Let Republicanprofessor know if you want on or off this ping list.
Transcripts can be accessed from this thread
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.