PDA

View Full Version : Consulate official: Everyone knew it was a terrorist attack from the get-go



Little-Acorn
05-08-2013, 01:31 PM
The American official who was 2nd in charge of the Benghazi consulate was asked if he knew where the information came from that the Benghazi attacks were merely a "demonstration that got out of hand" caused by a video. Did that idea come from the people at the consulate?

The official, Greg Hicks, replied, "everybody in the mission" believed it was an act of terror "from the get-go."

Five days after the attack, CBS was tryng to spread the word that the attacks were just a spontaneous development from demonstrations that had happened far away in Egypt. But then the President of Libya went on "Face the Nation" and said flatly that his government had "no doubt that this was pre-planned, predetermined."

Ten minutes later, our Ambassador Susan Rice went on the same show and repeated her story that the strike began "spontaneously" out of protests in Egypt and was not a premeditated terrorist act.

"I've never been as embarrassed in my life, in my career, as on that day," Hicks told investigators of Rice's appearances.

It's piling higher and deeper.

Did the Obama administration withhold the reinforcements our diplomats kept begging for, to maintain his false story that Al Qaeda no longer mattered?

And when Al Qaeda planned and executed this attack on our consulate, killing Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans, did Obama concoct the story about "spontaneous protests" to keep the false story going even longer, to get more votes in the Nov. 2012 election three weeks later?

----------------------------------------------

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57583388/benghazi-whistleblowers-head-to-house-committee/

Benghazi "whistleblowers" head to House committee

by Lindsey Boerma /
CBS News/ May 8, 2013, 5:52 AM

Hoping to funnel into one chronological timeline the rampantly varying accounts of how President Obama's administration responded last Sept. 11 in the wake of an attack on a U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday will hear from three "whistleblowers" expected to offer testimony enormously at odds with the administration's characterization of a strike that killed four Americans.

Testifying are Mark Thompson, acting deputy assistant Secretary of State for counterterrorism; Greg Hicks, former deputy chief of mission in Libya; and Eric Nordstrom, former regional security officer in Libya. Excerpts of an interview Hicks did with investigators that were released to CBS News' "Face the Nation" on Sunday boomeranged the Benghazi politics back into the spotlight four months after hearings on the issue in the House and Senate.

According to Hicks, "everybody in the mission" believed it was an act of terror "from the get-go." But on Sept. 16 - five days after the attack - U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice hit the Sunday show circuit, peddling the theory that the strike began "spontaneously" out of protests in Egypt and was not a premeditated terrorist act. Rice's spot on "Face the Nation" that day was preceded by the new president of Libya, Mohammed al-Magariaf, who said his government had "no doubt that this was pre-planned, predetermined."

"I've never been as embarrassed in my life, in my career, as on that day," Hicks told investigators of Rice's appearances.

The top official in Libya after Amb. Chris Stevens died in the attack, Hicks said he was never consulted about the administration's talking points that puppeteered Rice's remarks: "I was personally known to one of Rice's staff members," he said. "Even on Sunday morning, I could have been called, and, you know, the phone call could have been, 'Hey, Greg, Amb. Rice is going to say blah, blah, blah,' and I could have said, 'No, that's not the right thing.' That phone call was never made."

aboutime
05-08-2013, 01:35 PM
Watching the hearings since they came on today. If there is one thing all of us should now recognize. It should be the Intense, and very Obvious Defense of Obama, and Hillary.

In fact. Even as I get angry, I laugh at them, and now think a better word to describe Democrats would be 'DENIAL-o-crats!'

red states rule
05-08-2013, 03:18 PM
http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/130507BenghaziwhistleRGBfff20130508043737.jpg

aboutime
05-08-2013, 04:25 PM
Watching the hearings since they came on today. If there is one thing all of us should now recognize. It should be the Intense, and very Obvious Defense of Obama, and Hillary.

In fact. Even as I get angry, I laugh at them, and now think a better word to describe Democrats would be 'DENIAL-o-crats!'
4952 Get your copy of the DNC Talking Points Manual today.

red states rule
05-08-2013, 04:30 PM
This is amazing





The biggest Benghazi-related story that took place outside of the House Oversight Committee's hearing room today is this item (http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/05/the-posts-sharyl-attkisson-piece-163496.html) in Politico, regarding CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson. She's the reporter who famously drew White House officials' profane ire (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cbs-news-reporter-says-white-house-screamed-swore-her-over-fast-and-furious_595011.html) over her unapologetic pursuit of the Fast & Furious scandal story; now she's apparently facing searing criticism from another source: Her own bosses. Why? Because she's been covering the Benghazi story (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=V2Q1xUkmqDw) too aggressively. Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you media bias:



"Attkisson, who holds a third-degree black belt in taekwondo, takes a fighting stance when she feels she’s being stonewalled. Which is exactly what she thinks the White House has done to her on Benghazi," Farhi writes. But from where Attkisson is sitting, there are actually two Goliaths, one of which is almost entirely absent from the Post profile. The second Goliath is CBS News, which has grown increasingly frustrated with Attkisson's Benghazi campaign. CBS News executives see Attkisson wading dangerously close to advocacy on the issue, network sources have told POLITICO. Attkisson can't get some of her stories on the air, and is thus left feeling marginalized and underutilized. That, in part, is why Attkisson is in talks to leave CBS ahead of contract, as POLITICO reported in April. Farhi mentions "internal conflicts" in the final paragraph, though he seems to dismiss them. The "internal conflicts" are indeed real -- Attkisson is still eyeing an exit, according to sources -- and provide important context for today's piece. Today, CBS News is celebrating Attkisson's commitment to the Benghazi story. It's good press. But that support is an aberration.

"Dangerously close to advocacy"? That's how CBS News apparently views the work of a reporter who is doggedly seeking truth (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57583014/diplomat-u.s-special-forces-told-you-cant-go-to-benghazi-during-attacks/) about an issue of enormous importance that many of her colleagues have scrupulously ignored. Remarkable. And as Ed Morrissey noticed (http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2013/05/08/where-have-you-gone-sharyl-attkisson/), Attkisson's Twitter feed went curiously silent very early on during today's hearings. What happened? Allahpundit thinks he knows (http://hotair.com/archives/2013/05/08/report-cbs-grumpy-that-sharyl-attkissons-benghazi-scoops-are-wading-dangerously-close-to-advocacy/) what's going on here, and I agree with him:



[The media establishment and liberals] can’t stop conservative media from existing, but they can ghettoize it as illegitimate and “partisan” in a way that their own partisan garbage isn’t....Skepticism about Benghazi is fine for the wingnuts at Fox, but bringing such unhelpful nonsense into an “impartial,” i.e. pro-Obama, outlet like CBS risks lending credence to the GOP’s accusations. The proper line to take on Benghazi is to dismiss the new hearings with a sneer, a la Joe Klein, or, in the case of “impartial” news coverage, to dismiss them more lightly by referencing Hillary’s long-ago whining about a “vast right-wing conspiracy” to discredit the Clintons. “Going where the story leads” is unhelpful to liberalism in this case, ergo it’s advocacy by definition.

Attkisson's reporting makes Benghazi harder to pigeonhole (http://hotair.com/archives/2013/05/08/white-house-this-benghazi-hearing-is-just-another-of-republicans-attempts-to-politicize-the-issue/) as a right-wing conspiratorial obsession. CBS News owns a(n unjustified (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents_controversy)) platinum reputation in lefty media circles, rendering one of their correspondent's tireless work on the unhelpful subject doubly unhelpful. Thus, the suits are marginalizing her and questioning her integrity, accusing her of walking dangerously close to the activism line. Shameful. I'll leave you with two other tweets that explain how much of the media will cover today's events:


http://townhall.com/tipsheet/

aboutime
05-09-2013, 09:19 PM
This is amazing



red states rule. In this case. We need to remember. "Every journey (journalist) begins with that FIRST STEP (attempt at honesty).

red states rule
05-10-2013, 02:29 AM
One Democrat is honest and speaking out on the left's behavior when it comes to the hearings





FNC's Powers Slams Dem Behavior in Benghazi Hearings

Appearing on Wednesday's The O'Reilly Factor, left-leaning FNC political analyst Kirsten Powers criticized the behavior of Democrats in the wake of the Benghazi hearings in Congress, as she cited the testimony of official Gregory Hicks as compelling. After complaining about Democratic Rep. Elijah Cummings's reaction to the testimony, she continued:


Gregory Hicks is not there as a Republican. He was the number two person in Libya, and he's there telling them all this information, including the fact that nobody in Libya thought it was anything but a terrorist attack. How is that not interesting to people?


She went on to argue that it was starting to look like a "coverup" rather than just "incompetence": "I don't know that you can prove that it was a coverup or if it was incompetence. I would say today is pointing more in the direction of a coverup..."

She soon added: "What I think matters more is that he said nobody on the ground thought it was anything but a terrorist attack and also in the hearing they were quoting an email that was sent by a senior State Department official to Libya saying that they knew that it was terrorism..."



Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2013/05/09/fncs-powers-slams-dem-behavior-benghazi-hearings#ixzz2SstrK7nY

red states rule
05-11-2013, 03:00 AM
Yippee - our tax dollars being used to spin for Obama and Hillary

<iframe width="520" height="293" title="MRC TV video player" src="http://www.mrctv.org/embed/121192" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>