Here's what we know and what we can conclude at this time

Hillary intentionally and blatantly kept the counterterrorism bureau at the stat
e dept in the dark about what the state dept knew about Benghazi cause if they k
new they would've had to provide Congress with that info. also, once the admin
created it's false narrative and lied about the true reason behind the attacks,
if people in that bureau knew, it'd be a lot harder to make sure all of them kep
t the secret and didn't lead it to either the press or congress.
Turns out they got some measure of revenge anyway cause they're telling congress
now about what Hillary did, which was despicable and surely should've been a fi
rable offense, except her boss, Obama, supported what she did, which is an impea
chable offense imo.
(12:17:27 AM) Chris Antenucci: You should have seen what (Clinton) tried to do t
o us that night," the second official in State's counterterrorism bureau told co
lleagues back in October.  Those comments would appear to be corroborated by Thomp
son's forthcoming testimony.State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki called the co
unterterrorism officials' allegation "100 percent false." A spokesman for Clinto
n said tersely that the charge is not true.
Read more:
(12:18:04 AM) Jonathan Antenucci: yeah pretty bad
(12:18:41 AM) Jonathan Antenucci:
(12:18:44 AM) Jonathan Antenucci: this is too
(12:21:32 AM) Chris Antenucci: now that i think about it, we shouldn't be surpri
sed that there's a cover up cause hillary's involved
(12:21:40 AM) Chris Antenucci: that's what whitewater was all about
(12:23:15 AM) Chris Antenucci: all the pieces of the cover up puzzle are coming
together now
(12:24:17 AM) Chris Antenucci: clinton and obama purposefully cut out the counte
rterrorism bureau of the state dept because they immediatley knew it was a plann
ed terror attack that was based on the lack of security at the benghazi facility
, and clinton and obama are responsible for that lack of security cause they den
ied the requests for additional security
(12:24:56 AM) Chris Antenucci: if that bureau had been involved they would've im
mediatley wanted to label it an act of terrorism and share that info with the pu
blic, which would make obama look weak and clueless
(12:25:39 AM) Chris Antenucci: so they cut them out and went with the narrative
of "it was all a spontaneous attack due to a video, it had nothing to do with a
lack of security there"
(12:26:14 AM) Jonathan Antenucci: Im not sure enough info is getting out to the
media for it to make a difference in the public opinion
(12:26:57 AM) Jonathan Antenucci: why would the media cover these hearings now i
f they didnt cover the original attack and followed the white house lies about i
t then?
(12:28:07 AM) Chris Antenucci: cause now if enough evidence comes out it'll turn
into a scandal, and they have no choice but to cover i
(12:28:08 AM) Chris Antenucci: it
(12:28:39 AM) Chris Antenucci: conservatives always knew it was a cover up but w
e didn't have proof, but it looks like now we might
(12:29:07 AM) Jonathan Antenucci: Im still doubting it becomes a scandal
(12:29:20 AM) Chris Antenucci: so am i, but at least there's rays of hope now
(12:29:27 AM) Jonathan Antenucci: yeah
(12:32:00 AM) Chris Antenucci:
(12:32:12 AM) Jonathan Antenucci: true
(12:32:46 AM) Jonathan Antenucci: he just gave a speech at the NRA convention I
(12:33:13 AM) Chris Antenucci: yea
(12:34:05 AM) Chris Antenucci:
(12:34:17 AM) Chris Antenucci: even a dem isnt defending obama on this
(12:42:25 AM) Chris Antenucci:
(1:00:38 AM) Chris Antenucci:
(1:00:42 AM) Chris Antenucci: this is the smoking gun right here
(1:02:04 AM) Chris Antenucci: what's gonna eventually ruin the cover up is that
even if the admin was unsure that it was a terrorist attack, they could've just
said we don't know at this time
(1:02:58 AM) Chris Antenucci: but they said all the evidence points to it being
a spontaneous protest without even mentioning the fact that they already had ini
tial evidence suggesting it was a terrorist attack, but they didn't mention that
evidence at all
(1:03:04 AM) Chris Antenucci: that's the definition of a cover up
(1:07:35 AM) Chris Antenucci: The talking points were first distributed to offic
ials in the interagency vetting process at 6:52 p.m. on Friday. Less than an hou
r later, at 7:39 p.m., an individual identified in the House report only as a sen
ior State Department official responded to raise serious concerns about the draft.
That official, whom The Weekly Standard has confirmed was State Department spoke
sman Victoria Nuland, worried that members of Congress would use the talking poi
nts to criticize the State Department for not paying attention to Agency warnings
(1:07:38 AM) Chris Antenucci: proof of the cover up
(1:07:44 AM) Chris Antenucci: as clear as day
(1:08:45 AM) Chris Antenucci: at this point i don't agree with gutfeld that obam
a was leading the cover up, i think he stayed out of it on purpose so he could h
ave his hands clean
(1:09:35 AM) Jonathan Antenucci: leading from behind
(1:10:59 AM) Chris Antenucci: there's no way reagan would've been intentionally
ignorant on something this big
(1:11:42 AM) Jonathan Antenucci: nope
(1:12:06 AM) Chris Antenucci: he wouldn't have let the Cia and state dept create
the talking points, he would've personally created them
(1:12:30 AM) Chris Antenucci: he would've gone on tv and done a national tv addr
ess to the nation
(1:12:50 AM) Chris Antenucci: and laid out everything we knew at that time in de
(1:13:36 AM) Jonathan Antenucci: yeah
(1:14:03 AM) Chris Antenucci: ok nm about obama not getting his hands dirty
(1:14:09 AM) Chris Antenucci: his fingerprints are all over this
(1:14:11 AM) Chris Antenucci: In an attempt to address those concerns, CIA offic
ials cut all references to Ansar al Sharia and made minor tweaks. But in a follo
w-up email at 9:24 p.m., Nuland wrote that the problem remained and that her sup
eriorsshe did not say which oneswere unhappy. The changes, she wrote, did not resol
ve all my issues or those of my building leadership, and State Department leaders
hip was contacting National Security Council officials directly. Moments later,
according to the House report, White House officials responded by stating that th
e State Departments concerns would have to be taken into account. One officialBen R
hodes, The Weekly Standard is told, a top adviser to President Obama on national
security and foreign policyfurther advised the group that the issues would be re
solved in a meeting of top administration officials the following morning at the
White House.
(1:14:51 AM) Chris Antenucci: if they met at the White House they had to go thro
ugh obama himself before the final talking points were approved
(1:14:59 AM) Chris Antenucci: so he personally led the cover up
(1:15:20 AM) Chris Antenucci: and he knew it was a terrorist attack already, or
at least a very likely one
(1:17:03 AM) Chris Antenucci: gutfeld was right
(1:17:53 AM) Chris Antenucci: this is unreal
(1:18:01 AM) Chris Antenucci: they actually have all 3 versions of the talking p
(1:18:23 AM) Chris Antenucci: when u compare the final to the earlier versions i
t's totally transformed to remove all references to terrorists and planning
(1:19:30 AM) Chris Antenucci: it's so clear that it's a lie now cause there was
never even a shred of evidence that demonstrations were going on
(1:20:00 AM) Chris Antenucci: so obama had that put in there was a blatant lie t
o cover up the incompetence of his state dept and his own incompetence in the wa
r on terror
(1:21:00 AM) Chris Antenucci: it makes no sense that they were "spontaneously in
spired" and then "evolved" into an assault on the post lol
(1:21:22 AM) Chris Antenucci: if they were spontaneous why did they all have exp
losives and high tech weapons?
(1:21:42 AM) Chris Antenucci: there was no evolving, it was all planned way in a
dvance and that was clear from the beginning to obama and everyone else
(1:22:06 AM) Jonathan Antenucci: yeah
(1:23:45 AM) Chris Antenucci: this part i didn't even know til now
(1:23:46 AM) Chris Antenucci: More troubling was the YouTube video. Rice would s
pend much time on the Sunday talk shows pointing to this video as the trigger of
the chaos in Benghazi. What sparked the violence was a very hateful video on the
Internet. It was a reaction to a video that had nothing to do with the United S
tates. There is no mention of any video in any of the many drafts of the talking po
(1:24:15 AM) Chris Antenucci: she was fed that one from obama himself cause it w
asn't in any of the talking points, even the final bs version
(1:25:34 AM) Chris Antenucci: the amazing thing is she didn't even say, "the evi
dence appears to indicate this youtube video caused the demonstration", she said
was sparked the violence WAS the video, no ifs ands and buts about it
(1:26:04 AM) Chris Antenucci: since there was never any proof of that, that was
a blatant lie
(1:26:49 AM) Chris Antenucci: the fact that obama mentioned the video at the UN
as the cause of the attacks shows that he gave Rice that talking point
(1:27:28 AM) Jonathan Antenucci: it only makes sense that they came from him
(1:27:38 AM) Jonathan Antenucci: he is the one who did the apology tour
(1:29:07 AM) Chris Antenucci: the worst person though is this Nuland woman, she'
s corrupt as hell. after rice lied based on the talking points Nuland created,
she goes to the press and says, "what Rice said is exactly what our initial asse
ssment of the cause is", when in fact the initial assessment was that there was
evidence it was a terrorist attack, and no evidence it was a demonstration based
on a video
(1:29:53 AM) Jonathan Antenucci: she is just the mouthpiece though
(1:30:15 AM) Jonathan Antenucci: like Carney
(1:30:33 AM) Chris Antenucci: not in this case
(1:30:44 AM) Chris Antenucci: she was the one who suggested initially to change
the talking points
(1:31:09 AM) Chris Antenucci: she just also happens to be a spokeperson for the
state depth
(1:31:11 AM) Chris Antenucci: dept
(1:31:46 AM) Chris Antenucci: i still have several unanswered questions though
(1:32:17 AM) Chris Antenucci: according to these reports, she told her superiors
to change the talking points and then the white house was notified and agreed t
hat they needed to be changed
(1:32:43 AM) Chris Antenucci: but my question is did obama already plan to chang
e them, or what was his involvement in the whole process
(1:33:14 AM) Chris Antenucci: it's hard to believe he wasn't notified immediatel
y when that congressman asked the cia what he could tell the public
(1:34:30 AM) Chris Antenucci: my guess is he sat back and let them write the tal
king points but knew he'd get the final say, and when he saw all those reference
s to terror and warnings that went unheeded, he realized he couldn't take the bl
ame for that, and didn't want anyone in his admin to take the blame, so he agree
d with Nuland to get rid of all that and add blatant lies
(1:38:39 AM) Jonathan Antenucci: I agree
(1:38:52 AM) Jonathan Antenucci: he let everyone else take the fall
(1:42:24 AM) Chris Antenucci: what threw the media off the scent of the cover up
was the involvement of the intelligence community in the cover up
(1:42:49 AM) Chris Antenucci: they lent credibility to the idea that they initia
lly thought it was a demonstration cause they directly defended that in a statem
(1:43:28 AM) Chris Antenucci: so they purposefully joined in on the cover up to
protect the admin, most likely cause they knew they were gonna take the fall if
the media started asking more questions
(1:46:35 AM) Chris Antenucci: the truth is, we know know that both top cia offic
ials and top state dept officials, along with obama and his top officials, all a
greed to radically change the talking points. but i believe the cia started pa
rticipating in the narrative and the lie because they realized obama but especia
lly the media, in order to defend obama, would point the fingers at them and thr
ow them under the bus. They'd say it was a failure of the intel community and n
ot obama's fault
(1:46:47 AM) Chris Antenucci: *now*
(1:48:45 AM) Chris Antenucci: cause according to the obama narrative, it was all
just a demonstration gotten out of control, so if they eventually found out, an
d they did, that it was a terrorist attack, the media would come back to the cia
and say, "how did you guys miss this? how was your intelligence so bad that al
l your evidence convinced the obama admin it was a demonstration based on a vid
and not a terrorist attack?
(1:51:06 AM) Chris Antenucci: and the cia could respond to that in 1 of 2 ways,
each way being as bad as the other and a lose-lose situation: 1)say "yea it was
that bad, we just made mistakes and overlooked crucial info or just didn't hav
e enough resources in that dangerous area or 2) tell the truth and say, "uh, yea
we actually suspected it was a terrorist attack all along and changed the talki
ng points to protect ourselves from reprisals from the admin but primarily to co
ver obama's ass
(1:53:12 AM) Chris Antenucci: cause the media used that statement by the cia def
ending the narrative to say "see, it's not a cover up or a lie, cause here's the
cia saying they had evidence from the beginning that it was a demonstration", a
nd people aren't expecting the cia to lie to cover for the pres
(1:53:17 AM) Chris Antenucci: i wasn't either to be honest
(1:53:52 AM) Chris Antenucci: but i guess in that situation the top officials we
re under too much pressure and didn't wanna lose their jobs and end their career
s, cause that's what would've happened if they let the truth be known
(1:55:10 AM) Chris Antenucci: so we now have proof that obama lied, that state d
ept officials lied, and now that the cia lied
(1:55:11 AM) Chris Antenucci: The statement continued: As we learned more about the
attack, we revised our initial assessment to reflect new information indicating
that it was a deliberate and organized attack carried out by extremists. It rem
ains unclear if any group or person exercised overall command and control of the
attack, and if extremist group leaders directed their members to participate. H
owever, we do assess that some of those involved were linked to groups affiliate
d with, or sympathetic to al Qaeda.The statement strongly implies that the inform
ation about al Qaeda-linked terrorists was new, a revision of the initial assess
ment. But it wasnt. Indeed, the original assessment stated, without qualification
, we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda participated in the at
(1:55:45 AM) Chris Antenucci: they first lied about the attack and covered it up
, then they lied about the cover up
(1:55:46 AM) Chris Antenucci: unreal
(2:02:44 AM) Chris Antenucci: there's at least 2 big questions remaining that ne
ed to be asked: 1)now that it's clear that we had special forces within hours o
f benghazi in europe, why weren't they immediately notified and sent to try and
save the forces in benghazi? is it because obama realized that if he sent those
forces that action in itself would be an acknowledgement that benghazi was unde
r attack by terrorists, they he knew this immediately, and that there was a chan
ce to save the people who ended up dying in benghazi? . . . .2)why were the cont
inued requests for additional security in benghazi continually denied, even thou
gh it was being attacked on a regular basis by terrorists up to that point?
4:11:11 AM) Chris Antenucci: Schieffer later revisited UN Ambassador Susan Rices Su
nday show appearances, including the one on Face the Nation  during which she contrad
icted the Libyan president who said the attack was pre-planned. Hicks said his ja
w hit the floor when he saw that appearance, further adding that he was embarrass
ed. I never reported a demonstration: I reported an attack on the consulate, he sa
(4:11:59 AM) Chris Antenucci:
(4:18:43 AM) Chris Antenucci: at least in schieffer's case i was right, he's cov
ering this now
(4:19:11 AM) Chris Antenucci: i wasn't aware of that part where the libyan presi
dent was on his show right before susan rice was
(4:19:13 AM) Chris Antenucci: man
(4:19:18 AM) Chris Antenucci: that makes her lies 10x worse
(4:20:07 AM) Chris Antenucci: she actually was watching his interview with schie
ffer where he said we're sure the attacks were pre-planned, and then she went on
and said they weren't, basically saying he doesn't know what he's talking about
(4:21:10 AM) Chris Antenucci: wow
(4:21:17 AM) Chris Antenucci: very strong words from hicks
(4:21:24 AM) Chris Antenucci: start watching around the 5 min mark
(4:21:53 AM) Jonathan Antenucci: ok
(4:22:06 AM) Chris Antenucci: this was even worse than i thought, cause she tota
lly disregarded everything that president said and basically discredited him, an
d he's our ally in the war on terror
This is the biggest scandal involving a US president since Nixon and Watergate,
no doubt about it. As Krauthammer said, in a way this is even worse cause this
involves the deaths of 4 american heroes. They died defending this country beca
use this president and his admin wanted to cover their own asses and were more w
orried about offending the Muslim world than standing up for America and our rig
ht to defend our embassy and our freedoms.
Another way it's worse than Watergate is that this involves a president lying to
the american people for at least 2 straight weeks about a matter of national se
curity, not just a political matter like Watergate was. I hope justice will be s
erved to Obama and every member of his admin who was involved in this horrible c
over up. The men who died for our freedom deserve nothing less.
Today is a great day for America. The truth about a major lie Obama and his peop
le perpetrated on the american public finally broke through the wall of obstruct
ion the media created around Obama. Even better yet is the timing of it combined
with the IRS scandal since it's only days after Obama told college graduates to
ignore people who tell them the gov't is corrupt and incompetent. These scandal
s directly contradict that message. Conservatives don't trust BIG GOV'T, PERIOD.
It doesn't matter if the president who wants that much power is a republican or
democrat, big gov't is bad either way because it takes power out of the hands o
f the people, who make this country the success that it is. The Obama administra
tion is finally getting hit with a scandal and all I can say is it's about time.
He tried to avoid scandals or anything that might make him look bad, that's act
ually at the root of the Benghazi cover up, and the media were more than willing
to help him. But even they can't cover for him this time, this time he went too
far. The house of cards Obama built with lies in order to win re-election and p
ut in place his liberal agenda is falling apart around him and it's a beautiful
thing to watch. When msnbc is covering something that could hurt Obama political
ly you know it must be huge. We deserved the truth about what happened in Bengha
zi, and thank God there are still courageous and patriotic americans, the whistl
eblowers, who came out of the darkness to testify to Congress and expose the cor
ruption and incompetence of this administration . . .
Updated 5/12/13-
11:53:09 PM) Chris Antenucci:
(11:53:16 PM) Chris Antenucci: this is amazing
(11:53:23 PM) Chris Antenucci: he lied about 5 times blatantly
(11:57:17 PM) Chris Antenucci: this pretty much sums up the entire benghazi deba
(11:57:18 PM) Chris Antenucci:  A terrorist attack isnt like a soccer game, over in
90 minutes. If it is a sport, its more like a tennis match: Whether its all over
in three sets or goes to five depends on how hard the other guy pushes back. The
government of the United States took the extremely strange decision to lose in
straight sets. Not only did they not deploy out-of-area assets, they ordered eve
n those in Libya to stand down. Lieutenant Colonel Gibson had a small team in Tr
ipoli that twice readied to go to Benghazi to assist and twice was denied author
ity to do so, the latter when they were already at the airport. There werent many
of them, not compared to the estimated 150 men assailing the compound. But they
were special forces, not bozo jihadists. Back in Benghazi, Tyrone Woods and Gle
n Doherty held off numerically superior forces for hours before dying on a rooft
op waiting for back-up from a government that had switched the answering machine
on and gone to Vegas.
(11:58:34 PM) Jonathan Antenucci: yeah that is a good analogy
(11:59:25 PM) Chris Antenucci: the fact that obama went to vegas almost immediat
ely after learning about benghazi tells you everything you need to know
(11:59:47 PM) Jonathan Antenucci: yeah
(5/12/2013 12:01:20 AM) Chris Antenucci:
(12:01:33 AM) Chris Antenucci: perfect summary of everything
(12:29:05 AM) Chris Antenucci: man what carney did in that briefing was unreal
(12:29:37 AM) Chris Antenucci: he was saying the cia edited those talking points
cause they didn't wanna talk about warnings that "may or may not be relevant" t
o what actually happened
(12:29:57 AM) Chris Antenucci: yet you sent susan rice out to 5 talk shows to ta
lk about a video that was completely irrelevant
(12:30:53 AM) Chris Antenucci: and none of the reporters called him out on it an
d said, "hey, we know from the emails that the cia and state dept knew it was a
terrorist attack, therefore they knew those references to terrorists and the pri
or warnings were relevant
(12:32:26 AM) Chris Antenucci: he actually wasn't even trying to spin this time,
he was just bsing off the top of his head, he was that deep in the mud of this,
and the obama admin's position is so indefensible he didn't even try to defend,
he just bsed
(12:33:07 AM) Chris Antenucci: he actually said this: "what susan rice said ref
lected what the intel community knew at the time"
(12:33:33 AM) Chris Antenucci: uh, no it didn't, it reflected something complete
ly made up that wasn't even in the edited talking points
(12:33:47 AM) Chris Antenucci: nobody in the intel community was saying anything
about a video
(12:34:02 AM) Chris Antenucci: and there was no evidence that the attacks were d
ue to a demonstration
(12:34:09 AM) Chris Antenucci: so that's demonstrably false
(12:34:21 AM) Chris Antenucci: carney was way in over his head this time and it
(12:42:56 AM) Chris Antenucci: this press briefing is mind blowing, he's complet
ely delusional
(12:43:07 AM) Chris Antenucci: he wouldn't even admit one thing the reporters ac
cused them of
(12:43:43 AM) Chris Antenucci: he literally said, when asked if nothing new is c
oming out, why is this a big deal? , "because republicans are politicizing it"
(12:45:28 AM) Jonathan Antenucci: well if he admits one mistake then he will hav
e to admit more
(12:45:35 AM) Jonathan Antenucci: it is all or nothing
(12:45:46 AM) Chris Antenucci: obviously
(12:46:06 AM) Chris Antenucci: but the depths to which he had to sink to cover a
ll the lies, even his own continuing lies, was a new record for him
(12:46:22 AM) Chris Antenucci: go to the 18 min mark with the black woman asking
him a question
(12:46:32 AM) Jonathan Antenucci: ok
(12:46:43 AM) Chris Antenucci: after his answer to her where he basically blows
her off immediately, watch her reaction
(12:46:54 AM) Chris Antenucci: she starts shaking her head like "wow what a lie"
(12:47:04 AM) Chris Antenucci: nobody notices though cause he calls on the next
(12:50:13 AM) Jonathan Antenucci: yeah that was bad
(12:51:09 AM) Chris Antenucci: these reporters are so soft
(12:51:14 AM) Chris Antenucci: they're not asking the right questions
(12:52:22 AM) Jonathan Antenucci: that woman kept shaking her head even when the
other reporters were asking questions
(12:53:23 AM) Chris Antenucci: yep
(12:53:47 AM) Chris Antenucci: like i can't believe he's getting away with this
and man i wish i had more influence so i could call him out in front of everyone
(12:55:11 AM) Jonathan Antenucci: wow
(12:55:33 AM) Jonathan Antenucci: he actually reiterated the "we thought it was
a protest at first" lie
(12:55:47 AM) Jonathan Antenucci: even when everyone knows now it wasnt for a fa
(12:56:19 AM) Chris Antenucci: right and that's where i told you the admin got a
way with it
(12:56:22 AM) Chris Antenucci: cause the cia lied for them
(12:56:48 AM) Chris Antenucci: cause there was a statement by a cia official say
ing we did have some basis initially to think it was a protest
(12:57:04 AM) Chris Antenucci: and the media assumes the cia is telling the trut
(12:57:10 AM) Chris Antenucci: when in reality they lied for obama
(12:57:14 AM) Jonathan Antenucci: yeah
(12:57:53 AM) Chris Antenucci: but carney's smart cause he uses that cia stateme
nt knowing the press can't rebut it, and that ends the argument about where the
evidence was for blaming it on a protest
(12:57:58 AM) Chris Antenucci: just cite the cia
(12:58:03 AM) Jonathan Antenucci: yep
(12:59:53 AM) Chris Antenucci: go to around 28 min mark and beyond
(1:00:13 AM) Chris Antenucci: jon karl actually catches him in a lie from the pr
evious day and he won't even admit it
(1:01:00 AM) Chris Antenucci: he said " you said the other day that the only cha
nges made to the talking points were stylistic and just one word, and now we kno
w it was a lot of things and it was substance, not style, and it wasn't just the
cia, it was the state dept and white house"
(1:01:17 AM) Chris Antenucci: to which carney says, "it was an interagency proce
(1:01:21 AM) Chris Antenucci: that's the only defense he had
(1:01:33 AM) Chris Antenucci: didn't even attempt to defend his lie
(1:01:46 AM) Chris Antenucci: just tried to misdirect everyone
(1:02:11 AM) Jonathan Antenucci: ultimately i dont think these briefings matter
because who watches them?
(1:02:50 AM) Jonathan Antenucci: even if he admitted he lied would it make a dif
(1:04:08 AM) Chris Antenucci: nobody watches them but if something big happens i
t gets out in soundbites
(1:04:38 AM) Chris Antenucci: this is amazing though cause one reporter after an
other is basically saying "hey, you lied", and he's saying "no i didn't", and th
at's the end of it
(1:04:46 AM) Chris Antenucci: go to around 30:30
(1:05:21 AM) Chris Antenucci: the black woman comes right out and says "lemme as
k this another way, do you admit you mischaracterized the white house's involvem
ent in the editing of the talking points?"
(1:13:18 AM) Chris Antenucci: the thing is, carney's got the spin down
(1:13:47 AM) Chris Antenucci: you can tell by watching the briefing that he's 2-
3 steps ahead of every reporter's question, he's well prepared in advance for ev
ery possible angle and accusation
(1:15:52 AM) Chris Antenucci: at 42:40 he tripped up though
(1:16:05 AM) Chris Antenucci: it was very subtle and i'm sure every reporter the
re missed it but i didnt
(1:16:50 AM) Chris Antenucci: he said, "the talking points provided every piece
of information that we knew for sure at the time, which is why they removed refe
rences to terrorism"
(1:17:17 AM) Chris Antenucci: that's a flat out lie cause even if there was a po
ssibility that they were due to a protest, that certainly wasn't something they
knew at the time for sure
(1:18:34 AM) Chris Antenucci: carney totally dodges the question the reporter ha
s about the state dept wanting to change the talking points because it would giv
e congress a chance to show they were neglecting their duties
(1:18:53 AM) Chris Antenucci: the reporter says "that's not about making sure ev
erything was accurate, isn't it instead political?"
(1:18:59 AM) Chris Antenucci: and carney completely dodges it
(1:22:11 AM) Chris Antenucci: looking at this objectively, i can def say carney
is a master at that job
(1:22:31 AM) Chris Antenucci: better than any press sec i've seen, except maybe
(1:22:34 AM) Chris Antenucci: she was pretty good
(1:23:12 AM) Chris Antenucci: it's a shame that talent has to go to waste for th
e use of corruption
(1:24:57 AM) Chris Antenucci: at the 47 min mark that woman hit the nail on the
head, getting to the point no other reporter did
(1:25:38 AM) Chris Antenucci: she said, "you're now saying you didn't mention te
rrorism because you didn't wanna be speculative, but the day after the attacks w
e sat here and listened to you blame them on a video, so isn't that speculative?
(1:26:10 AM) Chris Antenucci: his answer was, "because that's what was in the ci
a talking points"
(1:27:08 AM) Chris Antenucci: which is a lie because the talking points didn't m
ention the video at all
(1:27:59 AM) Chris Antenucci: but even if they did my follow up would have been
"so wouldn't that make the talking points speculative because where is the evide
nce that the video was to blame?"
(1:28:21 AM) Chris Antenucci: now that i think about it, what evidence did they
use to reach that conclusion? has anyone seen it? the answer is no
(1:28:30 AM) Chris Antenucci: cause there was no evidence, they made it up
(1:29:59 AM) Chris Antenucci: and he's lying about the points and himself not re
ferencing terrorism cause we didn't have evidence for it yet, cause we did alrea
dy have evidence, such as eyewitness reports on the ground telling us they saw t
errorists there and the libyan president himself saying they knew it was islamic
(1:30:54 AM) Chris Antenucci: man if i could be a white house reporter
(1:31:07 AM) Chris Antenucci: i would've tripped him up
(1:31:53 AM) Chris Antenucci: also, there were phone calls intercepted between t
errorists talking about how they attacked the consulate
(1:32:08 AM) Chris Antenucci: of course carney fails to mention all of this
(1:33:11 AM) Chris Antenucci: that reporter was the best of them all
(1:33:37 AM) Chris Antenucci: she called him out and said, "doesn't the new evid
ence we have prove that you were cherrypicking the info about the video?"
(1:34:15 AM) Chris Antenucci: he spins it so bad he ends up saying "the fact tha
t we were so wrong about the video being the cause of the attacks just shows how
fluid these things are"
(1:34:32 AM) Chris Antenucci: uh no, it shows how badly you lied about it based
on no evidence at all
(1:35:17 AM) Chris Antenucci: caught another lie at 48:40
(1:35:42 AM) Chris Antenucci: he says everything in the talking points was prove
n to be true except the part about the demonstrations
(1:37:07 AM) Chris Antenucci: another blatant lie and misdirection, because tech
nically that's true, but it's a lie of omission because what was wrong with the
talking points was what was edited out of them in order to provide political cov
er for Obama, such as all references to islamic terrorism, prior warnings that w
ent unheeded, and lack of security at the consulate
(1:38:20 AM) Chris Antenucci: another misdirection he used several times in this
briefing is very subtle but huge: he keeps saying the part about terrorism and
a planned attack was removed because they didn't wanna be speculative or mentio
n something that might have been untrue
(1:40:01 AM) Chris Antenucci: but that's ridiculous because they could've just s
aid, "we do have some initial evidence suggesting a terrorist group was involved
and that these attacks were pre-planned, and that the same people involved in t
hem may have been surveiling the consulate and may have been involved in the pre
vious attacks on the consulate over the past year." We can't confirm or deny th
at at this point or speculate about it, but that's what we know at this time"
(1:41:10 AM) Chris Antenucci: so when carney says, "we released every piece of i
nfo the public as it was made available to us", minutes later he contradicts tha
t by saying, "well we didn't release the parts about terrorist groups and other
things cause it would've been speculative"
(1:41:39 AM) Chris Antenucci: *to the public*
(1:43:25 AM) Chris Antenucci: the biggest thing he fails to mention and the key
to unravelling his entire spin is this: the cia's initial talking points had al
l the evidence they had intiially, and they only changed those talking points to
remove everything but references to an irrelevant video AFTER the state dept ju
mped in and said we need to remove all this info because it will allow congress
to put the blame on us and make us look bad and we dont' want that
(1:44:37 AM) Chris Antenucci: so the next question the reporters should have ask
ed him is "what evidence did you and the cia have to suggest these attacks were
due to a video?
(1:45:24 AM) Chris Antenucci: cause you keep referring to the cia's initial asse
ssment of the cause of the attacks, but from the reports we have now, there was
at least as much evidence of a terrorist planned attack as there was for the vid
eo in that initial assessment
(1:52:25 AM) Chris Antenucci: unreal
(1:52:52 AM) Chris Antenucci: this white house press corps is absolutely horribl
e at their job
(1:53:11 AM) Chris Antenucci: it took 50 minutes and about 10 reporters, but at
the very end, carney gets owned
(1:53:45 AM) Chris Antenucci: some unknown reporter gets one question and he tot
ally makes a fool out of carney and simultaneously unravels his entire spin with
one question
(1:55:20 AM) Chris Antenucci: he says, "in the initial draft of the cia talking
points it says, "we DO KNOW that this islamic fundamentalist group is involved i
n the attacks". it doesn't say "we think we know", as you suggested, and it isn
't couched at all, so doesn't this contradict what you said earlier about the ta
lking points being changed to reflect what they thought they knew?"
(1:55:31 AM) Chris Antenucci: his answer was a bad dodge even for him
(1:55:43 AM) Jonathan Antenucci: yeah cant get around that one
(1:55:49 AM) Chris Antenucci: he nervously says, "i'll refer you to the various
intel agencies"
(1:56:15 AM) Chris Antenucci: you can't lie and then when someone calls you out
on your lie say "i'll refer you to them"
(1:56:42 AM) Jonathan Antenucci: he does that every briefing though
(1:57:39 AM) Chris Antenucci: this was the worst and most obvious
(1:57:47 AM) Chris Antenucci: his answer was horrible
(1:58:05 AM) Chris Antenucci: he says they corrected it when the information cha
nged, but they didn't correct it
(1:58:37 AM) Chris Antenucci: they already had it and chose not to reveal it to
the public
(1:59:30 AM) Chris Antenucci: then after more info leaked out proving terrorists
were involved they "corrected it" when they realized they had to come out with
the truth at some point, and after a while could make it look like they're comin
g out after 2 weeks cause it took them that long to find out the truth in a deli
berative process
(1:59:57 AM) Chris Antenucci: when in reality they knew the truth almost immedia
tely and sat on it for 2 weeks to deceive the american public in order to protec
t obama
(2:02:19 AM) Chris Antenucci: i gotta admit it's impressive that he has the abil
ity to lie to everyone in that room almost nonstop for an hour straight while pr
etending to be honest
(2:02:37 AM) Chris Antenucci: he's a very good liar
(2:02:51 AM) Jonathan Antenucci: the best
(2:02:53 AM) Chris Antenucci: a master at it actually
(2:03:23 AM) Chris Antenucci: has almost no tics, very low key body language, is
very calm and deliberative even when telling the biggest whoppers
(2:03:29 AM) Chris Antenucci: he'd be a great spy for the cia
(2:04:08 AM) Chris Antenucci: and that's why obama chose him, cause he knew he'd
need the best liar to defend his indefensible actions and policies
At this point I don't know what's worse, a president and secretary of state who
lied at the eulogies of dead American heroes who sacrificed their lives in Bengh
azi, or all the americans who either remain ignorant of this story or who read a
bout it and could care less. That begs the question: what will it take for moder
n day americans to actually pay attention to or be concerned about what their go
v't and elected representatives are doing? Makes me wonder if they would even ca
re about Watergate if it happened with Nixon today. Of course the media has bloo
d on its hands for protecting Obama at every turn and purposefully ignoring and
even suppressing stories and facts that come out that would damage his credibili
ty. But that's no excuse cause now we have great news sources online that reveal
the truth to whoever is interested in finding it.
The truth is, Obama and his fellow liberals have such contempt for the average a
merican that they lied at the funerals of those heroes, telling everyone these m
en died because of a demonstration about a video that got a little out of hand,
when we now know there was never any evidence the video was to blame, or that th
ere was ever a demonstration. For anyone who ever had doubts about Obama's since
rity and whether or not he cares about americans, this should be more than enoug
h proof that he only cares about advancing his political agenda, even to the poi
nt of using the deaths of american heroes to protect himself from political dama
ge in order to get re-elected.
I'm so tired of the lies and spin coming out of this White House, and I pray tha
t the next president we elect is honest with us, cause the president we have now
has lied enough for two presidents . . .
Updated 5/13/12
one of the things hicks said which i didn't know is that hillary was planning on
making benghazi a permanent diplomatic post. That changes everything. I now b
elieve that the reason they (and Hillary) intentionally rejected the demands for
more security at the post was to test it over that year to prove that it was sa
fe and could be operative within the heart of the muslim world. I think there's
a chance this mission came from Obama himself cause he has the grand liberal vi
sion of the way he wants America to be viewed in the world. So he wanted to cre
ate the narrative that he successfully overthrew Gaddafi in libya and therefore
made up for his inaction in Iran to help the protesters. He wanted the world to
believe america changed the hearts and minds of the muslim world and that we co
uld safely create and keep a permanent post in one of their countries where we h
elped the arab spring gain power. But he couldn't prove that with heavy securit
y cause that would be contradictory, so he chose to leave it unguarded to see if
it could stay that way and not be attacked, and if stayed that way long enough
he'd have a press conference announcing he's making it a permanent post and one
which we use as outreach to work with the rest of the muslim world. Then he cou
ld say, "see, when you treat all religions as equals and with respect, you creat
e world peace, even in potentially violent countries". So he directed Hillary
to reject all future requests for security in order to use Benghazi as a pilot
program for other diplomatic posts in other muslim countries. If it worked in b
enghazi he could use that model in those countries too. So I think that might b
e the main reason they denied it was a terror attack, cause they still had plans
to make it a permanent post and they didn't want that attack getting in the way
of those plans. Also, that attack ruined their future narrative that overthrow
ing gaddafi was a courageous and bold success for the president, cause the attac
k proved it was the opposite, a disaster that paved the way for terrorist groups
to come in and take over. It completely destroyed obama's planned narrative th
at islam is the same as all other religions and that you can create peace by dip
lomacy, appeasement, and outreach alone.
This month is turning out to be the perfect storm of political corruption for Ob
ama. Earlier today he said regarding Benghazi, "there's no there there". If t
hat's true, why are more and more whistleblowers coming out to testify against y
our state dept and admin? If that's true, why are we learning more and more fac
ts about how your people covered up the corruption and incompetence in your admi
n? Why were the whistleblowers told never to talk about Benghazi alone with mem
bers of Congress, and why was Gregory Hicks demoted after talking to his superio
rs about why Susan Rice lied on national tv?
Why was your spokesman caught lying just last week about the involvement of the
cia and the White House in editing the talking points you used to lie to the ame
rican people about the cause of the attacks?
If it's no big deal, why is even the MSM and some liberals saying this looks lik
e a cover up?
No Mr. President, there's a whole lot of "there" there, and it's obvious that yo
u hate the fact that it's being exposed to the public. Well you could've avoide
d all of this by simply telling us the truth in the first place. You don't wann
a look bad politically but it's too late for that, your credibility with the ame
rican people is completely destroyed.
You should've known that the same bloated, incompetent gov't who wasted billions
on green car companies going bankrupt and the disaster of Obamacare could never
have kept a lie this big a secret forever, but you did get away with it for lon
g enough, mostly because of a liberal press who covered for you.
But even they can't cooperate in the cover up of a scandal once the facts are ou
t in the open, and like rats jumping from a sinking ship, they're all abandoning
you, at least for now.
Updated 5/18/13
12:55:54 AM) Chris Antenucci:
(12:56:47 AM) Chris Antenucci: Were portrayed by Republicans as either being lyin
g or idiots, said one Obama administration official who was part of the Benghazi
response. Its actually closer to us being idiots.
(12:56:50 AM) Chris Antenucci: i call bs
(12:57:05 AM) Chris Antenucci: they're leaking and pretending to be incompetent
in order to cover obama and the cover up
(12:58:47 AM) Chris Antenucci: it's such a blatant attempt at misdirection
(12:59:15 AM) Chris Antenucci: it doesn't matter if they sent FEST or not, if it
wasn't FEST's role, they should've sent anyone else in the military and they di
(1:00:22 AM) Chris Antenucci: Its unclear what assistance FEST might have provide
d on site in the hours and days after the Benghazi attacks. In the end, Obama ad
ministration officials argue that its quick deployment would not have saved live
s because, while the U.S.-based team might have made it to Tripoli, Libya, befor
e the attacks ended, they most certainly wouldnt have made it to Benghazi in time
(1:02:13 AM) Chris Antenucci: more lies, cause they're talking about the fest te
am in the US when they already had special forces in europe much closer to libya
(1:02:15 AM) Chris Antenucci: Still, nobody knew at the outset how long the cris
is was going to last. And officials familiar with FEST say it could have helped
pave the way for the FBI to get into Benghazi much faster than the three weeks i
t ultimately took. Said one source, I dont see a downside to sending FESTif for no
other reason than so no one could ask why we didnt.
(1:04:44 AM) Chris Antenucci:
(1:04:46 AM) Chris Antenucci: more new info
(1:12:56 AM) Chris Antenucci: The day before, on Sept. 13, the White House had a
sked the office of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton if she would appear on the
upcoming Sunday morning political talk shows. "She'd rather chew tin foil," sai
d someone who's close to Mrs. Clinton. Instead, it was decided U.S. Ambassador t
o the U.N. Susan Rice would make the appearances. Ultimately, the talking points
would serve two purposes: provide guidance as to what Congress could tell the p
ublic, and guide Rice for the talk shows.
(1:17:07 AM) Chris Antenucci: One Obama administration official present for cong
ressional briefings says the idea that the talking points were intended to hide
the terrorist ties from Congress is absurd because Petraeus had already given Ho
use Intelligence Committee members full information on the suspected terrorist l
(1:17:11 AM) Chris Antenucci: so much misinformation
(1:17:39 AM) Chris Antenucci: they weren't trying to hide it from congress, they
were hiding it and misleading the public, since congress couldn't release confi
dential info that only the obama admin knew
(1:20:48 AM) Chris Antenucci: Even today, nobody will say on the record, or even
off the record to CBS News, who was at the Deputies meeting on the morning of S
ept. 15, where the talking points were drastically pared down for Rice's use. Th
e approved version called the attacks "demonstrations" that "evolved" after bein
g "spontaneously inspired" by protest at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo. All mentions
of terrorism, al Qaeda and previous warnings given by the CIA had been excised.
(1:20:57 AM) Chris Antenucci: that's all you need to know about this whole artic
(1:21:03 AM) Jonathan Antenucci: yeah
(1:22:14 AM) Chris Antenucci: The FBI had interviewed the survivors previously i
n Germany, but a source says the FBI agents didn't type up or share their notes
at the time because there was no "imminent danger" raised in the interviews. The
Obama administration has resisted Congress' demands to turn over FBI transcript
s of the survivor interviews
(1:22:17 AM) Chris Antenucci: i wonder why
(1:22:39 AM) Chris Antenucci: cause they would prove that the people on the grou
nd already knew it was a terrorist attack and saw no evidence of a protest
(1:22:43 AM) Chris Antenucci: it would be the smoking gun
(1:23:00 AM) Chris Antenucci: and there's no reason for the obama admin to preve
nt this from being released cause it's no longer classified
(1:25:14 AM) Jonathan Antenucci: yeah
(1:25:16 AM) Chris Antenucci: An Obama administration source familiar with the p
rocess now says the talking points should have been handed over much sooner. "We
should have released them six months ago," said the source, adding that the var
ious federal agencies had agreed to do so but the White House counsel's office w
as against it. In response, a White House official told CBS News that the agenci
es were in agreement on not releasing the materials in November, and in later pr
oviding the limited review. "The relevant Agencies and Departments concurred wit
h that accommodation," said the official.
(1:25:33 AM) Chris Antenucci: proof that obama withheld the talking points for p
olitical purposes
(1:26:40 AM) Chris Antenucci: It wasn't just the White House spokesman who seeme
d to be avoiding the word "terror." Mr. Obama used the phrase "acts of terror" w
hen speaking in the Rose Garden on Sept. 12, but not in direct reference to Beng
hazi. Instead, he referred to it as "an outrageous and shocking attack," "sensel
ess violence" and "brutal attacks." He called the assailants "killers," and "att
ackers," but never "terrorists."
(1:26:50 AM) Chris Antenucci: that's proof obama lied at the press conference he
had with david cameron
(1:27:13 AM) Chris Antenucci: there he said he called the attacks terrorist atta
cks so everyone who's saying he covered that up is crazy
(1:27:28 AM) Chris Antenucci: this proves he never called those specific attacks
terrorist attacks
(1:27:39 AM) Jonathan Antenucci: yeah
(1:27:42 AM) Chris Antenucci: as they say, he's being too clever by half
(1:27:49 AM) Chris Antenucci: he outsmarted and outlied himself
(1:28:31 AM) Chris Antenucci: KROFT: Mr. President, this morning you went out of
your way to avoid the use of the word "terrorism" in connection with the Libya
attack.OBAMA: Right.KROFT: Do you believe that this was a terrorist attack?OBAMA
: Well, it's too early to know exactly how this came about, what group was invol
ved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans.
(1:29:13 AM) Chris Antenucci: you can tell he was trying to avoid saying terrori
sm but at the same time answering as briefly as possible so as to not linger on
the subject and make people aware that he's covering it up which would later bec
ome clear
(1:30:12 AM) Chris Antenucci: Several Obama administration officials said not us
ing the word "terrorism" early on was not part of a conspiracy, but an "abundanc
e of caution." They reiterate that any misjudgments or mistakes in the Benghazi
response and aftermath would not have changed the outcome.
(1:30:47 AM) Chris Antenucci: if it was an abundance of caution, how come you se
nt susan rice out to the talk shows to say it was due to a video when there was
more evidence of it being terrorism than due to a video?
(1:30:54 AM) Chris Antenucci: caution my butt
(1:31:12 AM) Chris Antenucci: they'll never stop covering it up
(1:32:04 AM) Chris Antenucci: Critics nonetheless see a pattern that points to a
cover up. "Incompetence and malice are not mutually exclusive," said Graham. "T
he storyline they chose to convey for a couple of weeks was politically the most
beneficial one that could be told about Benghazi, and it's no accident that sto
ry line was chosen."Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, said, "If not for Congress, the
y would still lead us to believe it was a video gone awry."
(1:32:06 AM) Chris Antenucci: owned
UPDATED 4-22-14
Now it all makes sense to me why the cia was in on the lie from the start. they
blamed the video because they were terrified the truth would come out, and that
truth was the bigger scandal of benghazi because it was the reason the 4 men di
ed, moreso than the lack of security. They were letting the UAE and syria send
arms to kadhafi, but they were being intercepted by the radical islamic terroris
t groups in libya, and our army there had orders from higher ups to allow it to
happen because we wanted them to topple kadhafi, which they eventually did. But
after they did that they took over and then attacked the consulate and killed s
tevens. So it was like the Libya version of fast and furious. We let the guns
go through the border of libya without knowing exactly where they went or which
terrorist groups got them, only to find out later they ended up in the hands of
al qaeda affiliated groups, one of which was behind the benghazi attack. Obama
and Hillary couldn't let this get out either, so they had to come up with a stra
tegy to deceive the public, which they did with the video.
11:15:28 PM) Jonathan Antenucci: makes sense to me
(11:15:48 PM) Jonathan Antenucci: although i dont know if there is evidence to p
rove it
(11:16:48 PM) Chris Antenucci: that's the problem, it's all insider info so far,
no direct evidence because congress hasn't formed a select committee with subpo
ena power
(11:17:03 PM) Chris Antenucci: and the admin has blocked all foia requests
(11:17:37 PM) Jonathan Antenucci: yea and the truth will never get out
(11:18:32 PM) Chris Antenucci: some has already, which is why it's stayed alive
this long, but not nearly enough
(11:19:21 PM) Chris Antenucci: i dont get angered easily anymore, in fact it's n
early impossible in this state, but anytime i hear about benghazi it really fire
s me up
(11:19:32 PM) Chris Antenucci: moreso than any other scandal
(11:20:07 PM) Jonathan Antenucci: the irs scandal is almost as bad
(11:23:58 PM) Chris Antenucci: it's bad, but imo this is the worst since waterga
te, actually i dunno of one that's worse in recent us history
(11:24:01 PM) Chris Antenucci: it's the combination of how horribly corrupt the
admin was in blatantly covering it up, and even being caught in their own lie an
d still not caring, and being allowed to escape unscathed by the press even afte
r they caught first rice then carney in blatant lies. It's the frustration that
if the press did it's job, people would be in jail right now and americans woul
d know how bad this was. It's the injustice of the truth never being told even
though many of us already know it, and the fact that the 4 men who died for our
safety and security were thrown under the bus by this admin without any regard f
or their lives and the reasons why they died
FINALLY, PROOF that the whole Benghazi scandal was a POLITICAL COVER-UP and that
This is the proof conservatives knew existed all along and have been waiting on
to come out.
If Obama's national security adviser was giving advice to Susan Rice about what
to say on the sunday talk shows, there's no doubt Obama was informed of this bec
ause you can't send out the UN Ambassador on national television with a specific
political message unless the president himself knows about it and signs off on
We still don't know who originally came up with the idea to blame the Benghazi a
ttacks on the video and make the ridiculous claim that it was a "spontaneous upr
ising" like the ones in Egypt, (my guess is Valerie Jarrett or another one of Ob
ama's corrupt political hacks) but we now have proof that they did in fact inten
d to use this message even after they knew it was an act of terrorist, which the
y knew immediately.
Obama and his election campaign team clearly decided almost immediately after fi
nding out the details of the attack that they simply couldn't risk allowing the
american people to know the truth about what happened because there was some pot
ential that it would be politically damaging to Obama right before the election.
They must've been so worried that the truth behind what allowed these attacks to
happen would make Obama look so bad that the american people would decide he wa
sn't worthy of a 2nd term based on this event alone. So they decided that the o
nly option was to create a completely false narrative from scratch and try to se
ll the media and the country on it in the hopes that the media wouldn't care eno
ugh to find the truth and that the rest of the country wouldn't do enough diggin
g to find it.
There are two aspects to why this had the potential to hurt Obama's campaign (al
though they clearly overestimated this imo, because the cover up is always worse
than the crime): 1)Obama had made it a central theme of his campaign that al q
aeda is on the run and is being defeated without the use of the wars and torture
Bush used. But if in fact the opposite was true, that al qaeda was getting str
onger, which turned out to be the case, then it would have shown Obama and his t
eam were lying all along and also were failing in their efforts to root out terr
orism in the middle east and the surrounding area, particularly in Libya.
2)There was a chance that if they told the truth about Benghazi being a terroris
t attack, it would invite the press to ask follow up questions such as: why did
the embassy have so little security even after repeated attacks on it over the
past year? Why weren't special forces sent to the area to at least try to save
the men who later died in the attack? Who gave the order to stand down and why?
What was the CIA doing in the annex building? What was Ambassador Stevens inv
olved in that he had to be there even though he sent cables previously saying he
knew it was dangerous?
We know the answers to all these questions now, but now most of the country isn'
t paying attention. But if this information came out during the height of the c
ampaign right before the election, it would've gotten a lot more attention. Not
only that, it would've put Obama on the defensive and prevented him from focusi
ng on the political attacks on Romney he and his team had planned all along.
If the bigger secrets came out, they'd really be in trouble, such as the followi
ng: the CIA allowing $500 million worth of ammunition to go to terrorist groups
in Libya which eventually were used in the Benghazi attack; that we allowed tho
se groups to gain a foothold in Libya to begin with by taking out Ghadafi and no
t differentiating between the good rebels, if any truly existed, and terrorists;
that Hillary was behind the idea to reject all requests from the embassy for ad
ditional security in the face of increasing violence there because it might ange
r the locals and because the Obama admin wanted to prove that his policy in the
middle east and in the muslim world overall was a success.
So they decided a complete cover up combined with a propaganda campaign was the
only way they could prevent the truth from coming out and shielding Obama from a
ny backlash that they knew would eventually result from all this corruption, inc
ompetence, and failure.
It was shameful then and it's just as shameful now, and people at the highest le
vel of the Obama admin, and dare I say Obama himself should be held accountable
for this and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. This isn't a right-wi
ng conspiracy, it's an actual cover up that the admin got away with in the heat
of a presidential election, and it's time the media did their job in finding the
rest of the smoking gun and holding this president and his administration accou
ntable for their crimes that cost 4 great men their lives.
what "policy failure" was the document referring to if it wasn't referring to th
e benghazi attack? clearly the US gov't couldn't be blamed for the protests in
other cities, and nobody was blaming us, so the only thing the talking points fr
om the white house could've been referring to was benghazi. But for a second let
's buy that ridiculous spin that the talking points were about the protests. Ev
en if that were the case that would have to include Benghazi since for the first
few weeks the White House claimed that was also a spontaneous protest gone wron
They were clearly anticipating that the gop would blame the lack of security an
d the the lack of help or attempt to rescue the men who died that night as a fai
lure of Obama's policy on terrorism and appeasing the muslim world in general.
So when Carney says it's not about Benghazi, that was a bald faced lie, and ever
yone in that room knew it, including Carney.
Carney just got caught in a lie. The freedom of information request that got th
is email released was specifically asking about Benghazi. So that contradicts C
arney's statement that it explicity wasn't about Benghazi.
Benghazi is so much bigger of a scandal than people realize.
We first thought our special forces and the CIA were just allowing Iran and Hezb
ollah to send tons of arms to the rebels in Libya without knowing exactly who al
l the rebels were. Then we heard reports that we were selling those rebels arms
and attempting to buy them back, and we may or may not have known that those re
bels were actually islamic terrorists affiliated with al qaeda.
Now we have direct evidence that under order from OBAMA HIMSELF (Reuters report
in March 2011), we were making sure those weapons from other terrorists groups a
nd nations that support terror like Iran were getting into the hands of the "reb
els" in Libya.
We also know that at the time everyone in the military and CIA had evidence that
these rebels were terrorists specifically ones with ties to al qaeda because Kh
adafi's intelligence unit provided us with an intel report showing clearly that
they discovered this to be true since they had been tracking them for quite some
Even worse, this intel made its way to OBAMA HIMSELF. So Obama knew we were pro
viding arms to terrorists with the goal of bringing down Khadafi, and he signed
off on it.
Needless to say, this is something they had to keep secret, not only for purpose
s of making sure the mission (as corrupt and stupid as it was- giving islamic te
rrorists weapons to enable them to take control of a region is about as dumb as
you can get) wasn't blown and thus had a chance to succeed without any blowback
from the public, but because if the truth did get out, it would immediately be a
scandal of the highest level.
The public perception and that of the media was that we were covertly aiding the
"rebels" in Libya because we wanted to overthrow Khadafi in order to give the p
eople of Libya peace and a chance for democracy (The reasons for Obama doing thi
s are another topic but according to inside sources one of the reasons was he di
dn't wanna be seen as a weak bystander and allow a dictator to oppress an entire
nation, as he did during the uprising in Iran in 2009. Also, he wanted to prov
e to everyone that his policy towards the muslim world was succeeding, so he wan
ted Islamic groups to take over Libya, and he naively thought they would set up
a system of gov't that resembled a democracy. Instead, Libya is a mess now, rul
ed by terrorists and more dangerous than ever.).
Little did we know that Obama and all our people on the ground in Libya already
knew the rebels were actually terrorists, but we ignored that fact because we wa
nted Khadafi gone so bad that we were willing to allow terrorists to gain power
in the region to accomplish that.
We also didn't know that not only were these the same terrorists that eventually
took over Benghazi, the guns we guided to them were the same guns that killed t
he 4 men who died in the Benghazi attack. In other words, Obama's policy of aid
ing the terrorists was directly responsible for the deaths of the men defending
the consulate, and he has blood on his hands.
This policy of appeasing terrorists and islamic fundamentalist groups also expla
ins why Hillary's state department continually rejected requests for more securi
ty at the consulate in Benghazi, despite the fact that it had been continually a
ttacked over the course of a year previously.
It would seem very odd that our gov't refused to protect our people on the groun
d in one of the most dangerous and violent regions of the world, yet we didn't p
ull them out either, as the British did, and as we would've done if we really ca
red about their safety. Unless our gov't was blinded by their progressive ideol
ogy and faith in their middle easy policy and had a bigger agenda, and unless we
were directly working with the terrorists and the muslim brotherhood in Egypt t
o make sure the MB and similar groups were allowed to come to power to fill the
void that would be left by Khadafi's downfall.
Now you can see why the Obama admin was desperate to cover all this up and make
sure the truth never saw the light of day.
It wasn't just because it contradicted his narrative that al qaeda was on the ru
n and that we were winning the war on terrorism under his strong leadership, or
that we didn't even attempt to rescue the men who died that day(another question
, why didn't we attempt to rescue them? we still dont have an answer to that qu
estion. I believe it's because it would draw attention to the fact that it was
a terrorist attack and we knew it all along, and we didn't wanna inflame the sit
uation and cause it to turn into a bigger fight and put a bigger spotlight on it
. Obama planned on spinning it as a spontaneous protest to a video, so if that
was the case, we wouldn't have sent special forces to rescue the men who ended u
p dying because we were unprepared and thought they'd be able to handle themselv
es against men who were just protesters who got a little out of control).
They risked an even bigger scandal and a huge backlash by covering it up because
the truth was so damaging, particularly if it came out at that time during the
height of the campaign, that it was very likely to cost him the election.
If the media and the American people knew everything we know now, they would've
viewed Obama in a very different light than they did back then.
They must've had many discussions about how risky it was to tell a lie this big
that was so far from the truth, but that it was even riskier to allow the media
to uncover the truth, because it would show how corrupt their admin is and how f
ar they were willing to go to advance Obama's agenda of getting rid of rulers he
didn't like and trying to shape the middle east in favor of islamic fundamental
ist groups like the MB by appeasing them.
In the end they succeeded, they covered it up long enough to get Obama re-electe
d, but it's all coming back to bite them now. The truth is finally coming out,
and no matter how hard Carney tries to spin it by telling more lies to cover up
the original big lie, the reality of what they did in Libya is indefensible, sha
meful, and downright criminal.
The leader of the CIA, Mike Morell, said in testimony that despite the fact that
everyone in the military and in the CIA in Benghazi at the time said it was a t
errorist attack and not a demonstration, the CIA talking points he helped create
didn't contain those accounts because he discounted their testimony in favor of
the CIA analysts at Langley.
This on its face doesn't make sense and therefore must be a flat out lie. My gu
ess is the analysts at Langley were telling him the same thing, but he decided t
o lie about their initial reports after meeting with the white house because the
y told him they decided to use this narrative that it was a protest about the vi
deo and not a terrorist attack.
So this would also require him to lie to congress about the creation of those ta
lking points and what the CIA actually knew at the time in order to protect the
White House, who is really behind the cover up, they just used Morell as one of
their pawns.
He knew he had one of two options: either sell out his CIA analysts and people
on the ground and lie for the white house, or resign and disappear, because he k
new, and I'm sure the White House made clear, that there would be severe repercu
ssions if he went to Congress and revealed the truth about what the CIA and the
White House knew.
He chose to lie.
I believe if the truth ever comes out, we'll find out that the CIA analysts More
ll referred to never concluded that there was even a chance that the video had a
ny involvement in the Benghazi attack because they get their information from th
e CIA people on the ground, and we already know those CIA members immediately sa
id it was a well planned terrorist attack by islamic extremists affiliated with
al qaeda. The job of the analysts is to take the information from those CIA of
ficers and turn it into reports that their superiors can read and get an underst
anding of exactly what's happening in a certain situation or region. Based on e
verything we know from the intel we have, those analysts had to have known and c
oncluded it was a pre-planned terrorist attack that was completely unrelated to
the video, and therefore that must've been in their reports, which were read by
all the higher-ups in the CIA, including Morell.
The White House came up with the narrative about the video, and they also must'v
e come up with the idea to say that initial CIA reports said there was a possibi
lity that it was caused by the video, so they could have something to point to
when they were asked if there was any intel or evidence they could point to to s
ubstantiate the claim that it was in fact related to the video.
What I wanna know is where are those reports? We know it got into the talking p
oints, but where are the initial reports by the CIA analysts that Morell claimed
to rely on to conclude that the video was to blame?
Are they still classified, and if so why haven't they been de-classified, since
there's nothing in them we don't already know now?
That would be the smoking gun that would prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that t
here was zero intel supporting the claim that a video was behind the attacks, an
d if there was no intel, then it was made up by the White House, which is what c
onservatives have been saying all along.
Now it makes sense why Obama took out Gaddafi and was so desperate to do so that
he bombed him without getting Congress's approval. Gaddafi was planning on sta
rting to trade his oil for gold and other countries were planning on going along
with it. This would have hurt our economy because it would devalue the dollar
and make those countries less dependent on our dollars when it comes to buying t
heir oil. That was the national security interest they keep secret. Why it has
n't been exposed by the media is beyond me.
After hearing today that the Obama admin hasn't even attempted to find the terro
rists that were responsible for the Benghazi attack, even though some of them ha
ve been hiding in plain sight in Libya, I realized at least one reason why.
I believe that not only are they not looking for these terrorists, they're despe
rately hoping that no journalists or news organizations find them either, becaus
e all they would have to do is get them on the record and ask them straight up w
hy their organization attacked the consulate in Benghazi that night. The Obama
admin knows their answer to that question would be because now that the CIA and
special forces did their job in helping the terrorists get the arms they needed
to take down the Gadhafi regime, the terrorists wanted to consolidate their powe
r and kick the US out of Libya for good. They didn't want us setting up a base
of power in their country which we could use to fight them later on. This answe
r would have nothing to do with an internet video, and that would end all the de
bate about whether there was ever any evidence or reason to believe protesting t
he video had anything to do with the attacks.
It wasn't just Obama saying that al qaeda was destroyed and Bin Laden is dead, i
t was Biden, Kerry, and pretty much everyone of importance at the democratic con
I had forgotten just how close that convention was to the Benghazi attacks. It
was a week before 9/11.
This puts things into even greater perspective when it comes to understanding wh
y the white house came up with the lie about the video.
John Kerry said at the convention that, "Gadhafi is dead and the people of Libya
are free." One week later, there's an attack by islamic terrorists in Benghazi
, Libya, and 4 americans are dead, including our ambassador to Libya. That dire
ctly contradicts Kerry's statement,and it would obviously make Obama and his ent
ire administration look foolish if they admitted the truth about this attack and
who was behind it a week after celebrating and bragging that he had taken out b
in laden and put al qaeda on the run. The situation on the ground in Libya pain
ted a very different, in fact opposite, story.
So they had to lie to save face and to cover up the original lie that al qaeda w
as on the run.
Now we know why nobody in the Obama admin is willing to tell us where Obama was
on the day of the attack. From the visitor logs it appears he was in debate pre
p that evening, which means he apparently decided to ignore the ongoing attack i
n Benghazi and use that time to go ahead with his previously scheduled debate pr
Clearly, if this info got out before the election, it would've been very damagin
g. It would prove he cared more about doing well in his next debate than he did
about making sure the americans fighting in Benghazi were saved and that the si
tuation was being properly handled and under control.
It would paint the opposite picture of him that he had been working so long and
hard to paint of himself, as a man in charge of the troops with a successful for
eign policy, a strong leader who makes tough and risky decisions.
The reality showed he not only was a horrible leader, he just didn't care about
foreign policy, apparently not even enough to stop a scheduled debate prep sessi
on. Nor did he give any order to rescue the men who later died, even though he
had a chance to because he would've been the first to know about the developing
situation. We already knew that he gave no such order, but now we have evidence
to back it up. If he chose to go ahead with debate prep instead of closely mon
itoring the situation, which wasn't getting any better that night, then there's
no way he could've or would've given any order to rescue our men, even though th
ey were in desperate need of help.
A responsible president, one with integrity and honor, would've immediately canc
elled all his planned activities for that evening and stayed in the situation ro
om the entire night, closely monitoring the situation and giving orders to the m
ilitary, CIA, and anyone on the ground. That's his job as commander in chief.
What we had instead was a president who neglected his responsibilities and left
those men to die while he focused on how he was gonna attack Mitt Romney in his
upcoming debate. This proves what conservatives have been saying about Obama al
l along, his priorities are backwards, all he cares about is his agenda and winn
ing political battles instead of what's best for the country and doing what's ri
ght even when it doesn't help you politically.
Today I had an experience that I truly felt was God sent. On the plane, I sat ne
xt to someone who was on the roof in Benghazi that night. This is the "ground tr
uth" I learned
This is another piece to the puzzle. This explains exactly what the CIA was doi
ng in Benghazi that they didn't want anyone to know about, and is another motive
for why the CIA was willing to help the White House lie about what really happe
ned. We already heard that they were involved in buying back the guns they allo
wed to flow to the terrorists to take down Gadhafi, but the reason for this was
unclear. Now we have a reason that makes sense. Obama's admin wanted to suppor
t the rebels in Syria to take down Assad and help him save face after his foolis
h "red line" comment, and they must've realized it would be cheaper to buy those
guns back than to provide their own, and at the same time it would take dangero
us weapons out of the hands of islamic terrorists.
Clearly this program didn't work, or at least not nearly as well as they intende
d to since those same weapons ended up being used by the terrorists in the Bengh
azi attacks.