Memo Reading For Idiots

The video magically appeared between edits two and three:

That’s when the video became the deus ex machina, the soon-to-be-visible hand of the bag of lies dumped on the electorate to prevent us from seeing the catastrophe of the Obama appeasement of radical Islam — a.k.a. “leading with the behind.” Saying “attacks” would have automatically put the Benghazi events in the context of the (banned concept) war against terror, whereas ”demonstrations” shifted the context — the whole Arab Spring thing consisted of lots of demonstrations, and the Obama crowd was basically pro-demonstration.

Indeed, Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice justified the demonstrations. How? By blaming them on the video. More evidence that the invisible video was hidden in the third edit.

You can tell they were scrambling to try to save the campaign narrative.

9 thoughts on “Memo Reading For Idiots”

  1. The big change between the second and third edit was adding the sentence about the Cairo warning:

    “On 10 September we warned of social media reports calling for a demonstration in front the Embassy and that jihadists were threatening to break into the Embassy.”

    That line was later removed, prompting an emailed protest by DCIA Petreaus (“We couldn’t even mention the Cairo warning.). Because it was the CIA, not State or the White House, that was pushing the Cairo-Benghazi link, perhaps so they could take credit for having issued a warning about possible demonstrations. Changing “attacks” to “demonstrations” furthers the CIA case as well, since their warning was about demonstrations.

    But having Iraq hero Petreaus behind the video-Cairo-Benghazi link doesn’t fit the GOP narrative, so they blame Clinton and State instead.

    1. Jim, those are clearly two separate events. Referencing one does not mean it is related to the other. Isn’t that what you have been saying for all these months?

  2. The link is explicitly stated in the first sentence of the talking points. The 3rd draft starts:

    The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex.

    The involvement of State and the White House appears to have tempered the language some. The first draft, written entirely by the CIA, was even more forceful about the link:

    We believe based on currently available information that the attacks in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex.

  3. I know this is pointless but I’ll go ahead.

    The social media in question in the comments from Petreaus is a reference to several jihadist organizations like Gamaat al-Islamia, or the Islamic Group and al-Qaeda group Egyptian Islamic Jihad, postings on their social media sites threats to burn the American embassy in Cairo to the ground. Their chief justification for this was to extort the release of Abdel Rahman and other jihadists jailed by the United States.

    The CIA report never made any mention of the video. It specifically referenced threats of violence from al-Qaeda affiliated jihadists which they did carried out on sept 11, just like they said they would. (So of course this was a totally unexpected development that caught the administration and state department completely off guard.)

    If you dig through the multiple justifications in the jihadist social media and there are lots of them. The return to Egypt Omar Abdel Rahman, the “trial” of the Mohamed by pastor Terry Jones and his burning of a Koran, as well as a simple desire to express their support of al qaeda by chanting “Obama, Obama, there are still a million Osama’s!” while tearing down the Stars-and-Stripes and replacing it with al Qaeda’s black jihad banner. If you dig long enough you can find a reference to the Grand Mufti of Cairo mentioning extremist Copts who made a film offensive to the Prophet. Just like those danged extremist danes made cartoons offensive to Mohammad.

    So in the editing out all that irreverent stuff about supporting terrorists, killing those who defame the prophet, islam will rule the world and so on, the administration decided to keep the part about the video and sent susan rice out to lie for them.

    I know it’s meaningless to point this out but as that great american hillary clinton once said.

    “the fact is we had four dead Americans, Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they’d go kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it make?”

    To her and President Obama it still doesn’t make a difference. Perhaps it should.

    1. Perhaps it should.

      I’ll bite: what difference should it make? The main thing we learned from Benghazi was that consular security was woefully inadequate. That lesson would be the same whether protests sparked the attack or not. It isn’t as if it was news that there were heavily armed al Qaeda-affiliated extremists in Libya.

      1. One difference is that every American in Harms Way (until Obama) knew that the military (at least) would move heaven and earth to save them. Several times the ENTIRE AIR WAR in Vietnam was stood down because all forces were focused on saving a pilot downed by the NV.

        We even saw that on 9/11/12…. when the two ex-Seals ignored orders to stand down and gave their all to save Americans in Harms Way.

        Panty waisted bearded bow tied bespeckled Obama bum-kissers haven’t a clue what it means to the morale of people whose butts are on the line to know they will NOT be abandoned.

        Or what it means if they no longer are secure int he knowledge that heaven and earth will be moved to save an American.

        But they don’t know that now…not with this President – Mr. Chicago Thug. And not with the present top Military brass either. Now they know that if their lives interfere with Mr. Chicago Thug’s goals, their lives are forfeit.

        That’s only one difference though one of the majors.

  4. I’ll bite: what difference should it make?

    I knew you would bite, you’re predictable.

    If it made a difference to Obama he might not skip his daily intelligence meetings. If he hadn’t he might have realized something was wrong.

    If it made a difference, Hillary might have increase security like her Ambassador to Libya wanted. But it didn’t make a difference to her.

    If it made a difference, the president seaking swift and sure justice might have had the FBI arrive quicker then Thursday, October 4, 2012, more than three weeks after the deadly attacks to examine the terror site, excuse me, I mean the site of the incident of work place violence that occurred during a manmade disaster in Benghazi. It’s not like the FBI could have gotten there any earlier to secure the scene and collect evidence. They’re not CNN after all. They had to have three week as opposed to CNN’s three days to get Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens journal from the floor of the unsecured consulate.

    If it made a difference he could have also made use of that crack NY Times investigative team to capture Abu Khattala who spent two leisurely hours on Thursday October 18 at a crowded luxury hotel, sipping a strawberry frappe on a patio. The president could have asked the FBI that had finally gotten on site to interview him as well. But he didn’t. It didn’t matter.

    If it made a difference a whole bunch of diplomats out there who know that they’re in harm’s way wouldn’t feel like the president doesn’t care what happens to them. After all, their getting killed is just a bump in the road for the president’s efforts in the Middle East. Compared to him, they aren’t that important.

    If it made a difference Obama might have taken some interest in the events on sept 11 2012 instead of going to hang out with Beyoncé, Jay-Z and a raucous Las Vegas crowd in Vegas. Because what happens in Benghazi stays in Benghazi.

    If it made a difference to Obama he might be more concerned with breaking Al Qaida instead of republicans. “My thinking was when we beat them in 2012 that might break the fever, and it’s not quite broken yet. But I am persistent. And I am staying at it.” But after all, he know who the real enemies of america are.

    But like you said. It doesn’t make a different to Obama, Hillary or to you. He got reelected and that’s what’s important. That’s the difference that matters.

    Your next predictable response is to dig through and find the speck in my eye and ignore the plank in yours. Because there is always a speck in somebody’s eye. And there is always a plank in yours.

  5. Matt,

    First let me apologize from an earlier thread were I state the social media meant the youtube video. I started rethinking it, and now don’t believe it in the least. The CIA was monitoring social media sites, like Facebook, as well they should.

    That said, the problem with spontaneous, regardless of CIA, State, or WH, is the notion that nothing could be done. The first warning provided in Egypt was on September 4th. Other warnings came over 24 hours in advance of the Benghazi attack. Those warnings along with a calendar should have been enough for mindful leaders to take steps to mitigate the risk to US assets. Some countries temporarily sent home personnel. Others beefed up local security. It would have been very easy for the United States to have prepositioned forces in the region to respond. I know Jim won’t listen to him, but Dick Cheney has said that they did as much every year after 9/11 on the anniversary.

    The reason to have the truth, rather than Nuland’s attempt to hide it from Congress, is right here: If it made a difference a whole bunch of diplomats out there who know that they’re in harm’s way wouldn’t feel like the president doesn’t care what happens to them. After all, their getting killed is just a bump in the road for the president’s efforts in the Middle East.

Comments are closed.