Well ladies and gentlemen... kids of all ages... let's start today's postings with a front page newsbite!
Here's John Sexton writing in Breitbart:
* * *
After a two-year investigation, the bipartisan House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence released its report on Benghazi. The report contains a total of 17 findings, most of which focus on the behavior of the intelligence community. Some of the report's findings are at odds with reporting by major news organizations, including Fox, CNN, and the NY Times.
* YEAH... I'LL BET!
The following list provides excerpts from all 17 findings. Refer to the full report for the complete text.
1) There is no evidence of an intelligence failure.
* HOW'BOUT... er... FAILURE TO ANTICIPATE THE ATTACK... FAILURE TO HAVE HUMAN (SPIES... UNDERCOVER INFILTRATORS...) OR HIGH-TECH (NSA... ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE...) TRIPWIRES IN PLACE THAT SHOULD HAVE KNOWN ABOUT THE COMING ATTACK BEFORE IT ACTUALLY TRANSPIRED?
2) Prior to the Benghazi attacks, the CIA provided sufficient strategic warning of the deteriorating threat environment to U.S. decision-makers, including those at the State Department.
* AMBASSADOR STEVENS WARNED HIS SUPERIORS! OTHER FOREIGN POWERS HAD ACTUALLY PULLED OUT OF BENGHAZI BECAUSE OF THE THREAT ENVIRONMENT! THE STATE DEPARTMENT - MEANING HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON - FAILED AT THE BASIC LEVEL OF DUE DILIGENCE TO RESPOND TO WARNINGS!
3) CIA provided sufficient security personnel, resources, and equipment to defend against the known terrorist threat and to enable CIA operations in Benghazi.
* OBVIOUSLY NOT...!!! (MY GOD... HAVE THESE POLITICIANS LOST ALL GRIP ON REALITY...?!?!)
4) State Department security personnel, resources, and equipment were unable to counter the terrorist threat that day, and they required CIA assistance.
* UNWILLING! NOT UNABLE! MY GOD... AGAIN... WE KNOW WHAT WE KNOW!
* FOLKS... RE-READ THE FOLLOWING FROM POINT #3: CIA provided sufficient security personnel, resources, and equipment to defend against the known terrorist threat and to enable CIA operations in Benghazi.
* SO... SUPPOSEDLY... ALL BY THEMSELVES THE CIA WAS "SUFFICIENTLY PREPARED TO DEFEND AGAIN KNOWN THREAT.
* NOW RE-READ THE FOLLOWING FROM POINT #1: There is no evidence of an intelligence failure.
* NOW... BACK TO POINT #4... BUT IN CONTEXT WITH POINTS #3 AND #1... DO YOU SEE THE PROBLEM? THE CIA KNEW OF THE THREATS. THEY WERE PREPARED FOR THE THREATS. THE STATE DEPARTMENT WAS AWARE OF THE THREATS. BUT THEY... WITH THE CIA... OPERATING TOGETHER... WERE UNPREPARED AND UNABLE TO STOP THE SUCCESS ATTACK (AND CAPTURE) OF OUR CONSULATE AND THE MURDER OF OUR AMBASSADOR AND OTHER AMERICANS.
* THIS... DOES... NOT... COMPUTE...!!!
5) The CIA was not collecting and shipping arms from Libya to Syria.
* I REALLY DON'T CARE... (BUT JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY... THEN WHAT WERE THEY DOING THERE? OBVIOUSLY NOT DEFENDING OUR CONSULATE!
6) A mixed group including members of al-Qa'ida in the lands of the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), al-Qa'ida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), al-Qa'ida in Iraq (AQI), the Muhammad Jamal Network (MJN), Ansar Al-Sharia (AAS), and Abu Abaydah Ibn Jarah Battalion (UJB) participated in the attacks, along with Qadafi loyalists.
* SO... ALL THESE POSSIBLE LEAKS... ALL THESE THEORETICAL SOURCES OF INTELLIGENCE... AND WE DIDN'T HAVE A CLUE... WE WERE BLINDSIDED... OUR CONSULATE OVERRUN... OUR PEOPLE MURDERED...
* NAH... NO INTELLIGENCE FAILURES THERE...
6) Appropriate personnel on the ground in Benghazi made the decision to send CIA officers to rescue the State Department officers at the TMF.
* FOLKS... WE KNOW THIS ISN'T TRUE.
7) Although some security officers voiced a greater urgency to depart for the TMF, no officer at CIA was ever told to stand down.
* YES THEY WERE! THEY'RE ON THE RECORD! PLUS... THE TIMELINE SPEAKS FOR ITSELF.
8) The decision to send CIA officers from Tripoli to Benghazi to rescue the Ambassador and bolster security of the U.S. personnel in Benghazi was a tactical decision appropriately made by the senior officers on the ground.
* TOO LITTLE... TOO LATE... BUT UP ABOVE I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT CIA OFFICERS FROM TRIPOLI - I'M TALKING ABOUT OUR PEOPLE... INCLUDING CONTRACTORS... WHO WERE IN BENGHAZI ITSELF!
9) The Tripoli team's decision not to move to the hospital to retrieve Ambassador Stevens was based on the best intelligence at the time.
* BUT... BUT... I THOUGHT THERE WERE NO INTELLIGENCE FAILURES...???
10) The CIA received all military support that was available.
* VERY CLINTONIAN. "AVAILABLE." AGAIN, FOLKS... IMAGINE A PLANE CARRYING MICHELLE OBAMA AND THE TWO OBAMA GIRLS HAD "GONE DOWN" IN BENGHAZI THAT NIGHT. HOW LONG DO YOU SUPPOSE IT WOULD HAVE TAKEN TO GET SEARCH AND RESCUE THERE AND THE AREA SECURED AND THE VIPS PROTECTED?
* FOLKS... EVEN SUPPOSING WE TAKE CIA PERSONNEL AND CONTRACTORS WHO WERE ALREADY THERE - IN BENGHAZI - OFF THE TABLE...
* FOLKS... EVEN IF WE TAKE AMERICANS IN TRIPOLI OFF THE BOARD...
* FOLKS... EVEN ASSUMING THE CLOSEST AMERICAN FORCES WERE HOURS AWAY... 9 HOURS, 12 HOURS AWAY...
* WHAT OF OUR ALLIES?
* OUR EMBASSY WAS UNDER ATTACK. ALL OBAMA HAD TO DO WAS REQUEST ISRAELI SUPPORT AND I BET THE ISRAELIS WOULD HAVE HAD UNITS ON THE GROUND WITHIN TWO HOURS - PERHAPS LESS. OR HOW'BOUT EGYPT? GREECE? TURKEY? WERE THERE NO ALLIED NAVAL FORCES OR AIR UNITED WITHIN THE REGION? (I FIND THIS IMPOSSIBLE TO BELIEVE!)
10 CONTINUED) Neither the CIA nor DOD denied requests for air support.
* THEN WHY WASN'T AIR SUPPORT PROVIDED...?
10 CONTINUED) One CIA security officer requested a Spectre gunship that he believed was available, but his commanding officer did not relay the request because he correctly knew the gunship was not available.
* YOU RELAY THE REQUEST ANYWAY! WHAT YOU "KNOW" MAY NOT BE TRUE! YOU RELAY THE REQUEST AND HOPE THAT THE REQUEST ITSELF IS RESPONDED TO IN SOME WAY OR ANOTHER! (FOLKS... THIS IS BULLSHIT!)
11) Ambassador Rice's September 16 public statements about the existence of a protest, as well as some of the underlying intelligence reports, turned out to be inaccurate.
* THEY WERE BALDFACED LIES. DELIBERATE LIES. REPEATED BY ADMINISTRATION LACKEYS AD NAUSEAM FOR WEEKS WHILE ANYONE READING THE FOREIGN PRESS (OR PRIVY TO STATE DEPARTMENT, DOD, OR CIA BRIEFINGS) KNEW IMMEDIATELY IT WAS A TERRORIST ATTACK!
12) Deputy CIA Director Michael Morell made significant changes to the talking points.
13) CIA's Office of Public Affairs also made substantive changes to the talking points by removing the reference to "ties to al-Qa'ida" in the second bullet of the original draft.
14) Overall, the CIA could have placed more weight on eyewitness sources on the ground and should have challenged its initial assessments about the existence of a protest earlier.
* FOLKS... THIS IS ALL SMOKE AND MIRRORS - BESIDES THE POINT! AGAIN... I KNEW WHAT HAPPENED. THAT DAY I KNEW WHAT HAPPENED; CERTAINLY BY THE DAY AFTER THERE WAS NO DOUBT. THE CIA KNEW WHAT HAPPENED... WHICH MEANT HILLARY CLINTON KNEW... LEON PANETTA KNEW...
* FOLKS... THEY DELIBERATELY PUT SUSAN RICE ON THE SUNDAY MORNING NEWS SHOWS TO PUSH A FALSE NARRATIVE. WHICH SHE DID! (AND WHICH ULTIMATELY LED TO HER BEING PROMOTED AS OPPOSED TO FIRED... OR JAILED.)
* FOLKS... WE KNOW THAT THE STATE DEPARTMENT - HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON'S STATE DEPARTMENT - TOOK "LEAD" ON THIS. IT WAS A CONSULATE ATTACKED... AN AMBASSADOR MURDERED... CLINTON'S TOP STAFFERS "MANAGED" THE GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE - INCLUDING RICE'S LIES!
15) CIA did not intimidate or prevent any officer from speaking to Congress or otherwise telling his story.
* HMM... DOESN'T SOUND LIKE THE CIA - DOES IT? (FOLKS... REMEMBER... OBAMA HAD PATRAEUS IN HIS POCKET!) BOTTOM LINE... I DON'T BELIEVE IT.
16) There is no evidence that the CIA conducted any unusual polygraph exams related to Benghazi.
OK... (I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THIS IS REFERRING TO...)
17) While at times the agencies were slow to respond, ultimately the CIA, NCTC, FBI and other Executive Branch agencies fully cooperated with the Committee's investigation.
* FOLKS... THEY GOT AWAY WITH LYING FOR LONG ENOUGH TO GET THROUGH THE ELECTION - AND WIN RE-ELECTION.
Like the previous Senate report, the House Intel report does place blame with the State Dept. for not heeding the frequent, albeit non-specific, warnings issued by the CIA about the deteriorating security situation in Libya.
* BUT "WHAT DOES THAT MATTER..." RIGHT, HILLARY?
The House report does knock down several claims surrounding the response to the attack, including that the military could have done more to respond (finding #10). But many of the report's findings are at odds with reports by large, credible news sources, including Fox News, CNN and the NY Times.
* FOLKS... THE MILITARY COULD HAVE DONE MORE. THE CIA COULD HAVE DONE MORE. OBAMA, CLINTON, AND PANETTA COULD HAVE AND SHOULD HAVE DONE MUCH, MUCH MORE. BENGHAZI WAS A TOTAL CLUSTER-FRACK FROM BEGINNING TO END. WHEN "THE PHONE RANG AT 3 A.M." NO ONE WAS HOME... NOT OBAMA... NOT HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON... NOT LEON PANETTA.
The report disputes that there was a delay in responding to the attack beyond what was required for CIA personnel to put on their gear (finding #7).
* AGAIN... PARTICIPANTS REPORT OTHERWISE.
(That finding seems to be at odds with the statements of three men directly involved in the response, who told Fox News' Bret Baier that they were ready to go in five minutes and were explicitly told, "Stand down, you need to wait" by a supervisor they refer to as "Bob.")
* AS I WAS SAYING...
(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)
The finding that no undue pressure, polygraphs, or NDA's were used to silence CIA officers contradicts reporting by CNN. According to a CNN report dated August 1, "Since January, some CIA operatives involved in the agency's missions in Libya have been subjected to frequent, even monthly polygraph examinations."
With regard to finding #4, multiple reports from the NY Times alleged that the CIA was involved in organizing an arms pipeline to move weapons from Libya to Turkey and Syria. No one claimed the CIA was directly funding this pipeline, only that it was tacitly involved.
As for the talking points, the House report finds they were indeed wrong but faults the CIA for the error, saying they did not place enough value on eyewitness testimony (finding #14) or challenge their early findings soon enough. The report does not mention that a separate set of talking points prepared for Susan Rice by the White House told her to emphasize that the attack was not the result of the President's foreign policy but of the internet video.
* ONE MORE TIME...
The report does not mention that a separate set of talking points prepared for Susan Rice by the White House told her to emphasize that the attack was not the result of the President's foreign policy but of the internet video.
* FOLKS... AGAIN... I'M NOT A CONSPIRACY BUFF. THAT SAID...
* WHO "GOT" TO THE REPUBLICANS ON THE COMMITTEE? WHAT COULD POSSIBLY EXPLAIN THIS WHITEWASH?
There remains some partisan disagreement confined to the appendices of the report. The majority staff faults the State Department for the security failure and faults the Obama administration for downplaying the apparent al Qaeda connections and emphasizing the spontaneous, video-caused attack to back up their campaign year claim al Qaeda was decimated. The minority disputes these assertions, even once again making the claim that the President called the attack an act of terror the following day.