CIA documents supported Susan Rice’s description of Benghazi attacks

Bfgrn

Bfgrn

New member
The Romney campaign may have misfired with its suggestion that statements by President Obama and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice about the Benghazi attack last month weren’t supported by intelligence, according to documents provided by a senior U.S. intelligence official.

“Talking points” prepared by the CIA on Sept. 15, the same day that Rice taped three television appearances, support her description of the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate as a reaction to Arab anger about an anti-Muslim video prepared in the United States. According to the CIA account, “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. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.”

The senior intelligence official said the analysts’ judgment was based in part on monitoring of some of the Benghazi attackers, which showed they had been watching the Cairo protests live on television and talking about them before they assaulted the consulate.

“We believe the timing of the attack was influenced by events in Cairo,” the senior official said, reaffirming the Cairo-Benghazi link. He said that judgment is repeated in a new report prepared this week for the House intelligence committee.

Washington Post
 
wait a minute....

The senior intelligence official said the analysts’ judgment was based in part on monitoring of some of the Benghazi attackers, which showed they had been watching the Cairo protests live on television and talking about them before they assaulted the consulate.
Click to expand...

we were monitoring the attackers BEFORE the attack?......
 
The small gathering of young people gathered to protest the video was a cover for the attack that was about to begin. They were part of the attack.

It was an pre-planned armed attack with heavy weapons and a professional military operation. They baricaded the streets and set-up stations to repel any rescue attempt.

The Obama Administration knew this truth soon after the attack and long before lying warmingering Susan Rice took to the podium to lie her ass off.

Why are these lies still being told when the facts are known?
 
links?


you see things can easily be twisted in an ongoing investigation.


condeming people without the full rage of information is pretty much the antithesis of how our justtice system is set up to work
 
evince said:
links?


you see things can easily be twisted in an ongoing investigation.


condeming people without the full rage of information is pretty much the antithesis of how our justtice system is set up to work
Click to expand...

The full range of information is known and has been known almost since the attack happened.

Benghazi Attack: Libyan Witnesses Recount Organized Assault
excerpt

"On the day of the attack and the next day, The Associated Press referred to it as a mob attack, based on Libyan officials' comment that there was a significant unarmed protest at the time. In reporting the following days, AP referred to it as an "armed attack" and detailed its organized nature.

The past week, the AP has gathered accounts from five witnesses, including one of the embassy guards and several people living next door to the consulate compound who were present when the militants first moved in. Most spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals for talking about the attack.

The neighbors all described the militants setting up checkpoints around the compound at about 8 p.m. The State Department's timeline says the attack itself began at around 9:40 p.m.

Khaled al-Haddar, a lawyer who passed by the scene as he headed to his nearby home, said he saw the fighters gathering a few youths from among passers-by and urged them to chant against the film.

"I am certain they had planned to do something like this, I don't know if it was hours or days, but it was definitely planned," said al-Haddar. "From the way they set up the checkpoints and gathered people, it was very professional."

The guard said he saw no protesters. He heard a few shouts of "God is great," then a barrage of automatic weapons fire and rocket-propelled grenades began, along with barrages from heavy machine guns mounted on trucks.

The attackers set fire to the main consulate building. Stevens and another staffer, caught inside amid the confusion, died of smoke inhalation.

The attack came from the front and the side. A neighbor whose house is on side of the consulate compound said militants with their faces wrapped in scarves attacking.

Because of the checkpoints, "it felt like our neighborhood was occupied, no one could get out or in," he said.

The effectiveness of the roadblocks was later revealed in the State Department's account of the evacuation. It described how the rescue force came under heavy fire and grenade attacks as they tried to leave the consulate area.

They evacuated staffers to a security compound across town, where they continued to come under fire. A precision mortar hit the compound's building at 4 a.m., killing two other Americans."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/27/benghazi-attack-libyan-wi_n_2032005.html
 
Bfgrn said:
The Romney campaign may have misfired with its suggestion that statements by President Obama and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice about the Benghazi attack last month weren’t supported by intelligence, according to documents provided by a senior U.S. intelligence official.

“Talking points” prepared by the CIA on Sept. 15, the same day that Rice taped three television appearances, support her description of the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate as a reaction to Arab anger about an anti-Muslim video prepared in the United States. According to the CIA account, “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. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.”

The senior intelligence official said the analysts’ judgment was based in part on monitoring of some of the Benghazi attackers, which showed they had been watching the Cairo protests live on television and talking about them before they assaulted the consulate.

“We believe the timing of the attack was influenced by events in Cairo,” the senior official said, reaffirming the Cairo-Benghazi link. He said that judgment is repeated in a new report prepared this week for the House intelligence committee.

Washington Post
Click to expand...






Here’s how the senior official described the jumble of events in Benghazi that day: “The attackers were disorganized; some seemed more interested in looting. Some who claimed to have participated joined the attack as it began or after it was under way. There is no evidence of rehearsals, they never got into the safe room . . . never took any hostages, didn’t bring explosives to blow the safe room door, and didn’t use a car bomb to blow the gates.”

The Benghazi flap is the sort of situation that intelligence officers dread: when politicians are demanding hard “yes” or “no” answers but evidence is fragmentary and conflicting. The political debate has focused on whether the attack was spontaneous or planned, but the official said there’s evidence of both, and that different attackers may have had different motives. There’s no dispute, however, that it was “an act of terror,” as
 
evince said:
Here’s how the senior official described the jumble of events in Benghazi that day: “The attackers were disorganized; some seemed more interested in looting. Some who claimed to have participated joined the attack as it began or after it was under way. There is no evidence of rehearsals, they never got into the safe room . . . never took any hostages, didn’t bring explosives to blow the safe room door, and didn’t use a car bomb to blow the gates.”

The Benghazi flap is the sort of situation that intelligence officers dread: when politicians are demanding hard “yes” or “no” answers but evidence is fragmentary and conflicting. The political debate has focused on whether the attack was spontaneous or planned, but the official said there’s evidence of both, and that different attackers may have had different motives. There’s no dispute, however, that it was “an act of terror,” as
Click to expand...

See post#7.

They were well-organized, heavily-armed, and timed the attack perfectly.

Witnesses .. not senior officials.
 
CIA bac.


these CIA people are not reporters they are CIA.


Now what is the aim of a reporter and what is the aim of the CIA?

one wants a story and the other is seeking answers.


Lets please not condem people BEFORE we have all the facts.


THIS is precisely why Robmoney was exscoriated by everyone on all sides when he tried to may hey our of this.


It is unprecidented in an election for people to make an ongoing security issue a poltical hammer.
 
blackascoal said:
See post#7.

They were well-organized, heavily-armed, and timed the attack perfectly.

Witnesses .. not senior officials.
Click to expand...


I think the only real dispute, BAC, is whether the attackers took advantage of a favorable situation or orchestrated the entire event from the start. That's really the only area of dispute I see between what Rice, Carney and the President have said as compared to what you are saying.
 
Dungheap said:
I think the only real dispute, BAC, is whether the attackers took advantage of a favorable situation or orchestrated the entire event from the start. That's really the only area of dispute I see between what Rice, Carney and the President have said as compared to what you are saying.
Click to expand...

The truth they don't want told good brother is that the Libyan people did not want Gaddafi removed, did not want Obama and NATO bombing and destroying their country, and most importantly, that there is a rebellion going on in Libya against the US/NATO imposed puppet government of terrorists.

The Green Resistance killed Stevens because he was instrumental in the mass-murders of countless innocent Libyan civilians. The Green resistance has been attacking and killing those who destroyed their country since the CIA-inspired fall of Gaddafi.

Libya’s Green Resistance Did It… And NATO Powers Are Covering Up

The NATO powers and the bureaucrats they installed in Libya want you to think that all 5.6 million Libyans are happy that NATO and its proxy terrorists destroyed Libya, whose standard of living had been Africa’s highest under Gaddafi. They want you to think that NATO brought “freedom and democracy” to Libya, not chaos and death.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/libyas-green-resistance-did-it-and-nato-powers-are-covering-up/5305409
 
evince said:
CIA bac.


these CIA people are not reporters they are CIA.


Now what is the aim of a reporter and what is the aim of the CIA?

one wants a story and the other is seeking answers.


Lets please not condem people BEFORE we have all the facts.


THIS is precisely why Robmoney was exscoriated by everyone on all sides when he tried to may hey our of this.


It is unprecidented in an election for people to make an ongoing security issue a poltical hammer.
Click to expand...

If them being the CIA gives you comfort .. I don't know what to tell you good sister.

Are you aware of what the CIA does?
 
blackascoal said:
The truth they don't want told good brother is that the Libyan people did not want Gaddafi removed, did not want Obama and NATO bombing and destroying their country, and most importantly, that there is a rebellion going on in Libya against the US/NATO imposed puppet government of terrorists.

The Green Resistance killed Stevens because he was instrumental in the mass-murders of countless innocent Libyan civilians. The Green resistance has been attacking and killing those who destroyed their country since the CIA-inspired fall of Gaddafi.

Libya’s Green Resistance Did It… And NATO Powers Are Covering Up

The NATO powers and the bureaucrats they installed in Libya want you to think that all 5.6 million Libyans are happy that NATO and its proxy terrorists destroyed Libya, whose standard of living had been Africa’s highest under Gaddafi. They want you to think that NATO brought “freedom and democracy” to Libya, not chaos and death.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/libyas-green-resistance-did-it-and-nato-powers-are-covering-up/5305409
Click to expand...

To expound upon that further, there was never any reason to take out Ghadaffi. He was effectively boxed in. Obama saw it as an "easy" kill to bolster his foreign policy chops.
 
I Love America said:
To expound upon that further, there was never any reason to take out Ghadaffi. He was effectively boxed in. Obama saw it as an "easy" kill to bolster his foreign policy chops.
Click to expand...

Gaddafi was an ALLY of the west in the war on terror. The US and UK were sending terrorists to Gaddafi to be tortured .. AND, he was about to be bestowed with a HUMANITARIAN AWARD from the UN before Obama started bombing a peaceful and proseprous nation ,, in part for the very reason you've said.

Libyan women enjoed more freedom under Gaddafi then anywhere in the arab world .. which made him an enemy of Islamists and Al Queda.

The moment Gaddafi fell, Obama's terrorist posse immediately opened the jails and freed the terrorists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top