Thread: BENGHAZI – BIGGEST COVER-UP SCANDAL IN U.S. HISTORY? – BENGHAZI CIA GUN-RUNNING

Speaker Boehner Pushes White House To Release Crucial Benghazi Emails - Lou Dobbs



http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=ezjfELfDvDA

I believe the Benghazi cover up is more similar to the Iran-Contra affair during the Regan era, weapons movement. I've only heard one media person ask why the Turkish Amb talked with our Amb, prior to his death that night, was it about the Turkish government detaining a ship load of weapons heading for Syria 6 days prior. This is a cover up but doubt the press will ever work to get answers.

BENGHAZI SCANDAL! (Featuring Andrew Klavan)

GERALDO RIVERA: MY SOURCES TELL ME BENGHAZI WAS ABOUT RUNNING MISSILES TO SYRIAN REBELS

May. 10, 2013
Madeleine Morgenstern

This photo taken on Sept. 11, 2012 shows a vehicle and the surrounding area engulfed in flames after it was set on fire inside the U.S. mission compound in Benghazi, Libya. (Getty Images)

Geraldo Rivera said Friday that his sources tell him the U.S. was involved in a secret mission in Libya to arm the Syrian rebels, which was the reason for the initial secrecy about the attack in Benghazi.

Rivera said on “Fox & Friends” that Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney may have been briefed by then-CIA Director David Petraeus “to suggest that there was a secret mission going on there, that we can’t go there, we can’t talk about it.”

“I believe, and my sources tell me, they were there to round up those shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles, they were going to hand those missiles over to the Turks and the Turks were going to give them to the rebels in Syria,” Rivera said. “It was like Iran-Contra, I think it merits gigantic investigation, it will all become clear.”



ABC News reported Thursday that the Republican National Committee actually created a Benghazi attack ad, but shelved it after objections from the Romney campaign.

Glenn Beck in October was one of the first to raise the theory that the U.S. could have been running weapons to Syrian rebels, which he said would be “Fast and Furious times 1,000.”

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...-syria-rebels/

So, was Geraldo always on the side of the truth? How long ago did he speak to his "contacts"? Or, has he always been a mouthpiece for the cover up and had decided to jump on the bandwagon now that the lid is being blown off......

Geraldo Slams GOP (And Fox News?) ‘Bloodlust’ On Benghazi: ‘Life Is Not An Action Movie’

by Josh Feldman |
10:52 pm, October 31st, 2012



Geraldo Rivera is bucking the Fox News trend on criticizing the Obama administration’s handling of the death of four Americans at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, and is criticizing the criticism. Fox News has been keeping focus on the story, and some of the network’s personalities have taken to criticize the media for ignoring the story. Rivera rebutted the criticism, arguing that it is a “cruel myth” to suggest the deaths of the four Americans killed might have been prevented, and said, “Life is not an action movie.”

Rivera tweeted his thoughts out tonight. He first compared the conservative outrage over Benghazi to similar outrage churned up in the wake of the Fast & Furious ATF gunrunning scandal, saying of House Oversight Committee chairman Darrell Issa, “if [he's] in charge truth [is] not the goal.”


Rivera followed up by asking if Obama spun on the Benghazi story in order to “retain [the] Bin Laden killer mystique,” while saying that the idea the four dead Americans could have been saved is a “cruel myth.”


He concluded by telling those criticizing the Obama administration for not immediately launching a counterattack that “life is not an action movie.”



Rivera did not mention Fox News in his criticism, but the network has been very strident in demanding answers from the Obama administration on the attack. Watch a portion of Fox News’ Benghazi coverage from tonight below:
http://www.mediaite.com/online/geral...-action-movie/

AUTHOR BRAD THOR ON OBAMA’S BENGHAZI STORY: ‘IF I TRIED TO TURN THIS STORY IN TO MY EDITOR, I’D BE THROWN OUT OF HER OFFICE’

Dec. 6, 2012 12:13am Jason Howerton

Video at the Page Link: One would be hard-pressed to find someone more plugged into the intelligence community than New York Times best-selling author Brad Thor. In fact, the amount of research he does for each of his political thrillers would make your head spin.

That’s why Thor is convinced that there is much more to the deadly terrorist attack in Benghazi than has come out publicly so far.

Appearing on “The O’Reilly Factor” Wednesday, Thor said he would be thrown out of his editor’s office if he pitched a story with as many holes in it as the Obama administration’s Benghazi story.

“If I tried to turn this story in to my editor, I’d be thrown out of her office…There’s too many holes in this story,” he said.

But the most important question yet to be answered, according to Thor, is: Why was U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens in Benghazi on the anniversary of 9/11 in the first place?

“Of all the days for an American to be traveling in an Islamic country, why was Chris Stevens in Benghazi of all places on 9/11? That’s where this story starts and it doesn’t make sense,” said Thor. “This by all accounts a very, very bright man, yet he chooses to go to Benghazi on 9/11. That same day he sends the State Department a cable complaining about the level of security he’s not getting over there?”

Thor also said he is curious to know why Stevens would remain in Benghazi with all the protests occurring throughout the region at U.S. embassies, including one that turned violent in Cairo. He could have gone straight to Tripoli and been safe, he explained.

“When the attack happens at our embassy in Cairo, that immediately gets broadcast to all of our diplomatic missions around the world. … But still, Stevens doesn’t leave Benghazi, and for me I keep coming back to ‘why’? Why would he not go back and support his troops at the embassy in Tripoli? Libya is an Arab Spring country,” Thor said.

He continued: “If there’s an uprising in Cairo, another Arab Spring country, why wouldn’t you rush back to the safety and security – again we come back to the fact that Stevens said he didn’t feel secure – why not go back to Tripoli, be with your troops, and make sure you’re there in case anything happens?”

Sadly, O’Reilly said he doesn’t think Americans will be given truthful answers to important questions like Thor’s.

Grab Brad Thor’s latest book, Black List, at BradThor.com.


http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012...of-her-office/

Army General: Remove Inept Leadership In DC; More Benghazigate Info Coming



http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=Ev4Og3KZ3BI


http://www.fiscalconservatives.com/v...4Og3KZ3BI.html

ABC News: Benghazi Talking Points Revised 12 Times - Scrubbed of Terror Reference

Video at the Page Link:

Michael Miller
On May 10, 2013
http://mikesright.wordpress.com/

After doing its best to ignore Benghazi for eight long months, the mainstream media is finally playing catch-up and reporting what has now become abundantly clear:

Deliberate actions were taken by the Obama Administration to conceal the truth surrounding the attack from the beginning – and a cover-up of those actions has continued ever since.
The mainstream media is finally beginning to report the news vs. running cover for the Administration. From ABC News:

ABC News has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show they were extensively edited as they evolved from the drafts first written entirely by the CIA to the final version distributed to Congress and to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice before sheappeared on five talk shows the Sunday after that attack.

White House emails reviewed by ABC News suggest the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department. The edits included requests from the State Department that references to the Al Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia be deleted as well references to CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack.

That would appear to directly contradict what White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said about the talking points in November.

“Those talking points originated from the intelligence community. They reflect the IC’s best assessments of what they thought had happened. The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility’ because ‘consulate’ was inaccurate.”

Summaries of White House and State Department emails — some of which were first published by Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard — show that the State Department had extensive input into the editing of the talking points. State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland raised specific objections to this paragraph drafted by the CIA in its earlier versions of the talking points:

“The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al Qaeda in Benghazi and eastern Libya. These noted that, since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador’s convoy. We cannot rule out the individuals have previously surveilled the U.S. facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks.”

In an email to officials at the White House and the intelligence agencies, Nuland took issue with including that information because it “could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either?

The paragraph was entirely deleted. Continue reading…

From Breitbart.com: Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s State Department apparently did most of the editing. In his Good Morning America report Friday morning, Jonathon Karl said that emails have been read that to him…

…that show that many of these changes were directed by Hillary Clinton spokesperson at the State Department, Victoria Nuland. In one email she said that information about CIA warnings ‘could be used by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that. After that email, all references were deleted.

Clearly, after eight months, the Administration’s version of the events surrounding the terrorist attack that left Ambassador Chris Stevens and four other brave Americans dead is finally unraveling. While the mainstream media has come late to the party, it’s good that they’ve finally arrived.

http://www.ijreview.com/2013/05/5144...ror-reference/

May 7, 2013 by Tim Brown

Is This Man The Mastermind Behind The Benghazi Cover Up?

184 Comments

I wrote yesterday about how the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) knew that the attack in Benghazi on September 11, 2012 was a terrorist attack by Al-Qaeda operatives. We know the Obama White House put out the story for nearly a week that it was just Muslims upset over a benign YouTube video. In spite of knowing what was going on and having the ability to intervene, the Obama administration did nothing to stop or assist Americans who they knew were being attacked by Al-Qaeda. Instead, they chose to cover it up and intimidate witnesses. Stephen F. Hayes has an excellent piece at the Weekly Standard titled The Benghazi Talking Points, in which he fingers the man he believes is the main person behind the Benghazi coverup, Ben Rhodes.

Of course, one would immediately have to wonder about those who would be around a man who has vowed to stand with the Muslims instead of America. If you recall, Barack Obama made a speech in Cairo, Egypt to an audience which included the Muslim Brotherhood, in which he distorted the Qur’an to put it in a good light and then attempted to make out like Islam had made great contributions to both America and the world. That speech was written by Ben Rhodes, Obama’s foreign policy speechwriter and now a part of a his National Security Council.


Hayes writes in his article about the talking points that were first put out to officials. He writes:

The talking points were first distributed to officials in the interagency vetting process at 6:52 p.m. on Friday. Less than an hour later, at 7:39 p.m., an individual identified in the House report only as a “senior State Department official” responded to raise “serious concerns” about the draft. That official, whom The Weekly Standard has confirmed was State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland, worried that members of Congress would use the talking points to criticize the State Department for “not paying attention to Agency warnings.”
In an attempt to address those concerns, CIA officials cut all references to Ansar al Sharia and made minor tweaks. But in a follow-up email at 9:24 p.m., Nuland wrote that the problem remained and that her superiors—she did not say which ones—were unhappy. The changes, she wrote, did not “resolve all my issues or those of my building leadership,” and State Department leadership was contacting National Security Council officials directly. Moments later, according to the House report, “White House officials responded by stating that the State Department’s concerns would have to be taken into account.” One official—Ben Rhodes, The Weekly Standard is told, a top adviser to President Obama on national security and foreign policy—further advised the group that the issues would be resolved in a meeting of top administration officials the following morning at the White House.

There is little information about what happened at that meeting of the Deputies Committee. But according to two officials with knowledge of the process, Mike Morrell, deputy director of the CIA, made broad changes to the draft afterwards. Morrell cut all or parts of four paragraphs of the six-paragraph talking points—148 of its 248 words (see Version 2 above). Gone were the reference to “Islamic extremists,” the reminders of agency warnings about al Qaeda in Libya, the reference to “jihadists” in Cairo, the mention of possible surveillance of the facility in Benghazi, and the report of five previous attacks on foreign interests.

Ed Lasky writes concerning Rhodes, “Ben Rhodes should be called to account for trying to divert blame away from Islamic terrorists and the Obama team members whose feckless negligence led to the Benghazi massacre.”

“I have previously written about Ben Rhodes and his role in the Obama White House,” writes Lasky. “It is shameful that this ‘kid’ (he is all of 35) has been given any responsibility at all in our government. In ‘Does it bother anyone that this person is the Deputy National Security Adviser?’ I noted his problematic background for someone given so much power by Obama. But then again he does specialize in fiction-writing. He earned a master’s degree in fiction-writing from New York University just a few years ago . He did not have a degree in government, diplomacy, national security; nor has he served in the CIA, or the military. He was toiling away not that long ago on a novel called ‘The Oasis of Love’ about a mega church in Houston, a dog track, and a failed romance. ”

Lasky concludes that Ben Rhodes is the man that attempted to whitewash Islamists and the Obama administration, not only in the Cairo speech, but in the talking points promoted by the Obama White House in the days following the attack on Benghazi that left four Americans dead.

I guess we’ll wait and see if he is even called as a witness this by the House in this week’s hearings.


http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/05/is...hazi-cover-up/

BBC: Heads Will Roll, White House Benghazi Cover Up Exposed

Friday, May 10, 2013 13:54
(Before It's News)

New documents show the CIA was ordered to change Benghazi Talking Points 12 times and the White House is being accused of issuing a stand-down order to protect the consulate from the attack.

After ABC News dropped a bombshell earlier proving the Obama administration was directly involved in editing the CIA’s talking points which were then distributed throughout the government and the parroted by the corporate media as if they were absolute fact.

Shortly after the September 11th terror attacks the alternative media cried foul and pointed out numerous discrepancies in the official narrative.
Conservative media outlets seized upon the reports in the alternative media as a major opportunity to attack the Obama administration.
Meanwhile moderate and left-leaning media outlets continued to echo the official narrative despite mounting overwhelming evidence to contrary.
They have continued to do so even though the administration’s story has completely fallen apart.
That is now starting to change as non-conservative media outlets are realizing there is irrefutable evidence they have been duped by the government.
Today Mark Mardell, the BBC’s North American editor, issued an apology for continuing to believe Obama’s lies and went on to state heads will roll.
Perhaps even more damning is the media is now being forced to admit that they do in fact parrot talking points handed to them by the government and acting nothing more than stenographer’s echoing the same talking points given to them while refusing to go off script.

From the BBC:

After Benghazi revelations, heads will roll


Republicans such as Congressman Darrell Issa have held repeated hearings on the Benghazi attacks
There’s new evidence, obtained by ABC, that the Obama administration did deliberately purge references to “terrorism” from accounts of the attack on the Benghazi diplomatic mission, which killed four people including the US ambassador to Libya.
Conservatives have long maintained that the administration deliberately suppressed the truth about the attacks.
This is the first hard evidence that the state department did ask for changes to the CIA’s original assessment.
Specifically, they wanted references to previous warnings deleted and this sentence removed: “We do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.”
[...]
State department spokesperson Victoria Nuland is directly implicated, and the fingerprints of senior White House aides Ben Rhodes and Jay Carney are there as well.
Black and white

Republicans are certain to use the Benghazi affair against Clinton should she run in 2016
In the interests of full disclosure I have to say I have not in the past been persuaded that allegations of a cover-up were a big deal. It seemed to me a partisan attack based on very little.
I remember listening to reports from the BBC and others at the time that did suggest the attack in Benghazi was a spontaneous reaction to a rather puerile anti-Islamic video.
[...]
But the evidence is there in black and white, unless we doubt the documents obtained by ABC, which I don’t.
[...]
Butt-guarding
The new documents contain two rationales for the changes in language. The first is that it would prejudice the FBI investigation.
Perhaps, but I am not at all persuaded.
The other reason given, old-fashioned butt-guarding, is more credible.
As Ms Nuland puts it, such a report “could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either?”
However you read the motives, the state department and apparently the White House did get the CIA to change its story.
This is now very serious, and I suspect heads will roll. The White House will be on the defensive for a while.
Source: BBC

From ABC:

Exclusive: Benghazi Talking Points Underwent 12 Revisions, Scrubbed of Terror Reference

When it became clear last fall that the CIA’s now discredited Benghazi talking points were flawed, the White House said repeatedly the documents were put together almost entirely by the intelligence community, but White House documents reviewed by Congress suggest a different story.
ABC News has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show they were extensively edited as they evolved from the drafts first written entirely by the CIA to the final version distributed to Congress and to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice before she appeared on five talk shows the Sunday after that attack.

Related: Read the Full Benghazi Talking Point Revisions
White House emails reviewed by ABC News suggest the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department. The edits included requests from the State Department that references to the Al Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia be deleted as well references to CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack.
That would appear to directly contradict what White House Press Secretary Jay Carneysaid about the talking points in November.
“Those talking points originated from the intelligence community. They reflect the IC’s best assessments of what they thought had happened,” Carney told reporters at the White House press briefing on November 28, 2012. “The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility’ because ‘consulate’ was inaccurate.”
Summaries of White House and State Department emails — some of which were first published by Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard — show that the State Department had extensive input into the editing of the talking points.
State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland raised specific objections to this paragraph drafted by the CIA in its earlier versions of the talking points:

“The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qa’ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya. These noted that, since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador’s convoy. We cannot rule out the individuals has previously surveilled the U.S. facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks.”

In an email to officials at the White House and the intelligence agencies, State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland took issue with including that information because it “could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either? Concerned …”
The paragraph was entirely deleted.
[...]
Source: ABC News

And this: Diplomat Says Requests For Benghazi Rescue Were Rejected

Diplomat: Ambassador in Benghazi Said, ‘We’re Under Attack’

Gregory Hicks, who became the top diplomat in Libya after Ambassador Christopher Stevens was killed during an attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya, Sept. 11, 2012, told a congressional committee today that the attack left him scrambling for help that failed to arrive in time.
“Is anything coming?” Hicks said he asked a defense attache as he worked to coordinate a response from Tripoli, Libya, during the attack. “Will they be sending us any help? Is there something out there?”
Hicks said requests for military help were denied and later that State Department officials tried to keep him from cooperating with a House investigation.
[...]
Source: ABC News

=====================================
Stay up to date with the latest news:
Twitter: https://twitter.com/#!/kr3at
Facebook: http://facebook.com/AlexanderHigginsBlog
Google Plus https://plus.google.com/u/0/109380553668797565914
Youtube: alexhiggins732
My Stories on Before It’s News
=====================================

http://beforeitsnews.com/scandals/20...d-2431282.html