posted
Courtesy of my college classmate, Kurt Eichenwald, I'll quote the first debunking, but the article continues with multiple examples Newsweek link .
quote: Moussa Koussa.
That is the name of the “classified source” in an old email from Hillary Clinton released last week by Republicans purportedly investigating the 2012 attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Under the instructions of the Benghazi committee’s chairman, Republican Representative Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, Koussa’s name was blacked-out on the publicly issued email, as Republicans proclaimed revealing his identity would compromise national security. The media ran with it, saying Clinton had sent classified information through her personal email account.
But the CIA never said the name was secret. Nor did the Defense Intelligence Agency or the FBI. No, Koussa’s role as an intelligence source is about as classified as this column. He is the former intelligence chief and foreign minister of Libya. In 2011, he fled that country for Great Britain, where he provided boodles of information to MI6 and the CIA. Documents released long ago show Koussa’s cooperation. Government officials have openly discussed it. His name appears in newspapers with casual discussions about his assistance.
posted
We all know Hillary lied. She's drug it out past attention spans, she'll get away with the lies, illegal activity, and letting those guys die. You should just relax and enjoy it.
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
So we're seeing why Obama and Clinton have stalled this for so long:
quote: A new email made public Tuesday indicates the Pentagon had military forces at the ready when the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi was under siege, a claim the State Department has repeatedly disputed.
quote: The newly disclosed email chain casts doubt on previous testimony from high-level officials, several of whom suggested there was never any kind of military unit that could have been in a position to mount a rescue mission during the hours-long attack on Benghazi.
Clinton and Obama left those guys to die. Help was available but a political calculus was done and they decided it was in the administrations interest to abandon them and let them die. Of all the things they could have done, leaving men behind to die like that is among the lowest and certainly the most dishonorable act that can be done. ****ing scum.
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
What doesn't make sense to me is that the House Select Committee apparently has sat on this e-mail until now. As the article states:
quote:A spokesman for the House Select Committee on Benghazi said investigators had received the unredacted version of the email, which was obtained by Judicial Watch through the Freedom of Information Act, last year but had declined to make it public before this point. "The Select Committee has obtained and reviewed tens of thousands of documents in the course of its thorough, fact-centered investigation into the Benghazi terrorist attacks, and this information will be detailed in the final report the Committee hopes to release within the next few months," said Matt Wolking, committee spokesman. "While the Committee does not rush to release or comment on every document it uncovers, I can confirm that we obtained the unredacted version of this email last year, in addition to Jake Sullivan's response."
If it is do damning, why not bring it up, rather than wait for the final report?
The conspiratorial among us might suggest that the Committee was waiting to spring this at the worst possible moment. They already admitted that they didn't plan on releasing the final report until a few months before the election. Perhaps the plan was to make this a last-minute political bomb, and the Washington Examiner just blew it for them?
For the less conspiratorial, one would note that the Examiner did not mention what Jake Sullivan's response was. That could explain everything.
It will be interesting to see how this all plays out. What forces was Jeremy Bash referring to? Where were they located? How quickly could they have gotten there? The devil will be in the details.
I wouldn't get too joyful just yet, Rafi. It's odd that a small-time newspaper like the Examiner would be the one to break this major a story. There very well may be more to it than we know now.
As the sage Thurber once put it, "Don't count your boobies before they've hatched." Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Seems you're assuming that the math all works out to "****ing scum" rather than waiting to hear where they were and how long it would have taken.
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
My understanding is that the description of available forces was redacted. Entirely possible that those available were not a good fit for the tactical situation.
However, it has to give some of you pause, if the statement that 'no stand down order was given,' turns out to really be, 'we didn't respond to the request for authorization to act.' It's not a lie, but it's a heck of deceit.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
But not as silly as the House spokesman who could have cleared up the whole thing before it made the news. No, he had to dissemble about the facts would be discussed in the final report, to be released sometime just before the election. I guess letting the public believe something he knew wasn't true was not that big of a deal to him.
You might want to remember this the next time you quote some of your trusted news sources.
[ December 11, 2015, 11:38 AM: Message edited by: Wayward Son ]
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000
| IP: Logged |