Hillary Testifying

At Usain Bolt like speed

 

Welp a slew of White House emails on the "talking points" have been released. Pretty much every news site has them.

 

I fart in your general direction, White Grace Jones!

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/23/opinion/the-cias-part-in-benghazi.html?src=rechp&_r=0

 

So the general brunt of the article is that this is the Republicans fault for being on a witch hunt and shouldn't be focusing on poor Hillary, it seems.

 

I didn't take that away from it.

I read that it (meaning the post-event jockeying) was more of an argument between the State Department and the CIA about who said what, when, and why wasn't the CIA statements being looked at in more detail. (1st Bolded section and second paragraph)

I also took the article as trying to assign responsibility for the post-event misdirection and attempts to avoid blame directed at the CIA (by the CIA) for not having had actionable intelligence that an attack was coming. (4th bolded section)

To me, the last two paragraphs are actually the crux of the article. The CIA was running the Annex, so why did they not have more information, better security, more defensible building? Please note that this is not really directed at those that were killed there, but their supervisors/management on up the line within the CIA.

Your mileage may vary on what you take away from it.

 

Since early on in this investigation we hear, from time to time, small mentions of there being an illegal gun running program by the CIA at this embassy. I have just enough distrust of Government to believe that there might possibility be more of a widespread cover-up than is showing up in the media. If State Dept, and the CIA can keep the water muddy enough they might be able to keep that gun running fiasco hidden from the eyes of the world. This would have to be a shared cover-up by all parties involved including both sides of the isle.

Just a thought and I could be wrong. Since I'm not wearing my tinfoil hat today I'm not completely convinced of my suspicions.

 

Have no idea about the validity of this article, but based on what it says, this may not have been a CIA gun running fiasco, but something the State Department ran when the CIA said they wanted nothing to do with it due to the potential ramifications that could come from it...

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/349231/[title-raw]-jim-geraghty

 

While there were certainly shady things going on there concerning weapons, the talking points were changed by the State Dept and the WH. Keep in mind that the e-mails that were released are not all of the e-mails involved, as indicated by fractured conversations, and were no doubt accompanied by phone calls between the parties involved.
This editorial by an "editorial board" most likely was produced by the WH to be published by the NYT as damage control and diversion.
Obama's sycophants will eat it up, but its just more bullshit. The NYT has zero credibility when it comes to reporting or editorializing on Obama and company.
I see no mention in that article of the video that supposedly caused all this, but which is nowhere mentioned in any of the e-mails released.
The WH is desperately trying to divert attention to anyone but themselves.

 

In the following article one of the lower ranking members of the State Dept. is speaking out. He was put on administrative leave when it seems that he had nothing to do with Libya. It certainly looks like there are members of Hillary's staff that needs to be thrown on the carpet to testify. It looks like Hillary had her head up her ass and a couple of her assistants were calling many of the shots in this deal.


http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...-hillary-s-benghazi-scapegoat-speaks-out.html

 

No way this administration would run guns, they are evil.

 

Clandestine support of rebels is an old story.
The same media that was all over the Iran-Contra machinations has ignored this story.
Fast and Furious was much more obvious, and they had no trouble ignoring that (although saying they are just ignoring it isn't really accurate).

 

What difference does it make?

Well, we'll see now won't we, Hillary.