ממשל אובמה עשו ניסו להסתיר את הקישור לטרור איסלאמי כאשר הסבירו את הסיבות שגרמו להתקפה על השגרירות האמריקאית בבנגזי .
MSNBC: Benghazi Scandal Makes White House 'Look Terrible,' Possibly 'Impeachment Issue
5/10:13 -After examining all the details that emerged on Friday relating to the efforts by members of President Barack Obama's administration to remove references to Islamic terrorism when explaining the reasons behind the 2012 attack on an American consulate in Benghazi, the panel guests on MSNBC's Now agreed that the appearance of a scandal makes the White House "look terrible." One guest even suggested that the controversy could lead to impeachment proceedings against the president.
NBC Reporter Kelly O'Donnell read from portions of emails in which high ranking State Department officials coordinated with the CIA to alter the official talking points on the Benghazi attack to remove any references to prior warnings or Islamic terrorism.
"This is quite the window into what is usually the hush-hush process about how to deal with these types of attacks and the spin that irrevocably comes afterwards," NBC reporter Luke Russert opined.
"This is not good for the White House right now," Russert said to BuzzFeed editor Ben Smith. "Does it stick?"
"Well, sure," Smith replied. "They look terrible."
Smith said that the emails indicate that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton may have been directly involved in the process of "scrubbing" references to Islamic terrorism from her department's talking points.
"Does this become then an election politics thing?" Russert asked. He said that the Republican Party has been trying to link Clinton to the Benghazi scandal for some time.
The Daily Beast columnist Michael Tomasky said it does. He invoked "that word that starts with 'I'" to describe the potentially significant political fallout that could result from the Benghazi scandal.
"It becomes a potentially impeachment issue as long as the Republicans are in control of the House," Tomasky added.
"I think, for Clinton, it looks Clintonian," submitted Washington Post reporter Nia-Malika Henderson. "It also, I think, reminds us that there is only one person that the far right-wing hates more than Obama, and that's Hillary Clinton."
The American Ambassador in Libya was sexually raped before being killed, the American press has not said anything yet.
Very disturbing and explicits pictures that have not been shown in the US.
The American Ambassador in Libya was sexually raped before being killed, the American press has not said anything yet.
The news has jumped in some Lebanese ultra left blogs. The perpetrators of the massacre at the American Embassy in Libya savagely tortured the American Ambassador, Chris Stevens, violated sexually, before killing him. They then had a festive dance of death, swinging the corpse from one side to another.
Origins: In September 2012, Chris Stevens, the American ambassador to Libya, and three other Americans were killed when a mob armed with machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades overwhelmed the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi and set fire to it. Ambassador Stevens died in the attack, becoming the first U.S. ambassador to be killed in the line of duty since 1979.
Shortly afterwards, the Lebanese news site Tayyar.org reproduced an Agence France Presse (AFP) account of the attack and included a paragraph stating that Ambassador Stevens had been raped and killed by gunmen and his body has been dragged through the streets: Sources said that "the U.S. ambassador to Libya was raped sexually before killing by gunmen who stormed the embassy building in Benghazi last night to protest against the film is offensive to the Prophet Muhammad," The sources told AFP that the "Ambassador was killed and his body displayed in a manner similar to what happened when Gaddafi was killed." An image was also circulated which was purportedly taken from a television news report and is said to show Ambassador Stevens in the hands of his killers:
AFP said in response to the Tayyar report that: Concerning your query on the report published by a Lebanese website according to which ambassador Stevens was sodomized. That report falsely quoted our news agency and has no truth whatsover to it. AFP promptly sent a strongly worded complaint to that website and they removed the report and published a denial, saying that AFP did not report such a thing. U.S. news accounts reported that Ambassador Stevens was not raped and killed by members of that mob, as claimed above: he was alive when brought to a hospital, he bore no external injuries, and he died of smoke inhalation from the fire started in the attack on the consulate: The ambassador, J. Christopher Stevens, was missing almost immediately after the start of an intense, four-hour firefight for control of the mission, and his body was not located until morning at dawn, when he was found dead at a Benghazi hospital.
Within 15 minutes the militants had gained access to the compound "and began firing into the main building, setting it on fire. The Libyan guard and our mission security personnel responded," official said.
Three people, including Stevens, a security officer, and information management officer Sean Smith, were in the building, the official said, asking not to be identified.
They became separated due to the heavy smoke. "The regional security officer made it outside, and then he and other security personnel returned into the burning building in an attempt to rescue Chris and Sean."
"Security personnel were endeavoring to get him out of the building when they got separated by the incredibly thick smoke and fire," the official said, adding that photos from the incident gave "some sense of how awful the conditions were."
"And they then turned right back, and got more help, and went back in to look for him. So this was really quite an heroic effort."
The team found Smith's body, but could not find the ambassador, and were driven back out of the building by the smoke and heavy arms fire.
Wanis al-Sharef, a Libyan Interior Ministry official in Benghazi, said Stevens and other officials were moved to a second building — deemed safer — after the initial wave of protests at the consulate compound. According to al-Sharef, members of the Libyan security team seem to have indicated to the protesters the building to which the American officials had been relocated, and that building then came under attack.
A Libyan doctor who treated Stevens said he died of severe asphyxiation, apparently from smoke. In a sign of the chaos of during the attack, Stevens was brought alone by Libyans to the Benghazi Medical Center with no other Americans, and no one at the facility knew who he was, the doctor, Ziad Abu Zeid, told The Associated Press.
Stevens was practically dead when he arrived close to 1 a.m., but "we tried to revive him for an hour and a half but with no success," Abu Zeid said. The ambassador had bleeding in his stomach because of the asphyxiation but no other injuries, he said.
Sleeping With The Enemy: Media, Politicos, Once Adversaries, Now One Big Incestuous Circle by Joe Concha | 9:21 pm, May 10th, 2013 » 18 comments
A long time ago in an America far, far away (some call it “the seventies”), there were only six channels to choose from on your television dial. So in terms of actually getting on the air at one of these stations, the competition was obviously fierce due to the limited options presented to aspiring anchors and reporters looking to break in. It basically went like this: Either someone had to die or embarrass themselves on the level of going streaking through the quad in order for a position to open up in the national news media. Those who couldn’t climb the ladder to a coveted network position instead had to settle for working in small markets, thereby earning the kind of salaries that didn’t put them in the top 1 percent (or the top 80 percent for that matter). Needless to say, it was a tough time to work in media. These days, there’s 24/7 cable news and a rocketing number of online newscasts. In the ’70s, there was one nightly newscast that lasted 30 minutes. Today, there are approximately 15 hours (MSNBC) to 17 hours (Fox News) of original programming to choose from on a given weekday. And with that many hours comes plenty of opportunity to host a show, join a panel or serve as a guest/contributor. Good times… In sports and sports media, color commentators are invariably ex-athletes. For every play-by-play guy like Jim Nantz, there’s a Phil Simms (NFL), Clark Kellogg (NCAA Basketball) or Nick Faldo (golf) working with him. In politics and news media, the same rule applies. In fact, it’s almost now automatic that senior officials, speechwriters and campaign strategists will jump from relatively low-paying jobs in government to seemingly endless riches offered in television. And there always seems to be enough room, enough hours to fill, to keeping adding for a former administration official or manager to the roster. For every David Axelrod and Robert Gibbs (Obama officials now at MSNBC), there’s a Dana Perino and Karl Rove (Bush 43 officials at Fox). For every Mike Huckabee (ex-Arkansas GOP Governor at Fox) there’s a George Stephanopoulos (top aide to Bill Clinton) or David Gergin (advisor to Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Clinton now at CNN). The trend can go the other direction as well: Jay Carney was once the Washington Bureau Chief for Time Magazine, now he’s White House Press Secretary. The late Tony Snow went a similar route, jumping from Fox to the same position under Bush 2.0. With the line between politics and media more blurred than ever before, the chance of conflicting interests coming to fruition rises considerably. And with so many different people from one walk of life (politics) involved in an increasingly competitive industry (television), butting heads is fast becoming less the norm and more the exception. For a most recent example of this perspective, please see Exhibit A and B: The Rhodes brothers, Ben and David. Ben Rhodes—who somewhat ironically owns a master’s degree in fiction writing—is the current deputy national security adviser for strategic communication for the President. Prior to his current capacity, he was a speechwriter for Mr. Obama. His wife (Ann Norris) is senior foreign policy and defense advisor to California Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer. David Rhodes is the President of CBS News and has held that position since early 2011. According to Steve Hayes of The Weekly Standard and a regular panelist on Fox News’ Special Report, Ben reportedly changed CIA talking points on Benghazi to remove references to Islamic terrorists in an attempt to deflect blame away from Al Qaeda and the Administration, and altered “attacks” to read as “demonstrations”. To the latter, Hayes also reports Rhodes was also primarily responsible for the talking points which blame an anti-Muslim video, a story Susan Rice used on five Sunday shows days after the attack. The columnist concludes that Rhodes and the Administration officials “knowingly misled the country” in the days following the attacks. Meanwhile, at David’s CBS News, Sharyl Attkisson–arguably the network’s most respected investigative reporter—was recently called in a Washington Post headline, “…a persistent voice of media skepticism on Benghazi.” She’s earned this distinction after breaking a story that a special military team—who could have attempted to rescue the Americans under heavy attack—was told to stand down by Administration officials. The White House—not terribly accustomed to anyone outside of Fox (until this week) asking hard questions on Benghazi—has allegedly complained to CBS about Attkisson’s reporting. This isn’t anything new: The 52-year-old reporter was also the center of negative attention following her reporting regarding Fast & Furious. Complaints have become so amplified that it has reportedly caused a major fallout between (David) Rhodes and Attkisson. Consequently, Attkisson is also reportedly trying to leave before her contract with CBS is up, according to Politico, who also says CBS executives think Attkisson is “wading dangerously close to advocacy” in terms of her reporting on the Benghazi issue. Of course, those same executives didn’t voice the same concern when Attkisson won an Emmy for hammering the Bush (43) Administration in a report on bank bailouts. So let’s add it all up: We have Ben Rhodes becoming a key figure at the center of the growing Benghazi controversy. We also have a decorated reporter working under David Rhodes at CBS making life miserable for Ben…the same reporter who is now trying to leave after 20 years with the network. So…will it be an uncomfortable situation at a Mother’s Day dinner table? Rhetorical question… And so it goes in the world of politics and media. Back in the same seventies, one could argue that politicos and members of the media were adversaries. Now forty years later, they’ve become stepping stones to each other.
Jay Carney On Benghazi Scandal: ‘All Of This Is A Distraction From The Key Issues’ by Noah Rothman | 5:24 pm, May 10th, 2013 VIDEO» 121 comments
During Friday afternoon’s White House press briefing, President Barack Obama’s press secretary, Jay Carney, was asked to explain the report in ABC News which claims that the State Department edited out references to Islamic terrorism in their explanation of the attack on an American consulate in Benghazi. Carney said that both the president and United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice both referred to terrorism in the immediate wake of the attack and the ABC News scoop was a “distraction” conjured up by Congressional Republicans.
RELATED: Carney Distances White House From ‘Independent Agency’ IRS’s Targeting Of Conservative Groups
ABC News Chief White House Correspondent Jonathan Karl, the reporter who broke the news that the State Department had edited the official talking points relating to Benghazi, grilled Carney over his assertions that the White House was not involved in the process and that the CIA was primarily responsible for those edits.
“The CIA original version include references to Al Qaeda, references to Ansar al-Islam – the original CIA version include extensive discussion of the previous threats of the terrorist attack in Benghazi,” Karl insisted. “Those were taken out after the CIA wrote its initial draft.”
“And then the CIA wrote another draft,” Carney countered.
“With input from the State Department,” Karl interjected. “Do you deny that?”
“No, Jon,” Carney replied. He said that the process of editing the talking points did, like many other processes, include a number of agencies. Carney insisted that the administration only put forward the information they knew to be correct in the immediate wake of the attack.
“We knew it was extremists, or we knew that extremists had participated,” Carney said. “There was also the belief by – from the beginning – by the intelligence community in these points that there had been protests out of which the attack occurred.”
“The whole effort here by Republicans to find some hidden mystery comes to nothing because the president called it an act of terror,” he noted. “The ambassador to the United Nations that very Sunday, that has caused Republicans so much concern, talked about the possible involvement of Al Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia.”
“All of this is a distraction from the key issues: a diplomatic post was attacked by individuals in Libya, in Benghazi,” Carney added. “Four Americans lost their lives.”
CIA director David Petraeus was surprised when he read the freshly rewritten talking points an aide had emailed him in the early afternoon of Saturday, September 15. One day earlier, analysts with the CIA’s Office of Terrorism Analysis had drafted a set of unclassified talking points policymakers could use to discuss the attacks in Benghazi, Libya. But this new version—produced with input from senior Obama administration policymakers—was a shadow of the original. The original CIA talking points had been blunt: The assault on U.S. facilities in Benghazi was a terrorist attack conducted by a large group of Islamic extremists, including some with ties to al Qaeda. These were strong claims. The CIA usually qualifies its assessments, providing policymakers a sense of whether the conclusions of its analysis are offered with “high confidence,” “moderate confidence,” or “low confidence.” That first draft signaled confidence, even certainty: “We do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda participated in the attack.” There was good reason for this conviction. Within 24 hours of the attack, the U.S. government had intercepted communications between two al Qaeda-linked terrorists discussing the attacks in Benghazi. One of the jihadists, a member of Ansar al Sharia, reported to the other that he had participated in the assault on the U.S. diplomatic post. Solid evidence. And there was more. Later that same day, the CIA station chief in Libya had sent a memo back to Washington, reporting that eyewitnesses to the attack said the participants were known jihadists, with ties to al Qaeda. Before circulating the talking points to administration policymakers in the early evening of Friday, September 14, CIA officials changed “Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda” to simply “Islamic extremists.” But elsewhere, they added new contextual references to radical Islamists. They noted that initial press reports pointed to Ansar al Sharia involvement and added a bullet point highlighting the fact that the agency had warned about another potential attack on U.S. diplomatic facilities in the region. “On 10 September we warned of social media reports calling for a demonstration in front of the Embassy and that jihadists were threatening to break into the Embassy.” All told, the draft of the CIA talking points that was sent to top Obama administration officials that Friday evening included more than a half-dozen references to the enemy—al Qaeda, Ansar al Sharia, jihadists, Islamic extremists, and so on. The version Petraeus received in his inbox Saturday, however, had none. The only remaining allusion to the bad guys noted that “extremists” might have participated in “violent demonstrations.” In an email at 2:44 p.m. to Chip Walter, head of the CIA’s legislative affairs office, Petraeus expressed frustration at the new, scrubbed talking points, noting that they had been stripped of much of the content his agency had provided. Petraeus noted with evident disappointment that the policymakers had even taken out the line about the CIA’s warning on Cairo. The CIA director, long regarded as a team player, declined to pick a fight with the White House and seemed resigned to the propagation of the administration’s preferred narrative. The final decisions about what to tell the American people rest with the national security staff, he reminded Walter, and not with the CIA. This candid, real-time assessment from then-CIA director Petraeus offers a glimpse of what many intelligence officials were saying privately as top Obama officials set aside the truth about Benghazi and spun a fanciful tale about a movie that never mattered and a demonstration that never happened. “The YouTube video was a nonevent in Libya,” said Gregory Hicks, a 22-year veteran diplomat and deputy chief of mission at the U.S. embassy in Tripoli at the time of the attacks, in testimony before the House Oversight and Reform Committee on May 8. “The only report that our mission made through every channel was that there had been an attack on a consulate . . . no protest.” So how did Jay Carney, Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and others come to sell the country a spurious narrative about a movie and a protest? There are still more questions than answers. But one previously opaque aspect of the Obama administration’s efforts is becoming somewhat clearer. An email sent to Susan Rice following a key White House meeting where officials coordinated their public story lays out what happened in that meeting and offers more clues about who might have rewritten the talking points. Page 1 of 3 Next Page »