It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Newly released emails on the Benghazi terror attack suggest a senior White House aide played a central role in preparing former U.N. ambassador Susan Rice for her controversial Sunday show appearances -- where she wrongly blamed protests over an Internet video.
More than 100 pages of documents were released to the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. Among them was a Sept. 14, 2012, email from Ben Rhodes, an assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser for strategic communications.
The Rhodes email, with the subject line: "RE: PREP Call with Susan: Saturday at 4:00 pm ET," was sent to a dozen members of the administration's inner circle, including key members of the White House communications team such as Press Secretary Jay Carney. In the email, Rhodes specifically draws attention to the anti-Islam Internet video, without distinguishing whether the Benghazi attack was different from protests elsewhere.
The email lists the following two goals, among others: "To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy." "To reinforce the President and Administration's strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges." The email goes on to state that the U.S. government rejected the message of the Internet video. "We find it disgusting and reprehensible. But there is absolutely no justification at all for responding to this movie with violence," the email stated.
originally posted by: lynxpilot
In the complaints, skepticism, and cries of scandal about Benghazi, I'm still surprised that most of the arguments relate to petty issues that relate back to whether or not the attack was generated by a video or if it was a planned attack by some anti-US faction. What I find so much more intriguing is that we even had an embassy and ambassador in a country which had just had a coup d'état, that the staff at the nearby CIA station seemed to be larger than the supposed state department staff, that we could even get away with having a CIA station in a foreign country and anybody ever know about it, and most importantly that both the state department staff and the CIA station were actively involved in an arms smuggling operation to Syria supporting rebels and where the CIA was obviously plotting to have their next coup d'état. When will it end?
Shortly after the October 2011 death of Qaddafi, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced in Tripoli that the U.S. was committing $40 million to help Libya “secure and recover its weapons stockpiles.” Department of State Assistant Secretary Andrew Shapiro confirms DOS had a weapons buy-back program in Libya that was also supported by the UK who gave $1.5 million, the Netherlands gave $1.2 million, Germany gave about $1 million and our neighbor to the north, Canada gave $1.6 million to purchase the deadly arsenal that went missing after the fall of Qaddafi.
The State Department was specifically looking to acquire the 20,000 MANPADS (they are commonly known as man-portable air shoulder-fire missiles) that went missing once Qaddafi was killed.
originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: lynxpilot
I think the argument that they were angling for a horsetrade - Stevens for the Blind Shiekh - is getting more plausible all the time.
Think about it - The reason why they were using private and local security there? Funding, but there is no explanation for why they had Marines for security at the consulate in the Bahamas or one of those Caribbean nations that is quiet and could have likely been secured with the private security freeing the Marines to go to Libya, a dangerously unstable country at that time.
They knew that there had been probing attacks on Libya, and what was Stevens doing in Benghazi, as a diplomatic proxy for the president, without anything more than high-priced local rent-a-cops who betrayed him and a few very brave guys who refused to just leave it?
And why was there no military muscle stationed anywhere near being able to bail someone out if there was trouble? That just seems common sense for an unstable country.
originally posted by: anon72
Interesting you don't see the Obama defenders out and about on this story.
I guess they haven't rec'd their matching orders yet as to what to say/do.
Crickets can be heard, en mass....