Fooling some of the people all of the time? 17

The lying, the  evasions, the excuses, the ducking and dodging in the accounts of what the administration allowed to happen in Benghazi last month – the murder of the US ambassador and three other Americans – go on and on.

How’s this for spin?

AP reports:

The CIA station chief in Libya reported to Washington within 24 hours of last month’s deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate that there was evidence it was carried out by militants, not a spontaneous mob upset about an American-made video ridiculing Islam’s Prophet Muhammad

Yet, on Saturday of that week, briefing points sent by the CIA to Congress said “demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault.”

The briefing points, obtained by the AP, added: “There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations” but did not mention eyewitness accounts that blamed militants alone.

Such raw intelligence reports by the CIA on the ground would normally be sent first to analysts at the headquarters in Langley, Va., for vetting and comparing against other intelligence derived from eavesdropping drones and satellite images. Only then would such intelligence generally be shared with the White House and later, Congress, a process that can take hours, or days if the intelligence is coming only from one or two sources who may or may not be trusted.

U.S. intelligence officials say in this case the delay was due in part to the time it took to analyze various conflicting accounts.

Was there even one eye-witness account that there had been a protest demonstration which “evolved” into spontaneous violence? How could there be? There was no such protest demonstration.

 One official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he wasn’t authorized to discuss the incident publicly, explained that “it was clear a group of people gathered that evening” in Benghazi, but that the early question was “whether extremists took over a crowd or they were the crowd.” …

There could be no such question. The entire crowd, when it appeared, was fully armed. All witnesses testified to that. Every single one.

Beyond the question of what was known immediately after the attack, it’s also proving difficult to pinpoint those who set the fire that apparently killed Stevens and his communications aide or launched the mortars that killed two ex-Navy SEALs who were working as contract security guards at a fallback location. That delay is prompting lawmakers to question whether the intelligence community has the resources it needs to investigate this attack in particular or to wage the larger fight against al-Qaida in Libya or across Africa.

Intelligence officials say the leading suspected culprit is a local Benghazi militia, Ansar al-Shariah. The group denies responsibility for the attack but is known to have ties to a leading African terror group, al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb. Some of its leaders and fighters were spotted by Libyan locals at the consulate during the violence, and intelligence intercepts show the militants were in contact with AQIM militants before and after the attack, one U.S. intelligence official said.

But U.S. intelligence has not been able to match those reported sightings with the faces of attackers caught on security camera recordings during the attack since many U.S. intelligence agents were pulled out of Benghazi in the aftermath of the violence, the two U.S. intelligence officials said.

Nor have they found proof to back up their suspicion that the attack was preplanned, as indicated by the military-style tactics the attackers used, setting up a perimeter of roadblocks around the consulate and the backup compounds, then attacking the main entrance to distract, while sending a larger force to assault the rear.

Is there any way, conceivable, imaginable, by which roadblocks are  set up and simultaneous attacks launched at two points by sheer happenstance? Here and there round the consulate men idly, at the same time, without any pre-planning, just decide off their own bat to set up road-blocks? And on the same night, at the same hour, heavily armed forces approach the compound front and rear by amazing coincidence?

Who d’you think you’re fooling, Mr President?

  • ConstructivConservative

    Interesting site….On topic?

    The Obama Administration is even incompetent in the way they lie…or they realize that things have gotten so bad that it simply doesn’t matter.

    I’m really hoping it’s number one..

  • phillypro

    an Atheist Conservative?

    smh….usually atheists are intellectuals like myself….who hold the values of science and fact above all

    but i guess…you can be atheist and have the required fear based personality disorders to be a conservative too

    • Jillian Becker

      We are intellectuals, phillypro. We too like science and fact. We like reason. We do not have “fear-based personality disorders”. Not very scientific of you to make such an assumption! We are conservative in that we hold fast to these core values of American conservatism: individual freedom, strong defense, small government, low taxes, a free market economy. We strongly support the American idea of liberty as enshrined in the Constitution. Why didn’t you read a few of our back pages before you leapt to conclusions about us? Are you a statist? A collectivist? A redistributionist? Tell us about yourself, please. Tell us your ideas, your values. Show us how you reason your leftism or progressivism or whatever you prefer to call it.

    • Well,
      you certainly know how to make an entrance don’t you!!

      all due respect Phillypro…. It is amusing when people smugly declare themselves
      free from one irrationality, yet blithely move forward into another. To imagine that we in the US are somehow magically insulated
      from the chaotic Machiavellian systems that are evolving all around us, is to
      ignore precedence (history). That is a
      very “unscientific” and knee-jerk position to take. History demonstrates time and again that
      security can be as transitory and illusory as the flipping of a switch. It also proves that those who can anticipate,
      prepare for, or even pre-empt gathering threats.

      you even start to launch into a “George Bush” diatribe, I will tell you
      personally that I think Bush was a fuck-up.
      (sorry Jillian). We should have
      pursued Bin Laden, taken him and as many of his cohorts out as possible, rooted
      out the main individuals within the Taliban who aided and abetted, and made an example of them as
      well. Then we should have left. If we do not make it clear that we will not be fucked with, we will be fucked with. We are one of the “Alpha” Super powers and must act like it. If this sounds like ridiculous machismo, it
      is. Unfortunately in the world we
      presently live in, this is the only thing the other power players understand. Turning the other cheek, or letting things
      slide, does not work. Here is why…

      Any Primatologist, or
      Machiavellian theorist will tell you that projecting power(displays) up front
      will usually discourage a larger challenge or attack. Over the long run, (hypothetically) this
      should lead to less overall conflict. It
      is my strong belief that we are not so far removed from “ape” behavior as we
      may like to believe (the fantastic advances in science not withstanding). If you wish to debate that with me that is
      fine, I warn you that you may come to agree with at least some of my chains of
      reasoning… perhaps not.

      appear to have had little experience with right wing Atheists (if I am wrong
      then apologies for my presumptuousness) . I do not begrudge you your skepticism after
      all, skepticism is the hallmark thinking individuals. Your amusement, and confusion is understood
      as well. There are many misconceptions
      about Conservative Atheists, just as there are about Atheists in general from
      the ranks of the religious. I urge you
      to find out what our ideas really are, rather than behaving like the ignorant “god
      believers” who simply perpetuate silly uneducated stereotypes amongst

      believe where you have gone astray is in jumping to conclusions about what it
      means to be an Atheist conservative. We
      love science, and the possibilities of the human race evolving out of the
      current paradigm of overpopulation,
      violence, and superstition. We
      have very lofty visions for the future…
      but to think we can get there without budgeting, and focusing our
      resources in a responsible and reasonable manner, is irrational and mathematically
      unsound. If an economic system that is in
      place simply collapses, a new and better one doesn’t “Magically” emerge. Chaos and destruction emerges, mass fear and
      insecurity soon to be followed by the rise of a more restrictive and dictatorial
      power structure than previously existed. There are only a few demonstrable exceptions, and in those cases the US aided in security and reconstruction.
      is why we believe we should preserve what works (to a degree, and with constant
      modification) while envisioning, testing, then carefully bringing on line new
      ideas that may or may not work as well on paper, as in in hypothesis. We would like to disown the right wing
      religious crazies, but we seem to be stuck with them for the moment. We are also trying to figure out how to
      discourage the even crazier crazies who pray freaking 8 times a day, and think of you and I as
      impediments to the rise of their new global islamic order. Hey, I’m not making this up. I waste a lot of time reading newspapers from Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Iran, Turkey, Syria etc.
      I have also been closely following dispatches from the Grand Ayatollah Khameini in
      This is not paranoia, they are
      losing their grip on the younger western leaning youth, and either have to make
      one last desperate and unifying power play to get them back on board, or just let it go. We believe they are about to launch a war. We don’t
      believe they will succeed, just that they will try.

      will see that we are focused on the Middle East. That is because as annoying as religions are,
      one religion is trying to hard to disrupt
      the peace of the rest of the world.
      If we didn’t want their oil we wouldn’t care… because they wouldn’t be
      able to afford a nuclear weapons program, or sizeable navy . Geo-politics,
      and global economics are something that I focus on because I am a market trader…
      Don’t even get me started about all the misconceptions floating around about “wall Street” and
      the global monetary system.

      I have no problem with women have the choice for an abortion, and I could care less who wants to get
      married, as long as they try to be responsible to each other. Irresponsibility, and not carrying ones own
      weight, leads to wasted potential that could otherwise be employed in advancing
      science and getting us into space about which I am personally passionate. I have no problem with basic social safety
      nets and contracts. When those systems
      are abused I feel betrayed and ripped off because I work hard for that money
      that goes into the tax system.

      If you
      are genuinely curious and willing to engage honestly, I would be happy to have a genuine discussion on
      our conservative rationale, and why in fact we believe that some (not all)
      traditional conservative issues are extremely logical and will help free up the
      human race to advance much more quickly than it here-to-fore has done.

      If you
      just want to troll here occasionally, I will be glad to trade snarky reposte’s,
      but real discussion is more interesting don’t you think? Have a great weekend.

      yours, ~Steve

      • Ok. Jillian, I have saved this little manifesto in word perfect so that the NEXT time a phillypro type randomly stumbles upon this page… … … ummm, was that a shudder I detected?;-)

        • Jillian Becker

          He might yet come back, Steve. Though maybe he has been frightened off by the strength of our opposition.

          No shudder on my part if he returns. I like controversy – if it’s reasoned. Am I right in thinking that you do too?

          • Oh yes, most definitely. We need to devise little venus fly traps to pull in those Liberal Atheists who can truly think outside the box and are thus vulnerable to our ideas… which, after all, totally challenge old preconceptions. After all… What would be edgier than rejecting the easy anachronistic hold-overs from-the sixties liberal propaganda still being recycled (none too creatively I should add) in favor of a totally new political path forward that dispenses with all that is useless and inhibitive toward human progress.

            I really think it is high time we dump the Religious Right, and come up with a new political party platform. If we wrap rationality in glowing futurist, transhumanist robes, I think we can sell it to the brilliant new techno-nerds who will, after all, inherit the earth. There is such an opening now for complete rejection of the old accepted political paradigm. Their Liberal parents, and now grandparents, have been screwing them over by electing irresponsible and selfish children to congress and the White House. That, if nothing else, should piss them off enough to explore a third, fourth, and fifth party. … sigh…

            But yes, I would be happy to help you double-team the unsuspecting who inadvertantly land here. We will win them over with well-honeyed seeds of doubt planted into their little “Jon Stewart” programmed gourds of guacamole..

            I do worry a bit that I have hit your blog like a “bull in a china shop”… actually I saw a piece where they actually sent a bull through a china shop; he didn’t break a thing… but I digress. What I mean to say is don’t be shy about clueing me in if I am overbearing. I know I should get my own blog, it is just that I am dreading going through the hoops of figuring out how to set one up..;-)

            • Jillian Becker

              Stay with us, Steve, even if you do set up your own website. We value your comments.

              I think Liz would second me on that. And maybe others of our valued commenters too.

            • Thanks, I will.;-)

            • BTW, Andrew Stuttaford has an interesting and topical piece in the National review” entitled “Britons Abroad” I highly recommend.. I think my new rule will be that my comments cant be longer than the posting under

              Also, if you and/or Liz are interested, I would be happy and proud to be Facebook friends though I warn you: I am in full election mode which means my posts are usually satirical juxtapositions of adminstration spin, and reality checks. That will all go away on the 7th… unless there is another vote counting scandal here in Florida… OK, at some point my postings will return to cool technological breakthroughs, and really cute baby animals… perhaps in a year some of my old liberal friends might start unblocking me.;-)

            • Jillian Becker

              The jihadis in the article are “Britons” through a multiculturalist policy of too-easy naturalization.

              Nothing culturally British about them. The title of the article is misleading, even if formally correct.

            • Of course. That is precisely the point I made in my reply when trying to build a case for establishing a rationale and means to deny them reentry.

              I will gladly (perhaps annoyingly) repost that content here..(because as usual I am so impressed with my own handy work).;-)

              note: if you see “mpragmatist” on other sites it is me. It is short for “moral pragmatist” which is the school of philosophy to which I mostly subscribe.

              mpragmatist•21 hours ago

              Has the UK formally chosen a side in the Syrian civil war? It now appears that the US may be covertly trying to funnel arms to the rebels, despite formal denials. They are certainly providing other aid to the rebels, If so, then under what law(s) would these individuals be prevented from re-entering the US or UK after assisting in the overthrow of a regime which both the US and UK are also helping to overthrow… it seems a bit inconsistent does it not? Do we “voice concerns” about the soldiers we have sent over to fight and kill in Iraq, and Afghanistan bringing back skill-sets that may be turned against our respective countries? We do not. This is because we assume that our soldiers fight strictly out of patriotic allegience to our two nations. Nevertheless, in both cases we ultimately chose who to support in the internal politics of those two nations, and lent our militaries to that end.

              Unless specific and proveable threats are made or posed by these individuals (who we label as islamic radicals), how will we be able to deny them the full measure of free speech that other citizens enjoy. Unless we can formally label their military actions abroad as “war crimes” or “treason” how can we deny a citizen the right of reentry. A Governments responsibility to provide security for its citizens is paramount. When push comes to shove, nations are really just a collection of individuals struggling to survive. We ultimately allow each other as much freedom as we feel we can afford to, and no more.

              Until we finally label a specific religious affiliation as a security threat, we can only hope to intercept future terrorist attacks as they near their execution. When the inevitable spate of terrorist attacks on Western soil begins, I suspect many of the bleeding hearts who will not hear of religious profiling, will swiftly drop their objections The time may be close at hand when we will formally identify a “Terrorist Religion” just as we now identify a “Terrorist State”
              If you imagine that this cannot happen, remember that The US rounded up citizens of Japanese origin for no other reason, at the same time we were fighting the Germans who were doing the same and much worse to the Jews. We have not miraculously evolved into a new species since that time.

            • liz

              Yes, I totally second you on that, Jillian! Great job, Steve!

    • liz

      Funny how some “intellectuals” feel a need to advertize themselves as such. Must be one of those ego based personality disorders shared by so many of them.

      • I prefer to refer to myself as an intellectaphile. I really enjoy thinking, and feel lucky to have been born with a comparatively robust capacity to do so… I am annoyed, however, a little annoyed that I am going to miss out on some of the big upgrades that will be rolled out in the latter half of the 21st century… BTW Jillian I am sure she was not referring to you;-D

  • liz

    When you have both a government and a media that don’t even THINK in terms of telling the truth, but only in terms of how to credibly present a lie, it’s no wonder it takes weeks to uncover facts. By lying so routinely they’ve made both politics and journalism a sad joke.

    • Thus has it always been… you don’t think George Orwell wrote “1984” in a vacuum do you? He wasn’t simply describing the soviet union, or some other socialist country as it existed in his time, or projecting a possible distopian future, he was also making very current statements about how most governments operate. They have already devised a stepback strategy for Susan Rice that will explain her earlier statements, and provide everyone plausible deniability. The O’bama administration is agressively attempting to rewrite history in true “Orwellian” fashion… they are far from the first to do so. Just remember: History isn’t simply written by the victors, it is written by the writers. I am busily archiving everything I can get my hands on because this time in history will be looked backed upon as a primary pivot point in history. I strongly believe this.