BIG News about Benghazi Scandal (you won't hear on MSNBC)

Classified cable warned consulate couldn't withstand 'coordinated attack'​

October 31, 2012​

​

The U.S. Mission in Benghazi convened an “emergency meeting” less than a month before the assault that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, because Al Qaeda had training camps in Benghazi and the consulate could not defend against a “coordinated attack,” according to a classified cable reviewed by Fox News.​

Summarizing an Aug. 15 emergency meeting convened by the U.S. Mission in Benghazi, the Aug. 16 cable marked “SECRET” said that the State Department’s senior security officer, also known as the RSO, did not believe the consulate could be protected.​

​

“RSO (Regional Security Officer) expressed concerns with the ability to defend Post in the event of a coordinated attack due to limited manpower, security measures, weapons capabilities, host nation support, and the overall size of the compound,” the cable said.​

​

According to a review of the cable addressed to the Office of the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Emergency Action Committee was also briefed "on the location of approximately ten Islamist militias and AQ training camps within Benghazi … these groups ran the spectrum from Islamist militias, such as the QRF Brigade and Ansar al-Sharia, to ‘Takfirist thugs.’” Each U.S. mission has a so-called Emergency Action Committee that is responsible for security measures and emergency planning.​

​

The details in the cable seemed to foreshadow the deadly Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. compound, which was a coordinated, commando-style assault using direct and indirect fire. Al Qaeda in North Africa and Ansar al-Sharia, both mentioned in the cable, have since been implicated in the consulate attack.​

​

In addition to describing the security situation in Benghazi as “trending negatively,” the cable said explicitly that the mission would ask for more help. “In light of the uncertain security environment, US Mission Benghazi will submit specific requests to US Embassy Tripoli for additional physical security upgrades and staffing needs by separate cover.”​

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/31/exclusive-us-memo-warned-libya-consulate-couldnt-withstand-coordinated-attack/#ixzz2Az11fwr6​

​

 

"a classified cable reviewed by Fox News." Right! Because Fox News has so much access to classified government documents. I'd like to see this document too. Oh wait, they can't show me this document because it's "classified" right? You'll believe anything. Gullible as Gomer.

 

Oh, that's right. You don't think Obama is covering up anything. At least that's what MSNBC tells you.

 

Show me the document.

 

Find it for yourself on MSNBC.

 

Pathetic dodge.....as usual.

 

Seriously. There's not even one story or even a link to a story on the front page of NBC News dealing with the scandal in Benghazi. Not one.

Seriously. Nothing on the front page:

View attachment 716
Nothing in the MIDDLE EAST & NORTH AFRICA section:

View attachment 717
Nothing on the main POLITICS page:

View attachment 718


Nothing at all. They're completely devoid of news stories concerning the scandal over Benghazi. How is that even possible for a so-called "legitimate" news source? I have news for you: It isn't.

 

Well obviously that proves the conspiracy nonsense true. Geesh!!!!

Don't you think Fox should produce this classified cable they claim to have? SERIOUSLY?

 

You know why Fox doesn't produce the cable? Not because there is no cable but because their bat-sh*# crazy interpretation is contradicted in the same cable.


Fox Does Not Have A Benghazi Attack "Smoking Gun"
10 MINUTES AGO ››› KEVIN ZIEBER

Fox invented a contradiction between a reported August 16 cable from State Department officials stating concerns about security at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya and the Obama administration's statements that an anti-Islam video was a catalyst for the attack on the consulate.

Fox is reporting that it has exclusively obtained a classified cable from State Department officials on the ground in Libya to the office of the Secretary of State warning that the "Al Qaeda had training camps in Benghazi, and the consulate could not defend against a 'coordinated attack.' "

In a segment on the cable, Fox & Friends co-host Gretchen Carlson asserted: "The big question still remaining for so many people is, who came up with the narrative about the video tape? Because it was pretty obvious that a month before there were security concerns with regard to possible terror. So who came up with the idea that floating the videotape idea would be enough to carry through the discussion quite possibly until after the election?"

But Fox's narrative is self-debunking. In addition to saying that officials had security concerns, the cable also reportedly said that officials had no information that militants in Benghazi "were targeting Americans."

Thus, the reported cable does nothing to contradict the administration's narrative that an anti-Islam video was a catalyst for the attack. Indeed, the people responsible for the attack reportedly said that they attacked the consulate because of the video.

Also, the report that there were growing security concerns in Benghazi, but no specific threats against the consulate is not news. For instance, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey said in a September 27 briefing that there had been no specific, actionable threat in advance of the Sept. 11 consulate attack:

 

Oh, your source is Media Matters? Well, no conspiracy THERE! Hoo boy.

Regardless, there are no news stories on NBC's front page regarding ANYTHING regarding Obama's scandal in Benghazi. These stories are huge! If NBC weren't in bed with Obama perhaps there would be some real journalism being displayed... but, nooooooo...

 

How about the $200........? Pathetic dodge as usual.

 

No! Not regardless! There is no alternate version of the truth here. The fact is the cable contradicts Fox. You don't get to have a different reality. You don't get to make up a new set of facts because the ones you don't like happen to contradict your nonsense. Sorry, it just does work that way. In spite of your zombie-like adherence to whatever Fox says, reality isn't open to interpretation.

 

Read your PM you dipstick.

 

WRONG! MSNBC IS an alternate version of the truth. Get out of that liberal fog you're in and open your eyes!

 

So Media Matters unequivocally refutes the Fox nonsense and YOU attack MSNBC? What an idiot you are.

 

Message checked Understood......

 

The obvious blatant bias for Obama simply cannot be denied any more. The media, with exceptions, is in the tank for Obama and the news coverage has been and will be carefully calculated so as to increase the likelihood of Obama’s reelection.
The clearest recent example is, of course, the lack of coverage of Obama’s malfeasance in the Benghazi situation. There’s a cover-up going on. A massive cover-up. Simply put, the documents now exist to show that Obama knew the security situation at the consulate was deteriorating. He new that additional security was being requested and denied. He knew al Qaeda was threatening to attack American interests in Libya. He knew the attack was underway within two hours. He denied the men under attack additional protection from US forces. He knew Ansar al Sharia, an al Qaeda offshoot was responsible. He knew our Ambassador was missing. He denied these Americans protection. They died. He blamed it on a video, and went to Las Vegas.

The bias is clear; and the bias exists because the media needs cover. They promoted this Obama guy right into office without any vetting. Now they realize what an abysmal failure he is, but they have to work hard for his reelection if for no other reason than to save face. The defeat of Obama would be a huge embarrassment to the national media that worked so hard to put him in office. The media would be discredited. They can’t allow that to happen.
Let the bias and the hype continue. The media will pay in terms of public trust … but their man has to be reelected.

 

Thank you sir!

 

The Daily Beast's Eli Lake--who deserves a Pulitzer Prize for his reporting on Benghazi--reported today that the State Department did not ask for military backup while the U.S. consulate was under attack on 9/11. That, together with other denials collected already, suggests that President Barack Obama decided, early on, there would be no intervention as long as the attack did not spread beyond the consulate or safe house.

Lake recounts what is known about the afternoon's events:

By 11 p.m. Benghazi time [5 p.m. EDT], 90 minutes after the assault began on the U.S. mission, Obama met with the National Security Council to discuss the attack. NSC spokesman Tommy Vietor said the president “ordered Secretary Panetta and Chairman Dempsey to begin moving assets into the region to prepare for a range of contingencies” at that meeting.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/...-Evidence-Points-to-Obama-in-Benghazi-Scandal