A.P Dillon on Social Media
Got PayPal? Donate Today!
Donate Other Ways
Got News? Get the Newsletter.
LATEST LL1885 POSTS
- Second Rowan teacher arrested on child exploitation, indecent liberties charges
- WCPSS high school teacher arrested for DWI with child in car
- #WCPSS Updates: A $450k settlement, thermostats and a substitute defends herself
- #NCED Updates: Reading Assessment tool battle continues, National and School Choice headlines
- Yes, Trump is a complete @#$%, but…
- The public deserves to know about the de facto PR firms of the WCPSS board
- If you found this site useful in 2019, keep it alive in 2020
ARCHIVES BY CATEGORY
Tag Archives: Victoria Nuland
Earlier this month, I wrote an update covering the possibility survivors from Benghazi were being hidden or threatened and that there were dozens of CIA operatives on the ground the night of the attack. The White House, to date, has punted on whether or not witnesses were under duress, suffered threats or experiencing any retaliation.
Two weeks later, more bombshells have dropped including details from a whistleblower claiming 400 SAM’s (Surface to Air Missile) were at some point “diverted” to Libya and are now in the possession of ‘very ugly’ people. More on that later in the article. First, let’s look at other developments since my last installment that include Nakoula, charges filed and Victoria Nuland’s email accounts. Continue reading
In an advance issue of The Weekly Standard titled The Benghazi Talking Points, Stephen Hayes lays out new evidence that members of the Obama administration actively lied about who was responsible for the death of four Americans. The Weekly Standard has obtained emails detailing how high level officials made changes to the CIA talking points, effectively erasing Al Qaeda from the picture.
“The discussions involved senior officials from the State Department, the National Security Council, the CIA, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the White House.”
This is a very detailed and long article with a lot of unwritten questions in it. Questions I will pose here, so I urge you to read it all before proceeding with the remained of this post.
In the first page of the article, Hayes says that there were emails turned over that had ‘stipulations’. The section, with emphasis added:
“The White House provided the emails to members of the House and Senate intelligence committees for a limited time and with the stipulation that the documents were available for review only and would not be turned over to the committees. The White House and committee leadership agreed to that arrangement as part of a deal that would keep Republican senators from blocking the confirmation of John Brennan, the president’s choice to run the CIA. If the House report provides an accurate and complete depiction of the emails, it is clear that senior administration officials engaged in a wholesale rewriting of intelligence assessments about Benghazi in order to mislead the public.”
Why an emphasis on Brennan? This administration has stonewalled, lied and spun Benghazi for over seven months. Suddenly now they turn these emails over, making Brennan part of the deal? Of all the things the White House could ask for, they ask for Brennan to be confirmed for CIA? Why? Was it to ensure that someone would be in place to protect this administration’s narrative on Benghazi and the President’s alleged non-role in decision making that night?
Bear in mind that the active head of the CIA at the time of the attacks was Petraeus. The scandal surrounding Petraeus’ affair was kept on the backburner until after the election, but put into public view last year on November 7th when Petraeus resigned. It it plausible the timing was coincidence, however more likely the administration wished to keep him from testifying, as well as keep Benghazi out of the limelight until after the election – although he did testify at a later date. By then the media had everyone focused on the scandal and not Petraeus’ role at the CIA and Benghazi.
In fact, it was Mike Morrell who would end up testifying for Petraeus in closed door sessions first – the same one that The Weekly Standard article cites as being the one who changed the talking points: Continue reading