Something stunning that I just heard about Benghazi from Geraldo (of all people!)

[CoffeeCat]

I am wondering if anyone else heard this, or is up-to-date on the Benghazi situation, because I just heard Geraldo, on his radio program, make some incredibly interesting comments.

He had just interviewed Congressman Peter King. I didn't hear the interview, but Geraldo said (and I'm paraphrasing) that it is becoming more and more apparent that Ambassador Stevens was not targeted in this attack on the consulate and that he was most likely not even at the consulate on any business-related matters. He was there, on spontaneous, personal business--and was not even supposed to be at the consulate that day. Geraldo said that there is information that has been held back, but is now coming forward that was in Ambassador Steven's journal.

Geraldo made a comment about Congressmen King saying that new information was coming forward--and it does not look good for the Republicans.

Geraldo also said (and he was resigned in saying this) that we need to start facing the fact that the people who did this, did not plan it. It was not Al Queda. This was a spontaneous attack in a very unstable country full of people with weapons, and that the people who launched the attack were not targeting Stevens and had no idea he was there.

Others who may have heard more of Geraldo, may be able to fill in the gaps where I cannot. Or perhaps others have heard more about this latest information, and they may be able to shed some light.

I don't ordinarily get my news from Geraldo, nor do I post what he says--but I really thought this was stunning.

It's possible that any Republican who has tried to politicize this in an attack on President Obama--is about to have their butt handed to them. That is the message that I got from listening to what Geraldo was saying, and I also sensed that from his conciliatory tone.

I thought that this was stunning!

[L0oniX]

1. Google: house republicans cut funding for embassy security

The GOP cut funding for embassy security in 2011 and even more in 2012.

[CoffeeCat]

5. Right--I got that, but this sounds like even newer information...

...related to Ambassador Steven's journal. The information (which has not yet been released), as best I could understand, seemed to be bad news for Republicans.

[Whiskeytide]

21. I don't understand why this isn't the FIRST response...

... to any Rebubba attack on this issue!!!!! I know Biden mentioned it in the Veep debate - but I had hoped Obama would shove it squarely up Romney's tight ass at the last debate. Maybe we'll see it tonight if the topic comes up - but as toxic as it is now for the Right, I'm not sure it will.

Damn. THEY cut State's security funding by millions, and Americans get killed at a foreign consulate!!!!! What more do we need to drive this home. Am I missing something?

[Berlum]

23. RepubliBuggers cut the security budget and left the embassies VULNERABLE

If there is blame in this matter, it definitely belong to the Republicans. They screwed America again. As usual.

[L0oniX]

35. ...and then blame Obama.

[leveymg]

2. That is complete nonsense. His trip was planned weeks earlier, and his itinerary was released

that included meetings with local militia leaders, a Saudi oil company representative, and a Libyan shipping company planned for 9/11 and 9/12. Those docs found at the looted consulate are reproduced here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/sensitive-documents-left-behind-at-american-mission-in-libya/2012/10/03/11911498-0d7e-11e2-bd1a-b868e65d57eb_story.html

Those docs are generally accepted as authentic.

Several weeks ago, Amb. Stevens had asked a former Bush Administration counterterrorism official if she wanted to accompany him to Benghazi. She declined citing other business commitments elsewhere.

[CoffeeCat]

7. Thank you for this...

I hadn't heard this information before, and I only listened for about ten minutes--but Geraldo said the information was related to Steven's journal.

This information that seemed to discredit many of the Republican assertions that this was a highly planned attack by Al Queda.

I found Geraldo's remarks interesting, because yesterday on the Sunday talk shows--most of the Republican mouthpieces seemed to be backing away from their harsh statements and accusations, as it relates to Benghaz. I turned to my husband and said, "Wow, I guess the Republicans are moving away from the Benghazi conspiracy theories" and he remarked that it was odd.

It sounds like, that there is unreleased information (possibly from the journal) that is bad news for the Republicans.

[OldDem2012]

8. I'm not sure about that....

....his itinerary may have been planned weeks earlier but those meetings may not have taken place at the Benghazi consulate. It is not out of the realm of possibility that he dropped in to see friends.

Looks to me like Rep. King is trying to get this information out to protect his fellow rabid right-wing mouth-breathers from embarrassing themselves any further.

[leveymg]

29. A copy of the exact itinerary was posted by the WaPo

It was among the documents found strewn about the looted mission office in Benghazi. See, Sept 10, 16:00 meeting: http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/world/sensitive-documents-left-with-little-security-at-us-mission-in-benghazi/35/

That particular meeting was downtown, but it would be no problem for anyone there to find out the location of the Ambassador's residence/office.

[WinkyDink]

3. If true, this revelation will serve Obama in good stead tonight.

[CoffeeCat]

11. If true, it is a full-blown nuclear meltdown for the Romney campaign...

I guess we need to wait and see what this information is.

However, if it can be shown that Obama's focus was on reminding people to stay calm and allow the investigators to do their job--and if that investigation demonstrates that Obama's measured, careful words were for national-security issues--then it's game over for Romney.

I hesitate to make assumptions here--but Geraldo was backing off, and was worried. Some Republicans on the Sunday talk shows were backing off as well.

Republicans have been fire-breathing dragons about Obama's supposed "lack of honesty and openness" about Benghazi. They've filled the empty space with conspiracy theories, assertions that Obama is hiding something and worse. If it can be demonstrated that Obama's measured tones were for national-security reasons and to protect the country (and other diplomats working in that area), then the damage to the Republicans will be truly insurmountable for a long time.

I guess we have to wait as the information unfolds...

[Proud Liberal Dem]

25. And all the while

the Republicans have been damaging national security by leaking classified information through their "investigations".

[CoffeeCat]

27. Yes, and "investigation"

...in this situation can also be called, "reckless, infantile witch hunt".

[OldDem2012]

4. Didn't hear it, I do think it's very interesting, and I am stunned...

...I bet the right-wingers are going nuts.

[mainer]

6. Some more speculation here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021588331

[leveymg]

9. Actually, there's no question that the Ambassador was dealing personally with Libyan militia groups,

and that Eastern Libya is a primary staging ground for Jihadi foreign fighters going into Libya for regime change operations this Administration has admitted it is coordinating.

Immediately after the attack, I made that observation and have followed up with posts on numerous occasions since. This is a policy issue, and I hardly think the GOP is going to come out against regime change operations. In fact, they may be forcing the issue now because the Obama Administration is seemingly having second thoughts about the extremely large blowback potential which became obvious when the Ambassador was killed on 9/11.

[CoffeeCat]

10. Everyone needs to read your link! Thank you for posting!!

This could be what was driving Geraldo's remarks. I'm telling you--his tone was one of deep concern. He knows that the Republicans will have to back off from this. And frankly, if the information is correct--and Stevens was CIA--then that would definitely explain why Obama wasn't forthcoming with all information. He couldn't be. It was a national-security issue. Geraldo made comments about Ambassador Steven's journal--and it's possible that he was open and honest about what he was really doing in Benghazi and his role.

I don't know--but this certainly would fit with the conciliatory tone from Geraldo, that I just heard. If true--Obama comes away looking measured, presidential and commanding--and the Republicans and Romney look like howling hyenas who spent a good month whining, alleging conspiracy theories and attacking Obama--who was acting like a commander in chief.

If this is how this situation rolls out--the negative implications for Romney cannot be overstated.


From the article posted above:
"There is (and was) no US consulate in Benghazi. No consul. No consular officials. No commercial officers. No diplomats of any kind. No consulate. It was CIA.

Why was Ambassador Stevens in Benghazi? President Obama said Stevens was in volatile eastern Libya "to establish a new cultural center and modernize a hospital." Sure.

Actually Stevens was playing CIA agent in Benghazi, just like he did a year ago when he organized militants to bring Gaddafi down. Their relationship was different this time. Stevens was in Benghazi arranging for an arms shipment to Turkey. While Stevens was in Benghazi the ship Intisaar´(victory), with 400 tons of cargo which included ´SAM-7 surface-to air anti aircraft missiles and rocket-propelled grenades (RPG`s), sailed from Benghazi to Iskenderun, Hatay province, Turkey, a stone’s throw from Syria."

[leveymg]

12. There is a fine line between Dept of State and CIA - many CIA are under diplomatic cover, but it

would be unusual for an Ambassador to himself be an officer. It is safe to say that the two organizations are both agencies of the US Government involved in foreign affairs, and that those operations are closely coordinated and sometimes covert.

We know that Stevens was involved with coordinating the armed opposition in Libya. It is not a stretch to assume that some of what he was doing in Benghazi last month was also connected with covert manpower and arms for Syrian regime change operations.

Without more evidence, however, I would not speculate that Stevens was CIA, per se.

[mainer]

13. I agree that it's unlikely a full Ambassador is CIA ...

But Stevens was clearly an unusual ambassador.

It now appears that the attack in Benghazi was aimed at the CIA, and not Stevens personally. He was just unlucky enough to be in the wrong place.

[leveymg]

15. The locals knew he was in town because they met with him at 4pm the day before.

See the images of the itinerary in the Post article I linked above. http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/world/sensitive-documents-left-with-little-security-at-us-mission-in-benghazi/35/

The locals all know what US officials, DOS and CIA, do in their own countries, much better than do the American people. I would say that the attack was against US interests, in general, rather than aimed specifically at either the Ambassador or the Agency people in place. There's not a big distinction in the eyes of some.

These are people who belong to groups we are willing to use for our own purposes, just like bin Laden's people in Bosnia and Kosovo, who do not see us as their allies, who the CIA let into the country in 2000 and 2001. I think sometimes that distinction is lost, particularly to the higher-ups in Washington pursuing policy agendas, such as regime change, and not so particular about who carries them out or how US officials on the ground deal with their local operatives. Stevens had a personal relationship with these operations and some of the individuals much like T.E. Lawrence did during the First World War, and he may have been too close to the subject to remain objective about the risks, both personal and of the foreseeable risks of policy failure.

Stevens was a brave and intelligent man who died in the service of his country, and no matter what my disagreements with the policy he was carrying out, I still mourn and respect him, and grieve at losses suffered by my country. I criticize policy, in particular, because I still care about these things.

[CoffeeCat]

16. Right...Stevens may not have been CIA...

...but he may have been involved in very covert operations or was responsible for delicate US operations in Libya.

If these delicate matters were the reason for the Obama Administration's decisions to wait for the investigations to play out--then this vindicates the Administration and poses a real problem for the Republicans. For sure, Romney in particular--who has toed the line on the conspiracy theories since he took the podium at that ridiculous press conference, less than a day after the attack happened.

Searching for more info on this...

[leveymg]

19. Romney's sniping has been badly aimed from the beginning. I think he's disinformed

by some of his national security advisers, in particular this guy:



But, you know, in the end he was just following orders, and command responsibility is with others above his pay grade. At the end of the trail, you came back to the same circle of people on 9/11. The Republicans do not want the American people to start looking around and turning over rocks down there.

leveymg's Journal - THE CIA OFFICER WHO OVERSAW TORTURE: Cofer Black
journals.democraticunderground.com › Discuss › Journals › leveymg
Dec 23, 2007 – In the Osama bin Laden story, a former CIA official with the unlikely name “J. Cofer Black” is the character who seems to pop up in the most ...
KNR. Blackwater/Academi or whatever calls itself is Global Murder ...
www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum...
1 post - Dec 14, 2011
Dec 23, 2007 – Posted by leveymg in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) .... Bottom-line: Cofer Black was in immediate command ...
Daily Kos: Libya Attack Casts Unwanted Spotlight on CIA and ...
www.dailykos.com/.../-Libya-Attack-Casts-Unwanted-Spotlight-on-C...
Sep 25, 2012 – leveymgFollowRSS ... by leveymgFollow ..... Dec 4, 2009 – Before he headed a Blackwater subsidiary, Cofer Black was CIA ... the CIA-run ...
Daily Kos: Cofer Black
www.dailykos.com/news/Cofer%20Black
Cofer Black Headed Unit Alleged to Torture Detainees and Withhold Pre-9/11 Warning Memo to FBI In the Osama bin Laden story, a former CIA official with the ...

[ProudProgressiveNow]

18. A must read post.

Thanks for the link.

[Savannahmann]

14. I'm always reminded of my first experience with Geraldo

When he hyped the hell out of opening Al Capone's vault. That created the image of Geraldo of lots of hype, and little substance. To date, nothing I've seen, or heard from him has caused me to reconsider that image. Every story he does is potentially earth shaking, and a major game changer. Nothing will ever be the same again. Then the facts come out, and like Al Capone's vault, all that is found is dissapointment. Pfui. I expect that when the facts come out on this, that it will be that Ambassador Stevens didn't tell some scheduling person that he was headed to Benghazi.

[CoffeeCat]

17. It seems related to Steven's journal...

...and your assumptions sound like very good guesses.

As I listened to Geraldo (and I was only in the car for 15 minutes!), he didn't sound excited or like he was the *one* reporting groundbreaking news. He sounded defeated and concerned by what Peter King had just said. Peter King made a few assertions that were backpedaling on Benghazi and King also made a point of telling Geraldo that he couldn't tell him what was going on just yet.

So, something does not look good for the Republicans on Benghazi, or so it appears.

All of this underscores the Republicans tamping down their rhetoric on the Sunday talk shows. So, all of this seems to be fitting with a new narrative, based on new information.

Geraldo mentioned Ambassador Steven's journal. It is quite curious that CNN recovered that journal and we have heard next to nothing about what was in it. It's like it disappeared, and we know that isn't true.

[riderinthestorm]

20. Reserving judgement for now but a lot of information here to mull over. Thanks for posting K&R nt

[mainer]

22. Stevens's journal .... not a peep from CNN, who found it.

I know the WH was livid that CNN got hold of it. If it were just a personal diary of appointments, it's hard to believe there'd be such a flurry of concern about it.

[CoffeeCat]

24. Look at how (R) Rep Peter King has changed his tune on Benghazi

Rep Peter King, a well-known partisan Republican, is chairman of the Homeland Security Department. So, he absolutely knows what is going on with the Benghazi investigation and with the entire situation.

On September 29, 2012--King called for the resignation Susan Rice because she said the attacks on the Benghazi consulate were spontaneous and in-part a response to the anti-Muslim movie.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81808.html

I'm still looking for more credible sources, but this is why I posted this thread in the first place. Geraldo was speaking about King's most recent statements--which are a very clear and significant walk back of previous statements. Because King is the Chairman of the Homeland Security Department--his walking back is definitely worth noting.

Here is the only link I can find to King's most recent statements, but it appears that he is now saying that the attacks could have been spontaneous, and even in response to the movie. (!)

Again, this is what I can find. Hope to find a better link about King's October 20 statement about Benghazi.
https://www.facebook.com/edschultzshow/posts/10151140708900326

"Rep. Peter King set his Republican friends ON FIRE when he appeared on "Geraldo at Large" Oct. 20, 2012!!!

Peter King just backed up the ADMINISTRATION about the ANTI-ISLAM MOVIE being the trigger for the Militant (Terrorist) attack on Benghazi!!!

Geraldo asked Rep. Peter King if the movie could have set off the attack in Benghazi.

Representative King ADMITTED that “possibly might be” “I’m Not saying it had no roll (sic) to play”!!"

[ChisolmTrailDem]

28. Here is King on Andrea Greenspan's MSNBC show today:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/ns/msnbc-msnbc_tv/#49506040

Not sure how to reconcile what you heard to day from Geraldo and what was heard from King on 10/20. Please see the video and analyse. Thank you.

[CoffeeCat]

30. One thing is clear...

In September, King was calling for Rice to resign. He asserted that she was lying and covering up.

Now, it appears (from the video you posted) that his argument is now that the tape MAY be the reason for the protest---but so also could terrorism.

That seems to be the big distinction--which is definitely a walk back.

This is King's way of saying, "Yeah, yeah--both assertions may be correct (1. The tape played a part in the demonstrations; 2.) The attack was spontaneous, but grew out of the tape demonstration) but Obama tried to hide that this was a terrorist attack."

I think that King knows (as chairman of the Homeland Security Committee) that this is what the intelligence shows.

I think the Republicans know that they are screwed with nowhere to go--because Obama did call this "an act of terror" on at least two occasions. Plus, it looks like the intelligence will also show that Al Queda (but other militants/terrorists in Libya) committed this act.

So, basically--all of the Republican conspiracy theories just completely fell apart.

I have to say---I really hope that the Democrats and Obama don't just "move on" from this. The Republicans will want to "move on" because they can't fire-breath and fearmonger on this issue any longer. However, we should hold them accountable and point out their ridiculous conspiracy-mongering. They called the President a liar and accused him of covering up an Al Queda attack!

I think we need to drive that home! The Republicans were reckless, immature and amateurish for an entire month on this. This speaks to Romney's lack of foreign-policy skills and his very unpresidential behavior.

[mainer]

26. Wow. Even Fox News is admitting it was an attack on the CIA

and not an attack on the State Department. Which means it was a CIA failure of intelligence.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/22/cia-installation-hit-in-libya-terror-attack/

Which means that all this digging and probing by the GOP has opened it right up for the world to stare at. I wonder if there'll now be a sudden cone of silence by the GOP, because now it's clear they've sold out their country for politics.

[CoffeeCat]

33. And this is what pisses me off more than anything!

You are exactly right.

In their rabid effort to dig and dig--and find something on which to trip Obama--they unearthed the fact that they were wrong, impulsive, reckless and that Obama was not the villain that they painted him to be.

In fact, quite the opposite is true.

I watched a lot of Fox News during the Benghazi unfolding. I watched hours of Sean Hannity, O' Reilly and the rest of the peanut gallery accusing President Obama of covering up an Al Queda attack and saying that he did it for political gain.

The political implications of this are enormous!

Right-wing radio spent weeks on this. They repeatedly said that Obama "wasn't being straight with the American people" and painted Obama as an opportunist who would lie to the American people about Benghazi in order to increase his poll numbers.

It's just revolting! These people affected the Presidential polls! The Republicans used this issue to suggest that Obama was lazy, and unwilling to get to the bottom of Benghazi because he just didn't have the will or the energy to do it. They claimed--The Middle East was on fire, Syria is a battlefield---and it is because of Obama's failures--and they used Benghazi to suggest that Obama's cover up is symptomatic of other foreign-policy failures.

So now, we find out that the underlying suppositions of their arguments were nothing but PURE BALDERDASH!

It's just so SICK that these political vampires are allowed to rum rampant in destructive toddler mode--and then when the truth is unearthed, do they really get to say, "Oh never mind..." and just slink away???

They'll be on to the next destructive rumor and conspiracy theory in a few hours I bet!

We need to use this situation to demonstrate how unfit for command Romney is (after all, he touted their nonsense)!

Unbelievable, if the Republicans and Romney get a free pass after they spent a month spewing LIES!

[PufPuf23]

34. The two videos attached to the article on the Faux site

are very political and blame the Obama Administration.

IMO there is little doubt that Benghazi was CIA not DOS and the GOP is politicizing the event but Faux and the GOP are still blaming POTUS Obama.

I think it likely the stupid Mohammad video itself was some sort of GOP/PNACer dirty trick regardless.

[JI7]

31. The only Reason there is any Issue was because Romney made up Shit and the Whore

media ran with it.

in these type of situations do people really expect to have full facts right away ? the Obama administration reacted based on what they learned.

in these type of things one shouldn't be surprised if we find out different later. but it's not like the Obama administration was lying or trying to cover up anything.

Romney is the one who used it to try to get some political points for himself. he said he would do that on that 47 percent video.

[justiceischeap]

32. And if it was CIA and Issa releasing those Libyian cables with names

really has put our national security in jeopardy.

[mainer]

36. Did you all notice Benghazi was scarcely mentioned at the debate?

This was supposed to be the big GOP cudgel against Obama, and Romney let out hardly a peep about it.

Did the CIA finally tell Romney and the GOP to shut up about it because they'll end up looking like traitors?