Image 01 Image 03

Remember When They All Said Benghazi Was About a Video?

Remember When They All Said Benghazi Was About a Video?

Sean Hannity provides a reminder.

The liberal talking point about the Benghazi committee is that Hillary Clinton won the battle and emerged unscathed but in order to believe that, you first have to ignore one major lie that was uncovered. The attack had nothing to do with a video.

That is not what we were told. The idea of a terror attack on an American embassy on 9/11 just before a presidential election didn’t match Obama’s grandiose claims that al Qaeda was on the run.

In the days that followed the Benghazi attack, the lie about it being based on a video was parroted by Hillary Clinton, Jay Carney, Susan Rice and even Obama himself.

Sean Hannity put together a helpful video as a reminder.

David Rutz of the Washington Free Beacon:

Hannity Plays Montage of Obama Administration Members Falsely Blaming Video for Benghazi Attack

Sean Hannity played a montage Thursday night on his Fox News show of Obama administration officials, including then-secretary of state Hillary Clinton, falsely casting blame for the Benghazi terrorist attack on an anti-Muslim video when her own emails reveal that Clinton knew almost immediately it was an orchestrated assault.

During Clinton’s day of testimony Thursday before the Benghazi Select Committee, Rep. Jim Jordan (R., Ohio) showed Clinton had told the Egyptian prime minister, the president of Libya and her own family in the days following the attack that she knew the attack was pre-planned and had nothing to do with any video.

Watch the video:

The bottom line is this: They lied.

They lied and the media which helped them get away with it, is now insisting that the Benghazi hearings were a big nothingburger which actually helps Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

Media bias is one thing but this goes beyond that.

This is disinformation.

Featured image via YouTube.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Sammy Finkelman | October 25, 2015 at 11:54 am

Jim Jordan made the same mistake Mitt Romney did. Even though Hillary Clinton dropped little hints, he still didn’t get it.

At first they knew the truth – it was an organized terrorist attack and had nothing to do with a video or any demonstration.

Then, more and more Sooper Sekrit Intelligence kept pouring in saying this was a spontaneous attack – a demonstration that evolved into an attack- and the United States government stated to reverse its position.

The members of the intelligence committee on Face The Nation knew this, but this important fact – that the U.S> government unlearned that this was planned terrorist attack – didn’t make it on to Fox News Sunday.

Now I don’t think anyone should accept that this this was the “best” intelligence. It wasn’t the best intelligence, like they keep on repeating.

It was the most highly rated intelligence – and that indicates there was a serious problem at the CIA.

And some of that Sooper Sekrit Intelligence the State Department – and Hillary Clinton – independently knew tp be false. They didn’t need to wait for any videos to be made available 8 days later to know that there was no demonsitration, because they were in constant contact with the people in Benghazi, and no demonstration, but only a surprise attack, had been reported.

Now the sorry abpout the video did not originate with Hillary Clinton (who, by teh way, carefuully avoided endorsing it)

The claim that this was about a video actually had originated with the attackers the night of the attack.

It was one of several cover stories (another was that this was revenge for killing al-Libbi, and of course there was the fact this took place on September 11th) and they probably never really expected it to get anywhere but then it got a lot of traction.

The overwhelming question that this committee needs to examione is how did a cover story by the terrorists become teh official U.S. government position? And why was there no shake-up in the CIA.

As for Hillary, she spoke about “confusion,” but did she ever claim she believed this garbage?

Not believing it, what, if anything, did she do to stop other people in the U.S. government besides herself from saying it?

The State Department did not fight the “talking points” on this issue but only on the question of whether it was proper to call the location in Benghazi a “consulate” (it was not) and whether or not they had been warned by the CIA (only vaguely and long in advance)

    Bitterlyclinging in reply to Sammy Finkelman. | October 25, 2015 at 12:39 pm

    What “Sooper Sekrit information”? Like Holy sh!t the elections only in seven more weeks information?
    You’ve got bird of the same feather as Hussein Obama, Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes, Master of Fine Arts from NYU in Fictional Literature Writing, mixed in all of this. ‘Lets see how big a whopper we can tell before our sycophants in the media are forced to call us out on it.’

      Sammy Finkelman in reply to Bitterlyclinging. | October 25, 2015 at 4:27 pm

      Because the intelligence was SOOPER SEKRIT, we still haven’t heard many details.

      It was real. The intelligence committee has had access to it.

      It was also disinformation, but it was quite real.

      If it wasn’t, David Petraeus would not have believed it and changed what he said if it wasn’t real, and being Director of the CIA, he would not accept something as being too secret for him to know. If it wasn’t real surely there would have been some leaks saying people in the White House made it up.

        “he attack was an organized operation with specific information the US Ambassador was present.’ – Defense Intelligence Agency cable, September 12, 2012

        (Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it uncovered a September 12, 2012, cable from the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) to the Department of State Command Center (DSCC) revealing that the Obama administration was informed within 24 hours that the attack on the U.S. Special Mission Compound in Benghazi was “an organized operation” carried out by a “Salafi terrorism group” in retaliation for the killing of al-Qaeda’s second in command, Libyan national Abu Yahya al-Libi. The documents, from the DSCC, were provided to Judicial Watch in response to a court order in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on October 16, 2014, (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:14-cv-01733)).

        The lawsuit seeks “any and all logs, reports, or other records” the Washington-based Diplomatic Security Command Center produced between September 10, 2012, and September 13, 2012, relating to the terrorist attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya. The DIA cable obtained by Judicial Watch states: “The attack was an organized operation with specific information that the US Ambassador was present.”

        The DIA cable was emailed to numerous State Department recipients by the DSCC at the request of the National Counter Terrorism Center (NCTC), further confirming that the Obama administration knew the assault was a well-organized terrorist attack before President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and National Security Advisor Susan Rice claimed the assault was the result of an “unpremeditated… spontaneous protest” over an obscure Internet video.

        The previously Secret document includes the following information:

        EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. A Salafi group (NFI) is believed to be responsible for the 11 September, 2012, attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. The attack was in retaliation for the killing of an Al Qaeda operative. The Salafi group attended the [initial] protests and returned at night using overwhelming firepower to overtake security forces of the Consulate

        he records are in line with other Defense Department documents uncovered through Judicial Watch litigation that also almost immediately reported that the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi was committed by the al Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood-linked “Brigades of the Captive Omar Abdul Rahman” (BCOAR), and had been planned at least 10 days in advance. (The documents also include an August 2012 analysis warning of the rise of ISIS and the predicted failure of the Obama policy of regime change in Syria.)

        “These new smoking-gun documents show that intelligence tied the Benghazi attack to terrorists not to any videos,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “It is inescapable that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice knowingly lied about the Benghazi terrorist attack. We would hope that the Benghazi Select Committee will try to get some accountability from Hillary Clinton for her deadly dishonesty. And, frankly, it is disgraceful that it is only Judicial Watch, not costly congressional investigations that is getting out these key documents for the American people.”

        In April 2014, Judicial Watch forced the release of documents showing then-White House Deputy Strategic Communications Adviser Ben Rhodes and other Obama administration public relations officials attempting to orchestrate a campaign to “reinforce” President Obama and to portray the Benghazi consulate terrorist attack as being “rooted in an Internet video, and not a failure of policy.” Other documents showed that State Department officials initially described the incident as an “attack” and a possible kidnap attempt. Judicial Watch’s release of the Rhodes email, which had been withheld by the Obama administration from Congress, caused the House of Representatives to approve the Select Committee on Benghazi, which is now led by Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC).”

      Sammy Finkelman in reply to Bitterlyclinging. | October 25, 2015 at 10:32 pm

      What “Sooper Sekrit information”?

      This was discussed on Face the Nation today by the Chairman and Ranking Minority member of the House Intelligence Committee, one of whom (the Democrat) is also on the Benghazi committee.

      SCHIFF [D-Calif]: The early claims by Ansar al-Sharia responsibility that were very quickly followed with human intelligence, signals intelligence, open source reporting, that there was a protest. It wasn’t until about eight to ten days after the events where we actually got the tapes from the compound that we could see quite demonstrably on those tapes that there had been no protests. But it was the — the considered judgment, the assessment of the intelligence experts for that week until we got those tapes, that there had been a protest. And that turned out to be wrong.

      But to criticize Secretary Clinton for relying on the best of intelligence that we had at the time seemed to be wholly inappropriate. Had she had spoken, frankly, in contradiction of what our intelligence agencies were telling her, that might be something to criticize…


      [CBS host John] DICKERSON: Her testimony and then also the CIA best information to the — to the rest of the administration was, at first Ansar al- Sharia claimed credit — credit for it and then they withdrew it and that that’s what led to this confusion. So at first she believed those reports. Then they were withdrawn and that’s what made her change her position.

      [Devin] NUNES R-Calif]: Yes, so specifically there were different lines of intelligence. There were signals intelligence. There was word from the ground. The people that were on the ground. But then there was the open source reporting. When you take that in its totality, I think it’s tough to end up with a position where — that this was because of some video of — that — that said something bad about the Prophet Mohammed. I just don’t believe that. And I think that’s what the Benghazi Committee has to get to the bottom of.

Sammy Finkelman | October 25, 2015 at 12:09 pm

I learned from the Sunday interview shows (Face the Nation) that Hillary Clinton had deliberately arranged for this hearing to be public.

All the other witneseses consented, or asked, to be interviewed in private, behind closed doors, but Hillary Clinton wanted this out in public. (That’s one reason, I think, that she was interviewed so late.)

There are problems for Hillary Clinton in this matter – obvious ones like the reduction in security while the danger grew, and non-obvious ones that might be found out, like maybe knowing certain things that should have caused her to act in a different manner – and semi-obvious ones like letting Susan Rice say this was a spontaneous attack sparked by a protest over a video or at least in imitation of the protest in Cairo, which supposedly was about the video, but actually really wasn’t.

[Its actual theme was that Sheik Omar Abdul Rahman, the “blind sheik” who was the leader of the world Trade Center bombers, and then caught in a terrorist sting (a plot invented by the FBI, not a real terrorist scheme they came up with themselves) should be freed from prison.]

Hillary Clinton wanted to make it look like the whole investigation was only about her, so that she could fool enough of the people enough of the time.

Sammy Finkelman | October 25, 2015 at 12:12 pm

I learned today that they have not yet gotten the e-mails of Patrick Kennedy, who was the chief State Department official who would have been in charge of diplomatic security.

We also learned last week taht they just got Christopher Stevens’ e-mails just before the hearing. He, of course, never had Hullary Clinton’s secret e-mail address.

Sammy Finkelman | October 25, 2015 at 12:16 pm

I think Hillary Clinton really has very good strong suspicions as to who planned the murder of Ambassador Christopher Stevens, and how it was done.

And that it was a murder, and not a lucky break.

And that people allied with attackers were involved with the security arrangements.

None of which she wants to say.

Sammy Finkelman | October 25, 2015 at 12:17 pm

She even knows what’s wrong at the CIA.

Sammy Finkelman | October 25, 2015 at 12:18 pm

And who in the Obama Adminsitration was a fool.

Hey, Sammy.

Get a blog.

Henry Hawkins | October 25, 2015 at 1:21 pm


Henry Hawkins | October 25, 2015 at 1:22 pm


Henry Hawkins | October 25, 2015 at 1:22 pm


Henry Hawkins | October 25, 2015 at 1:22 pm


Henry Hawkins | October 25, 2015 at 1:22 pm


Here is the problem. Everybody even the public knows Hillary and Obama lied about the video for purposes of Obama’s reelection campaign. It just isn’t the kind of lie that the public will get in an uproar about. Not these days. Sadly. Even if it came out that Hillary and Obama were smuggling weapons to the muslim brotherhood in Syria it would have no effect on public at large and the media will cover for Obama and Hillary no matter shat they do.

    mariner in reply to Gary Britt. | October 25, 2015 at 3:23 pm

    Well, some lies are just about sex, so they don’t matter.
    Other lies are just partisan politics, so they don’t matter.
    Yet other lies are just about election, so they don’t matter either.
    Before you know it, no lies will matter, and the destruction of our culture will be complete.

      mariner in reply to mariner. | October 25, 2015 at 3:26 pm

      Of course “Bush lied, people died!” and *that* was tremendously important.

      I wonder what was different?


      Radegunda in reply to mariner. | October 25, 2015 at 4:11 pm

      To Dems, abusing women is fine as long as you’re pro-abort.
      Being dishonest and corrupt is fine as long as you promise more free stuff than the other side.

Who didn’t know that lie was a lie when it was first spoken?

Nobody in this lil’ corner of Texas ever believed it for a second.

IMO all planned out. video was “suddenly” shown to people in cairo not too long before those protests.
honestly in the cairo protests there may have been some anger due to the video that was sitting there WAITING for this moment but for the most part it was a planned item designed to provide a back drop of an ongoing protest
don’t feel too bad for the film maker, walid shoebat has made a damned good case for him being involved in all this.

then magically benghazi was boot strapped off the cairo protests using the built in excuse of the video.
so much of this starts with and lies with the cairo protest.
IMO cairo was a cover meant to divert attention and resources that allowed benghazi to happen

    Sammy Finkelman in reply to dmacleo. | October 25, 2015 at 9:32 pm

    I agree about 85% with this. The problem is, almost nobody in Congress or anywhere is saying something like that.

    Not only did the terrorists suddenly alert people (only in Cairo) to the video, they probably also uploaded it to the Internet, and the whole story of the video tells you that it probably was itself financed and made by people connected to the attackers (there never was any finished product, but just the trailer. The person who made it attributed its financing to Jews (!) – which should tell you something about who was really behind it. Not any Christians, but Jews? It supposedly was to show how badly Copts were treated — yet its title was “Innocence of Muslims”)

    One or two caveats: The video was not “shown” to anyone in Cairo – it was uploaded to the Internet on July 2 2012. Nobody noticed for two months. The delay between the uloading and the agitation probably provided some deniability as to agitators or their sponsers having uploaded (and even commissioned it) themselves in the first place.

    What happened not too long before the Cairo protests was a television show (I think) complaining about the video and some agitating about it.

    The Cairo Embassy, its tweets show, clearly thought that the protest in Cairo was about the video, (was that because that was what the CIA told them it would be about? What did the CIA cable to the Cairo Embassy say?) although the crowd may in fact not have been actually assembled using that as a rallying cry, but other causes were used to turn out the crowd. The video may not have been mentioned at all by anyone during the actual Cairo protest.

    Arminius in reply to dmacleo. | October 27, 2015 at 8:31 am

    No, the Cairo riot organizers (it was no protest) did not use the video. They may not have even known about the video until it was too late to use it get a crowd together. These riots are never spontaneous. When you see a crowd gathered in Kabul to kill, smash, and commit arson over some Florida pastor burning a Koran it’s organized. And in Organization of Islamic Cooperation countries it is almost always someone in the government organizing it.

    In Cairo the riot was organized by a collection of Salafist and Islamist groups. They had been publicizing the riot for months via a variety of means (word of mouth, fliers, social media, legacy media) to ensure they got a good turnout on the anniversary of 9/11.

    So they planned for the anniversary of 9/11 better than the Obama administration (despite the WH press release on 9/10/12 saying they were ready to respond to protect American lives at home and abroad if they couldn’t respond to a contingency in Libya, and I exaggerate only slightly when I say it’s closer to more major NATO bases than any country not actually in NATO, they hadn’t planned for anything except getting lucky).

    Here is what must have been the group’s final press release, which appeared in the Arabic language Cairo paper El Fagr on 8 September 2012:

    “The group, which consists of many members from al-Qaeda, called [especially] for the quick release of the jihadi [mujahid] sheikh, Omar Abdul Rahman [the “Blind Sheikh”], whom they described as a scholar and jihadi who sacrificed his life for the Egyptian Umma, …The Islamic Group has threatened to burn the U.S. Embassy in Cairo with those in it, and taking hostage those who remain [alive], unless the Blind Sheikh is immediately released.”

    This is entirely consistent with what they had been saying all along. They wanted the Blind Sheik and the GITMO detainees released or they’d attack the embassy. They never mentioned the video. If they knew about the video, they only found out about it a day or so ahead of time, which was too late.

    Apparently some small time Imam in some backstreet mosque had found out about it and preached against it. Nobody had seen it, I gather.

    The video wasn’t a factor until Obama, Clinton, and Rice started pimping it to scapegoat it for the violence that originally had nothing to do with it.

    It was never a factor in Benghazi, and if it was a factor in Cairo it was only a tiny afterthought.

The response I hear whenever I bring this up is, “All politicians lie. What makes this lie worth my attention.”

This is complete BS, but it’s why Hillary is not worried.

Midwest Rhino | October 25, 2015 at 3:58 pm

Bob Woodward was just on with Chris Wallace explaining this differed from Watergate in that Hillary committed no crime.

But if the reason for refusal to provide adequate security was, that it would look bad for Obama’s campaign, or hurt some private deal for Hillary’s pal Blumenthal, isn’t that a crime? Intent may be hard to prove, but not impossible. It certainly can’t be dismissed out of hand.

And what was the crime Nixon committed? I’m not quite sure, but it seemed centered around the cover up. With all the delays and lies under oath around Benghazi, it seems like more real crimes were committed in the Benghazi affair than Watergate.

And where are the CIA men that were told to shut up? If we were covertly running guns, all the more reason to give the ambassador adequate protection, and be on an aggressive stance on 9/11. Hillary was (apparently) derelict in duty before, during and after the attack. Hillary claims these decision were beneath her, but all these secreted away CIA in this hot spot surely had her approval. Former CIA have pointed out that there is no way such a hot spot does not have attention at the very top.

Leaving men to die, when resources to at least attempt to join that battle were available, would seem to be a treasonous act, certainly a crime, Mr. Woodward. Are you so sure there was no dereliction of duty or cover up?

Anyway … ianal, but Wallace should have loudly challenged the “no crime, nothing to see here” narrative. And of course the multiple crimes with the secret server, the obstructions and delays and deletions, should in time all be brought to light.

    Sammy Finkelman in reply to Midwest Rhino. | October 25, 2015 at 9:55 pm

    If we were covertly running guns,

    We weren’t running guns.

    But someone was interested in spreading disinformation that we were, and Hillary Clinton was not interested in clearing that up, of course at an earlier hearing, pretending to misunderstand a question that Senator Rand Paul asked about sending weaspons to Turkey.

    The United States was NOT running guns to the Syrian rebels. The opposite was true! (if the U.S. was behind the gun-running, how come they never got there?)

    The United States was trying to STOP certain foreign countries, namely Qatar and Saudi Arabia, from sending weapons to Islamic oriented Syrian rebels they supported, especially Surface to Air Missiles (SAMs), about which there was a whole doctrine about how they could get into the hands of terrorists and be used to shoot down civilian airliners, and how SAMS sent to Afghanistan had gotten lost, and how that must never happen.

    These weapons in Libya were left over by Quaddafi (who had stored them in the eastern part of the country, thinking that was the safest place for him to keep them)

    The CIA was there to gather up the weapons (and destroy them or get them into U.S. possession) before the Saudis and the Qataris could get them and send them to Turkey, where they would be turned over to the rebels.

    Christopher Stevens was heavily involved in diplomatic acivities aimed toward the same end. He was interceding, threatening, whatever, the Turkish government. That was what the metting with the Turkish official was about.

    The first ship had already sailed when he got to Benghazi.

    Stevens’ goal was to get Turkey to impound those weapons and not send them anywhere without U.S. permission.

    Now I think a foreign intelligence agency got the idea of killing Christopher Stevens and chasing the troublesome CIA people out of the country – and they did.

    However, the United States was successful, in spite of that, in stopping those weapons from getting any further than Turkey, and in stopping any further shipments out of Benghazi to Turkey.

    Hillary Clinton knows all of this, but she can’t really expose it, because I think – I’m guessing somewhat here – that the same man who plotted the murder of Ambassador Christopher Stevens, had also, 19 years before, killed Vincent Foster.

      Midwest Rhino in reply to Sammy Finkelman. | October 26, 2015 at 4:37 am

      Well sure, another rumor was that they were collecting the missiles (which could take down an airliner), but there was also interest in supporting rebels, which may have been part of the negotiations. Apparently you have direct contact with the covert agents so you know every detail.

      But I agree that Hillary likely has criminal activity to hide, even if it is not as obvious as the Watergate break in. She proudly proclaimed her enemy is the Republicans.

    Arminius in reply to Midwest Rhino. | October 27, 2015 at 9:50 am

    Bob Woodward and Chris Wallace have no clue what constitutes a crime under the espionage act. And that’s only a place to start.

Henry Hawkins | October 25, 2015 at 5:35 pm

Democrats and the liberal media aren’t so much in favor of Hillary Clinton, but in deep fear of a Ted Cruz (conservative) in the White House with majorities in the House and Senate, coupled with the likelihood the next president will be nominating a US Supreme Court justice or two. Everything they’ve accomplished since 2008 is on the line for them. I hope it causes them ulcers.

    Everything they have accomplished since the so-called New Deal is on the line.

    Your point about the Dem’s supposed ulcer, we’re the ones who need to be concerned also!

    A Hillary, or any Dem, win would bring about a Dem / Socialist majority on SCOTUS for possibly eons. See one reason for the GOP to be concerned, and dread that possible Dem victory, is discussed in this article:

    Scary to contemplate. It ain’t over till it’s over!

    So, push for Cruz, or in his stead, Trump or Carson or Rubio.

      Henry Hawkins in reply to Doug Wright. | October 25, 2015 at 8:09 pm

      Simply electing any Republican is insufficient as regards Supreme Court appointments. George W. Bush nominated that great conservative justice John Roberts after all.

        You’re correct, especially in your analysis of Chief Justice Roberts. Yet, not voting for the GOP nominee because that person is not deemed sufficiently conservative, will result in the Dem / Socialist continuing Obama’s Rule, as modified by that new ever so kind ruler.

        So, push Cruz and show him how to win the GOP nomination. So far, he’s sucking hind t****; getting closer but not good enough, yet.

          Henry Hawkins in reply to Doug Wright. | October 26, 2015 at 12:46 pm

          Yes, and the year our Carolina Panthers went to the Super Bowl, they were 0-4 in preseason. It’s the preseason for the 2016 cycle. The only thing I’ll guarantee you is that the lineup will change.

Susan Rice is doing a good job of staying out of the spotlight.


“U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, reportedly the leading contender to be President Barack Obama’s next national security adviser, failed during the 1990s to prevent unnecessary deaths in Rwanda, provide adequate security prior to the bombings of the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, or deal effectively with the Robert Mugabe’s dictatorship in Zimbabwe.

A former State Department military adviser to Africa thought Rice’s “inexperience” caused President Bill Clinton’s feckless response to the Rwandan genocide when she served as National Security Council director for International Organizations and Peacekeeping. And documents sent to The Daily Caller from the National Legal and Policy Center show Rice failed to take seriously repeated Islamist threats against the U.S. embassies in the prelude to deadly bomb attacks.

More recently, Rice has come under fire for her role in promoting the now-discredited talking points on the deadly September 2012 terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

Rice’s promotion to head the NSC is “definitely happening” according to an unnamed source quoted by John Hudson of Foreign Policy’s The Cable. The Washington Post’s Colum Lynch, quoting an unnamed administration official, says Rice is “far and away the front-runner to succeed Thomas E. Donilon as President Obama’s national security adviser.”

3 embassies for Susan Rice. I call that quite a coincidence.

“”The FBI, in 1996 and 1997, had their efforts to look at terrorism data and deal with the bin Laden issue overruled every single time by the State Department, by Susan Rice and her cronies, who were hell-bent on destroying the Sudan…””

Libyan Rebels Fight With Sudanese Mercenaries Along Border

Another Voice | October 26, 2015 at 2:04 pm

If it happens that Hillary gets to be POTUS, based on the past decisions she has made, directions or lack of, she opts for, the type of people she only allows into her tent, are all indicators by the trends of international instability in the Middle East and moving rapidly into Central and Eastern Europe that she will require two phones to be able to answer at least one of them for that 3:AM,phone call when WW III starts on her watch.

Henry Hawkins | October 26, 2015 at 5:05 pm

What we learned from Benghazi is that Clinton will protect American lives only if it’s politically expedient for her. If not, you are on your own.

Isn’t that comforting……

Regarding Benghazi itself, the story that there was a spontaneous protests that developed into an armed assault was an obvious lie from the start. For several reasons.

1. Whatever the administration wants to call this facility it was in a public place. A residential neighborhood in fact. These are always where they can be accessible or else they can not fill the role of a diplomatic facility. Which meant there were plenty of eye witness accounts verifying that there had been no protest. Of course, only in the foreign press. What passes for a press in this country was dutifully doing Obama’s bidding and manufacturing stories about a protest.

2. Not all the witnesses were Libyan. An American surgeon had been assisting doctors was in Benghazi trying to help them organize and operate the Benghazi Medical Center. He was practically live blogging the events that night and the next day, and he provided sufficient clues to conclusively prove there had been no protest.

His report from September 12 from Benghazi.

“Today is a tragic day for Americans and Libyans alike. All over the world our hearts ache for the loss of our U.S. ambassador, Christopher Stevens, and those who died at his side last evening.

…Just a few minutes ago I sat with Dr. Naseralla Elsaadi, a gentle and endlessly patient 42-year old surgeon. Tears quietly ran down his cheeks. Ambassador Stevens was supposed to have been sitting with us.”

So, Stevens had just died the night before, and was supposed to have been with them that next morning. Dr. Burke provided an account which included the major clue before he left Libya but I can’t find that report. But here’s what he told the press when he arrived back in Boston on the 14th.

“…Burke was in his hotel room Tuesday night as a colleague spoke with an attache for Ambassador Chris Stevens. “There was a loud explosion and the attache yelled and said, ‘something’s going on’ and hung up.”…”

We know beyond a shadow of a doubt there was no protest because had there been one something already would have been going on. But nothing had been going on before the attackers initiated the surprise assault with an explosive device. Which is entirely consistent with the Libyan eye-witness reports. Had there been a protest Steven’s aide would not have been on the phone with the doctors at the hospital casually discussing the next day’s schedule because there would have been no next day’s schedule. They would have evacuated. And notice how quickly the aid was too busy to talk. Had there been a protest he would have already long been too busy to talk, and would have remained too busy until they had secured the ambassador. At which time he might call to regret cancelling the next day’s schedule.

Also note the time and date this report was posted. 12:43 PM EDT Sep 14, 2012. So as the vile creatures of the Obama administration are meeting the caskets at Andrews we already have enough proof to know beyond a shadow of a doubt they are lying.

3. They hid the survivors. The Japanese did that after the Battle of Midway, the US did that after the Navy got slaughtered at Savo Island, other countries have done it, and there’s always only one reason to quarantine survivors or transfer them as far away as possible. So the truth doesn’t get out. That in combination with their assurances that intel was on it was further proof there was no protest. It’s not quite as conclusive unless you have some sort of experience with this. This wasn’t an intel problem. Sure, finding out who and why would be a problem for intel. But what happened and how would no more be an intel problem than the Boston Marathon bombing. As I said, the attack on the diplomatic facility was a very public event. If this administration concocted a story that the Boston Marathon Bombing was an assault that grew out of a spontaneous protest, but refused to produce witnesses or video and instead insisted they had to rely on the various INTs to figure out what happened, wouldn’t that be the equivalent of putting up neon lights that they were covering things up?

Yeah, same here. They got rid of the survivors and gave it to intel so they could overclassify it and hide the truth.

Recall that Reagan was on TV within days of the Beirut bombing, telling country what happened. And his version was correct in all details as I recall. Because there is no “fog of war” at this point (there was on the night of the attack, yet the same people pleading confusion after the smoke had long cleared were absolutely certain they couldn’t get help to Benghazi before they knew when the fighting would be over). Because there were lots of marines, sailors, and French paratroopers around to tell investigators exactly what happened and how it happened.

And Reagan didn’t lie about it.

    Sammy Finkelman in reply to Arminius. | October 28, 2015 at 8:20 pm

    What passes for a press in this country was dutifully doing Obama’s bidding and manufacturing stories about a protest.

    No, it wasn’t. That’s why everybody was amazed at what Susan Rice was saying.

“If this administration concocted a story that the Boston Marathon Bombing was an assault that grew out of a spontaneous protest, but refused to produce witnesses or video and instead insisted they had to rely on the various INTs to figure out what happened, wouldn’t that be the equivalent of putting up neon lights that they were covering things up?”

Oh, yeah, and placing the wounded under armed guard and refusing to let them talk to anyone. That would be another clue, which essentially is how they treated some of the survivors of Benghazi.

Arminius, These are great posts. I would “thumbs up” them if “thumbs up” were working.

It was infuriating, gibbie, the obvious, insulting nature of the lies this administration.

For instance, when Pannetta was trying to deflect blame for not sending reinforcements he said the general rule is you don’t put people in harms way unless you know what is going on, and they didn’t have the intel.

Like everything everyone associated with this administration had ever said on this subject, everything about that “general rule” isn’t just wrong it’s the exact opposite of the truth.

First we put people into harms way all the time just to find out what is going on. But we didn’t need to put anyone into harm’s way to find out what was going on. The absolute finest sources of intel on what was going on where already in harm’s way. They were already on top of the objective. SEALs like Doherty and Woods are trained in Special Reconnaissance. SR is when you infiltrate behind enemy lines, or remain behind concealed when own forces withdraw and the enemy occupies the position, and report on enemy activity. I don’t know the background of the other trigger pullers working as CIA contractors. If they were marines, hello! Marine special operators were at the time called Force Recon. Reconnaissance is what they do, still, even though they’ve gone back to their WWII roots and once again are Marine Raiders. I don’t know how the Army trains its special operators but I can’t believe they don’t have the SR mission as well.

As far as putting people into harms way I don’t know of a special operator who wouldn’t have considered this one of the easier missions they’d ever get (they don’t get easy missions). They would just have to link up with the men already on the objective.

So it was clear Pannetta as well was completely full of excrement as soon as the first few words were out of his mouth. But they were trying to spin their story to take advantage of most people’s ignorance.

For your reading pleasure.

“Background Briefing on Libya

…About 7:30 in the evening, he has his last meeting. It is with a Turkish diplomat. And at – when the meeting is over, at 8:30 – he has all these meetings, by the way, in what I call Building C – when the meeting is over, he escorts the Turkish diplomat to the main gate. There is an agent there with them. They say goodbye. They’re out in a street in front of the compound. Everything is calm at 8:30 p.m. There’s nothing unusual. There has been nothing unusual during the day at all outside.”

But then, we didn’t need this October report to know this. We already knew this by Sept. 14 (or earlier) that nothing happened outside the facility all day. We had the eyewitness accounts.

“… At 9:40 p.m., the agent in the TOC and the agents in Building C hear loud noises coming from the front gate. They also hear gunfire and an explosion.”

This is the explosion Dr. Burke reported hearing from his hotel room. Amb. Steven’s aide, who was on the phone with Dr. Burke’s group hangs up after shouting “something’s happening.” Because nothing had happened all day outside the compound until the assault started.

“As those guys attempt to secure a perimeter around Building C, they also move to the TOC, where one agent has been manning the phone. I neglected to mention from the top that that agent from the top of this incident, or the very beginning of this incident, has been on the phone. He had called the quick reaction security team, he had called the Libyan authorities, he had called the Embassy in Tripoli, and he had called Washington. He had them all going to ask for help. And he remained in the TOC.”

So they knew all this in Washington as it was happening.

“First question is from the line of Anne Gearan with the Washington Post. Please go ahead.

QUESTION: Hi. You said a moment ago that there was nothing unusual outside, on the street, or outside the gates of the main compound. When did the agents inside – what – excuse me, what did the agents inside think was happening when the first group of men gathered there and they first heard those explosions? Did they think it was a protest, or did they think it was something else?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: The agent in the TOC heard the noise, heard the firing. Firing is not unusual in Benghazi at 9:40 at night, but he immediately reacted and looked at his cameras and saw people coming in, hit the alarm. And the rest is as I described it. Does that help?”

The agent’s immediate reaction, as described in this timeline, was to hit the alarm and yell, “Attack, attack” over the PA system. So, no he didn’t think it was a protest but something else. An attack.

The bottom line is if you want to know you want to know the truth when you have forces in contact you go to your operations center and get it straight from your troops. Intel can do a lot of things well, but this isn’t one of them. Your troops have eyes on and are the best source of information.

This administration did everything the opposite way. They pretended they had “sooper sekrit” intel and ignored the troops. You would only do that if you want to perpetuate a lie, and you know it’s a lie. And frankly I’ve never seen anyone want to do that before until this crowd came along.

    Sammy Finkelman in reply to Arminius. | October 28, 2015 at 5:41 pm

    It is with a Turkish diplomat Also described as the Turkish Ambassador. In one version I read, actually the Turkish intelligence station chief in Benghazi.

    To deliver a strong mesage to the Turkish government not to let the Manpads on the ship that had left Benghazi be delivered to the Syrian rebels. And they weren’t, even though he got killed and the CIA was chased out.

    They pretended they had “sooper sekrit” intel and ignored the troops.

    that came later, and they really had it. Only it was all disinformation.

    The disinformation was aimed at President Obama, and not at the general public, which already knew better. Obama relied on CIA briefings rather than the newspapers. The reason for this lie was so that Obama would not order an investigation into who was behind it. (If it was spontaneous, there was nobody behind it.)

    But then he or his aides made it public. The idea that this could not have been prevented, and that there was nothing to do against the perpetrators, was such good political news that people in the White House were anxious to get the information out.

    Of course once they made the disinformation public, instead of keeping it secret, it fell apart right away.

    The night of the raid there was other disinformation, coming from their contacts in the Libyan government. The committee report will probably have a lot to say about that.

Sammy Finkelman | October 28, 2015 at 5:44 pm

Sorry did not close the first quote.

This should have started:

It is with a Turkish diplomat

Also described as the Turkish Ambassador [but actually probably the Turkish intelligence chief in Benghazi].

Preview doesn’t work on this particular system, at least in IE although it works other places for me.

Sammy Finkelman | October 28, 2015 at 8:31 pm

The reports about a protest originated in Libya, not Washington:

In Benghazi on Tuesday, protesters with automatic rifles and rocket-propelled grenades attacked the United States Consulate and set it on fire, Libyan officials said. Some news reports said American guards inside the consulate had fired their weapons, and a brigade of Libyan security forces arriving on the scene had battled the attackers in the streets as well….

…Local Islamist militant groups capitalizing on the security vacuum have claimed responsibility for some attacks, and some reports on Tuesday suggested that one such group, Ansar al-Sharia, had claimed responsibility for that day’s assault.

That story contains the HRC quote.

The next day’s newsppaper:

Fighters involved in the assault, which was spearheaded by an Islamist brigade formed during last year’s uprising against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, said in interviews during the battle that they were moved to attack the mission by anger over a 14-minute, American-made video that depicted the Prophet Muhammad, Islam’s founder, as a villainous, homosexual and child-molesting buffoon. Their attack followed by just a few hours the storming of the compound surrounding the United States Embassy in Cairo by an unarmed mob protesting the same video….

….Libya’s deputy interior minister, Wanis al-Sharif, made somewhat contradictory and defensive-sounding statements about the attack.

He acknowledged that he had ordered the withdrawal of security forces from the scene in the early stages of the protest on Wednesday night. He said his initial instinct was to avoid inflaming the situation by risking a confrontation with people angry about the video….

Apparently, the actual protest in Cairo had nothing to do with the video, but the New York Times was misled by the Cairo embassy tweets that were sent before the protest began. The Caiiro Embassy had receoved acable from the CIA – I suspect it said that there would be a protest in Cairo about the video.

At the end of 2013, the New York Times reported:

…But a false report spread much wider and faster: that guards in the compound had shot and wounded Libyans who had come only to protest…The attackers had posted sentries at Venezia Road, adjacent to the compound, to guard their rear flank, but they let pass anyone trying to join the mayhem….

….A Libyan journalist working for The New York Times was blocked from entering by the sentries outside, and he learned of the film from the fighters who stopped him. Other Libyan witnesses, too, said they received lectures from the attackers about the evil of the film and the virtue of defending the prophet.

The video was one of the cover stories by the attackers. (two others being the death of al-Libbi, and the fact it was September 11th)

We’re supposed to believe that Moslems can get inflamed about cartoons, or any picture of Mohammed.

Sammy Finkelman | October 29, 2015 at 12:29 am

JLRogers09-12-2012, 05:43 AM
Thanks, WhyNot, but Sean and I weren’t close. He left a widow and a couple of kids, which is the real shame.

Word went out at 2305 last night. He was in contact with some forum members when he commented that he heard gunfire.

This forum also has the video story.

Leaffan09-12-2012, 06:32 AM
All over a movie.

It’s impossible to even imagine such a mentality.

Another comments “as I understand it, the movie was made by Egyptians — NOT by Americans.”

Then we get the story that it was made by an Israeli guy who lives in California and that the people who donated are apparently mostly Jewish – (which is what he claimed, but he wasn’t Jewish, and actually the money came from Egypt, and the U.S. government apparently bought the story that it came from his family!)

Then someone notes that he has only seen sources that it was the work of an Egyptian Christian, albeit an expatriate
living in the US.

Now if someone claims it was made by Jews, and it wasn’t, it must actually be the work of sponsers of Islamic terrorists.

And people had all kinds of different ideas as to what that film was supposed to be about.

One person on that message board writes:

As a hypothetical, I have trouble imagining fanatical Muslims would blasphere their own religion just to upset other Muslims in the hope they’d blame the wrong people.

I have no trouble at all with this, except that the people who arranged for this weren’t themselves personally fanatical Muslims.

It makes perfect sense for terrorists to arrange for this, because with all of this going on in the world about cartoons or drawings of Muhammed, nobody is making them, and even if somebody would do, they can’t count on it to exist unless they made it themselves. All you have to keep in mind is that all the outrage is fake and calculated.

Sammy Finkelman | October 29, 2015 at 12:39 am

New York Times September 14, 2012: In

Parts of Mr. Sharif’s account were not consistent with what other Libyan witnesses have said, and his version has not been corroborated by American officials, who have said it remains unclear how and where Mr. Stevens was killed. Many Libyans considered Mr. Stevens a hero for his support of their uprising against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi.

Two Libyans who were wounded while guarding the consulate said that, contrary to Mr. Sharif’s account, there was no indication within the consulate grounds that a mass protest, including members of armed groups, had been brewing outside. The guards spoke on condition of anonymity for their personal safety, and one of them said he realized the dangers only about 9:30 p.m., when protesters crashed through the gate and “started shooting and throwing grenades.” The other guard said that he had been drinking coffee inside the compound just before the attack, and that it was so quiet “there was not even a single ant.”

But just at about the time the New York Times was getting it right, the CIA was proceeding to get it wrong, as Sooper Sekrit intelligence poured in.

Now they may not have gotten it wrong by accident. There may have been terrorist foreign intelligence moles in the CIA. (I don’t think there’d be actual terrorist moles in the CIA. Saudi or Qatari moles is another matter.)

William Safire was roasted for referring to Hillary as a “congenital liar”. I always wondered who coined that reference to her.

William Safire writes:

“By the belated release of some of the incriminating evidence? Not because it mysteriously turned up in offices previously searched. Certainly not because Hillary Clinton and her new hang-tough White House counsel want to respond fully to lawful subpoenas.

One reason for the Friday-night dribble of evidence from the White House is the discovery by the F.B.I. of copies of some of those records elsewhere. When Clinton witnesses are asked about specific items in “lost” records — which investigators have — the White House “finds” its copy and releases it. By concealing the Madison billing records two days beyond the statute of limitations, Hillary evaded a civil suit by bamboozled bank regulators.

Another reason for recent revelations is the imminent turning of former aides and partners of Hillary against her; they were willing to cover her lying when it advanced their careers, but are inclined to listen to their own lawyers when faced with perjury indictments.

Therefore, ask not “Why didn’t she just come clean at the beginning?” She had good reasons to lie; she is in the longtime habit of lying; and she has never been called to account for lying herself or in suborning lying in her aides and friends.”

In light of everything that has unfolded, the comments to the following, and William Safire’s astute observation of Hillary, lead me to wonder what is next on the agenda. Connect the dots and what comes to light is an established pattern.

    Sammy Finkelman in reply to Alivia. | October 30, 2015 at 12:37 pm

    I don’t know if it was congenital, or if it is fair to conjecture that.

    But I think it is reasonable to suppose that the ability to get away with lies was a strong part of what attracted her to Bill Clinton. Or what bound them together.

    Sammy Finkelman in reply to Alivia. | October 30, 2015 at 12:51 pm

    It’s not quite accurate to say that Hillary Rodham was fired from the committee staff by Jerry Zeifman, or at least the Clinton people have gotten fact checkers to say so.

    Hillary Rodham was not working for Jerry Zeifman. He did not supervise Hillary. When the time came when she would have worked for him, he refused to retain her.

    Zeifman was the chief counsel of the committee, but she was working for John Doar, who was hired separately to direct the impeachment inquiry, and reported directly to Peter Rodino, bypassing Zeifman.

    While she working on the impeachment inquiry, Zeifman came to the conclusion that she was deeply dishonest and not fulfilling her legal duty to the committee. She was supposed to make a report about the right to have counsel of atarget of an impeachment inquiry before the committee. Hillary was goiung to say there is no such right. Zeifman and Hillary apparently diuscussed thisn casually, and he said what abouyt when Justice zdouglas in 1970 was given the right to counsel. She promptly ontained the committee records of taht and sdecreted them in her office and in her report made no mention of this even to attempt to rebut it.

    Zeifman thought this was an attempt to conceal this fact but of course peiople remmebered this from four years before. What this was concealing was the legal arguments. Even without that minority counsel wsas successful in getting the committee to agree that Nixon should have the right to ahve alwyer cbe in contact with the committee.

    Now Hillary was actually folloowing instructions from John Doar, but she did not alert Zeifman to that, and Zeifman did not realize that the impeachment inquiry was politicakl and dishonest.

    Hillary did indeed do something very dishonest then in my opinion.

    Sammy Finkelman in reply to Alivia. | October 30, 2015 at 12:56 pm

    I wrote about this in my blog in 1994. I once did have a blog or a protoblog. It was a conference in a BBS:

    (I blocked out part of aname and corrected maybe 2 typos)

    Date: 05-08-94 (18:54) Number: 84 of 895
    To: PEARL Gxxxxxxx Refer#: NONE
    From: SAMMY FINKELMAN Read: 05-08-94 (19:59)
    Conf: SAMMY ZONE (9) Read Type: GENERAL (+)

    PG> But Nixon has been very good at returning from political death. When

    JB> But this time we put a stake through his heart to keep him in there.

    PG> Funny how that vampire theme keeps coming back. Must be something to it.

    SF> One of these days the tapes are going to be released – and we are going

    SF> to learn that the White House transcripts are correct, the House Judiciary transcripts wrong and that Hillary Clinton faked some of the most incriminating passages.

    PG> Hillary Clinton faked the transcripts of the Nixon tapes, 20 years ago?

    PG> Busy little lady, wasn’t she?

    As I said on the Main Board – she was once called back in a hurry over something having to do with the tapes – but neither she nor anyone else can remember what it was.

    I have never believed that the statement. . .

    « I want you all to stonewall it, let them plead the Fifth Amendment, cover-up or anytngse if it will save – save the plan. That’s the whole point »

    . . .is something that Richard Nixon ever said.

    Richard Nixon didn’t SAY that.

    And now we can say, that, in all probability, Hillary Rodham WROTE that.

    « A real measure of Hillary’s importance within the Doar inner circle came sometime that spring when she went off to visit Bill in Arkansas.

    Laughing about it later, she described the deference accorded her – not for her work on the impeachment committee, but because she was the candidate’s “girlfriend.” But it was nothing like the deference she was shown by John Doar, when, upon some new development in the case – memories are unclear as to the precise event – but it had something to do with the subpoena of more Nixon tapes – he summoned Hillary back
    to Washington. Immediately. He would arrange special transportation he told her, even send a plane. »

    – Hillary Rodham Clinton: A First Lady for Our Time by Donnie Radcliffe (Warner Books, 1993) page 128.

    When Donnie Radcliffe says “memories are unclear” that means that she was told different stories by different people. Somehow, nobody can remember what it was that caused Hillary to be summoned back to Washington. Hillary certainly can’t, any more than she can remember how it was she turned $1,000 into $5,300 in one day.

    But we do know one thing. All versions agree that it had something to do with the Nixon tapes.

    They say the SUBPEONA of the tapes, but it makes sense that it covering up what they said and straightening out their stories they would say that. Officially, her respowere purely procedural – to draft the procedures for conducting the trial in the Senate, and the articles of impeachment themselves, but that she didn’t have anything to do with the INVESTIGATION. No, she was on that legal issues task force. So that’s why they said SUBPOENA of the tapes.

    Hillary was not on the list of people who listened to the tapes and made up the trancripts, but she DID listen to the tapes, or some of them. She described this, or her version of it, in an interview in the Arkansas Gazette in 1990, quoted verbatim in two books, since she has apparently not spoken about this again.

    On one particular Saturday afternoon. . .

    « I was kind of locked in this soundproof room with these big headphones on, listening to a tape. It was Nixon taping himself listening to the tapes [you see when Nixon listened to it, he didn’t use earphones] making up his defenses to what he heard on the tapes. So you would hear Nixon
    talk and then you would hear very faintly the sound of a tapes prior conversation with Nixon, Haldeman and Ehrlichman. . .And you would hear him say “What I meant when I said that, was. . .” I mean it was surreal, unbelieveable, but it was a real positive experience because
    the system worked. It was done in a very professional, careful way. »

    – Hillary Rodham Clinton as quoted in an interview she gave to the Arkansas Gazette in 1990.

    Now, not just anybody could listen to those tapes. Not even the members of the Committee heard those tapes. Four members verified them. One of them was Ray Thornton, nephew of W. R. Stephens – the brother of the man whose bank loaned Clinton $4 million in 1992 and made him President and
    the man who rescued Bert Lance’s finances in 1978 thereby keeping him out of jail.

    If Hillary was listening to any tapes, she was making up transcripts.

    But not only was she doing that – she was doing that OFF THE RECORD.

    Do you begin to get the picture?

    Why did Hillary have this job? She had the job because Bill Clinton had turned it down, preferring to run for Congress, and told them to hire this woman, Hillary Rodham, instead.

    Whatever she was doing there is what Bill would have done.

    PG> What else was she responsible for? Did she hide the typewriter in the

    PG> pumpkin patch, too?

    No, that was Whittaker Chambers – he hid it there right before he made them public. Hillary didn’t do that because it happened right about when she was born.

Sammy Finkelman | October 30, 2015 at 1:21 pm

Hillary Rodham also believed in 1974 that Bill Clinton would one day become president. She told Bernard Nussbaum then, in 1974 that he would be Bill Clinton’s White House counsel.

The catch of course was, that he would not know their secrets.

The secrets would be kept by the deputy White hoiuse counsel.

In 1993 that was Vincent Foster.

I think Foster panicked on July 20, 1993 after my e-mail saying that if the FBI Director was fired reporterds would be released from their pledges of confidentiality and be free to write what he knew about Waco, particularly about how he was kept from the scene at Waco and his water cannon plan was rejected in favor of tear gas and if he didn’t believe that reporters knew more he should read that day’s (July 19) Wall Street Journal editorial.

I can see how and why that would have been printed out (because it started out about Crown Heights, and New York’s Governor Mario Cuomo was keeping the Girgente Report under wraps, so Foster might have given orders that anything taht mentioned it was to be shown to him.)

I think Foster went to the residence of the Saudi Arabian Ambassador, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, which was located just across the street from Fort Marcy Park, in an attempt to blackmail him for money to pay for lawyers (he wanted one of those locked briefcases Prince bandar kept there taht he told reporters contained secret files) but forgot about diplomatic immunity!

After Foster got shot and killed, Prince Bandar rushed over to the White House for a secret, unscheduled meeting with President Clinton and Sandy Burglar, (the deputy National Security counsel chief) where, I think, he explained the death to Clinton’s satisfaction and got his agreement to cover it up.

The Saudis may not have been in legal trouble but they certainly would have been in political trouble, and maybe Prince Bandar or his staff himself would have been in some trouble in Saudi Arabia had it been revealed that Vincent Foster was killed on Saudi property.

Clinton must have told Prince Bandar, as the first step, to get the body into Fort Marcy Park, where there was federal jurisdiction.

The next year, among the numerous Foster case leaks around the beginning of March 1994 was one to Fred Barnes that appeared on page 10 and 11 in the March 14, 1994 New Republic, which “explainend” that meeting.

The only words that really matter in that article are “in July” at the end of line 9 and the beginnng of line 10.

That was a just-in-case leak.

I was never able to get confirmation using the Freedom of Information Act (in 1997) that such a meeting took place. The secret Service claimed they were not subject to FOIA and the White House counsel’s office should answer me and the counsels’ office said they were exempt and an attempt to get a hint of this from a FOIA request to the State Department was answered early in the Bush Administration but was of no help. I was looking for some State Dept reference to it – there should have been one if this was really about selling airplanes.