Judicial Watch, a private entity, managed to get an e-mail from the White House Communications Director which the hapless Repugs at Congress could not get. The memo from Ben Rhodes (whose brother is a big wig at CBS News) orchestrates the talking points UN Ambassador Susan Rice was sent out with to spin the regimes failure in Benghazi which ended with the death of Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans. The same failure of which the regime did not even send help, and told some eager to go to stand down. The e-mail directed Rice to attribute the attack on a anti muslim video. The video lie was a cover up of their incompetence. Then they tried to cover up the cover up by denying they wrote the talking points, even suggesting that they only made one stylistic change. Now they are still lying, claiming that the e-mail released by court order for Benghazi correspondence, saying the e-mail is not about Benghazi. The Judicial Watch story which is two days old. The lies told yesterday, and today, by Jim Carney would have made Baghdad Bob look like a professional.
You only have to get as far as page 14 (out of more than 100) to get to the truth:
The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists [Editorial comment: Ya' think?] participated in the violent demonstrations.
This assessment may change as additional information is collected and analyzed and as currently available information continues to be evaluated.
It's very apparent that this so-called "smoking gun" email was not a coverup or an orchestrated attempt to mislead the public about the nature of the Benghazi attack. The email does not focus only on what happened at Benghazi. The email is about the violence-attended disturbances that were going on in many different countries, all whipped up by anti-American agitators who were using the Internet movie as their latest excuse or reason du jour:
Clearly, there are protests taking place in different countries around the world that are responding to the movie that has circulated on the Internet. For instance, we saw protests get out of hand in Yemen yesterday.
This new drumbeat about Benghazi is just a revival of the original, muddle-headed attempt to transform a major security debacle--not anticipating and preventing the Benghazi attack, and not being prepared to respond to the attack with counterforce in a rapid and effective manner--into something that it never was: an Obama administration coverup, or conspiracy to mislead the public about Benghazi.
This ploy didn't gain enough traction to cause Obama not to be reelected by a solid margin two months after the Benghazi attack. I think the false notes of this chorus were recognized by many voters in 2012 as a contrived and transparently political phonus-balonus, and only added to Obama's vote count, because reasonable voters didn't want to side with the "Benghazi truthers".
Political overreach that backfires: They should have exhibited Benghazi for what it was--administrative incompetence--instead of trying to transform it into political gold using an alchemy of distortion.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-02-2014).]
You know, I can't wait until I'm retired next year so I can chime in with my $.02. All I can say is we have had no shortage of political theater since the boomer generation took charge of the government in the early 90s... "And the hits just keep on coming!"
You only have to get as far as page 14 (out of more than 100) to get to the truth:
The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists [Editorial comment: Ya' think?] participated in the violent demonstrations.
This assessment may change as additional information is collected and analyzed and as currently available information continues to be evaluated.
It's very apparent that this so-called "smoking gun" email was not a coverup or an orchestrated attempt to mislead the public about the nature of the Benghazi attack. The email does not focus only on what happened at Benghazi. The email is about the violence-attended disturbances that were going on in many different countries, all whipped up by anti-American agitators who were using the Internet movie as their latest excuse or reason du jour:
Clearly, there are protests taking place in different countries around the world that are responding to the movie that has circulated on the Internet. For instance, we saw protests get out of hand in Yemen yesterday.
This new drumbeat about Benghazi is just a revival of the original, muddle-headed attempt to transform a major security debacle--not anticipating and preventing the Benghazi attack, and not being prepared to respond to the attack with counterforce in a rapid and effective manner--into something that it never was: an Obama administration coverup, or conspiracy to mislead the public about Benghazi.
This ploy didn't gain enough traction to cause Obama not to be reelected by a solid margin two months after the Benghazi attack. I think the false notes of this chorus were recognized by many voters in 2012 as a contrived and transparently political phonus-balonus, and only added to Obama's vote count, because reasonable voters didn't want to side with the "Benghazi truthers".
Political overreach that backfires: They should have exhibited Benghazi for what it was--administrative incompetence--instead of trying to transform it into political gold using an alchemy of distortion.
I have to partially agree. It was a screw up. The email stuff shows that there was a White House spin attempt. Republicans blew the whole thing up for political reasons. Both sides do this stuff all the time. I don't approve of either sides tactics.
[This message has been edited by dratts (edited 05-02-2014).]
Originally posted by rinselberg: You only have to get as far as page 14 (out of more than 100) to get to the truth:
Yet some people still won't get it, .
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex.
Which is not true, as testified by numerous people in front of the Congressional investigative panel. In fact, the testimony of ALL state there was no protest and that information was passed to all who needed to know. The regime also said everything they knew, they let us know. Which is also not true.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: This assessment may change as additional information is collected and analyzed and as currently available information continues to be evaluated.
Yet it never did, . When the bodies came home the President and Secretary of State told the grieving parents it was the video. The video was pushed by Susan Rice as the reason later that Sunday when she appeared on five Sunday news shows. Only twice has an administration put out a front man on all Sunday news shows in the last ?30? years. Why was it not Clinton ? The President also pushed the same narrative at the UN later that month.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: It's very apparent that this so-called "smoking gun" email was not a coverup or an orchestrated attempt to mislead the public about the nature of the Benghazi attack. The email does not focus only on what happened at Benghazi. The email is about the violence-attended disturbances that were going on in many different countries, all whipped up by anti-American agitators who were using the Internet movie as their latest excuse or reason du jour:
Yeah, like when an Ambassador and three Americans die in an Al Quida attack, the news people are gonna be asking about some protests in the Middle East, . The e-mail says ...
quote
"To convey that the United States is doing everything we can to protect our facilities and people abroad."
How does saying protests are video inspired do that ? To convey that the regime is doing everything it can to protect ... ? When they repeatedly turned down requests for more security ? Requests for security were not made for "protest" reasons. Why was this initially classified, and when provided, heavily redacted ? The time for "benefit of the doubt" or plausible deniability for this administration is long gone.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: This ploy didn't gain enough traction to cause Obama not to be reelected by a solid margin two months after the Benghazi attack.
Au contraire, the ploy did gain enough traction to help Obama hold power. Because it did not expose his lie that Al Quida is decimated, on the run. Political overreach that backfires: They should have exhibited Benghazi for what it was--administrative incompetence--instead of trying to transform it into political gold using an alchemy of distortion.[/QUOTE]
quote
Originally posted by cliffw: Then they tried to cover up the cover up by denying they wrote the talking points, even suggesting that they only made one stylistic change.
You only have to get as far as page 14 (out of more than 100) to get to the truth:
The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists [Editorial comment: Ya' think?] participated in the violent demonstrations.
This assessment may change as additional information is collected and analyzed and as currently available information continues to be evaluated.
It's very apparent that this so-called "smoking gun" email was not a coverup or an orchestrated attempt to mislead the public about the nature of the Benghazi attack. The email does not focus only on what happened at Benghazi. The email is about the violence-attended disturbances that were going on in many different countries, all whipped up by anti-American agitators who were using the Internet movie as their latest excuse or reason du jour:
Clearly, there are protests taking place in different countries around the world that are responding to the movie that has circulated on the Internet. For instance, we saw protests get out of hand in Yemen yesterday.
This new drumbeat about Benghazi is just a revival of the original, muddle-headed attempt to transform a major security debacle--not anticipating and preventing the Benghazi attack, and not being prepared to respond to the attack with counterforce in a rapid and effective manner--into something that it never was: an Obama administration coverup, or conspiracy to mislead the public about Benghazi.
This ploy didn't gain enough traction to cause Obama not to be reelected by a solid margin two months after the Benghazi attack. I think the false notes of this chorus were recognized by many voters in 2012 as a contrived and transparently political phonus-balonus, and only added to Obama's vote count, because reasonable voters didn't want to side with the "Benghazi truthers".
Political overreach that backfires: They should have exhibited Benghazi for what it was--administrative incompetence--instead of trying to transform it into political gold using an alchemy of distortion.
I agree with your points. But the administration has learned to not respond directly to accusations for a period of time. They know certain factions will just get more and more outlandish in their claims and then they finally respond. It doesn't seem to take long for some people to go overboard. The trick is to restrain yourself until they finally blurt out something totally wacko and then make them look crazy.
Look at the birth certificate. They could have released it at any time but they just let them crank up the crazy as long as they could. Some otherwise intelligent people finally got caught up in the frenzy and the time was ripe. They released it and the smart people immediately dropped it. They knew that got drawn in.
I wish this stuff didn't happen but it's not like both sides don't cause at lot of this themselves.
birth certificate on the White House website right now is a blatant fraud. Not only have I picked apart myself, I met and spoke with the lead investigators here in the fraud department that also analyzed it. BLOWS my mind that it sits there and people think its real.
birth certificate on the White House website right now is a blatant fraud. Not only have I picked apart myself, I met and spoke with the lead investigators here in the fraud department that also analyzed it. BLOWS my mind that it sits there and people think its real.
There was link some months ago here to a court case they are involved in where they (Obama lawyers) state unequivocally that it was/is a fake and therefor could not be accepted as evidence.
Of course it does nothing to prove or disprove his legitimacy but it sure looks bad.
I can't believe some people are so stupid that they still believe and defend these crooks.
Originally posted by TK: ... the administration has learned to not respond directly to accusations for a period of time. They know certain factions will just get more and more outlandish in their claims and then they finally respond. It doesn't seem to take long for some people to go overboard. The trick is to restrain yourself until they finally blurt out something totally wacko and then make them look crazy. Look at the birth certificate. They could have released it at any time but they just let them crank up the crazy as long as they could. Some otherwise intelligent people finally got caught up in the frenzy and the time was ripe. They released it and the smart people immediately dropped it.
Yeah, the Dumbs are good at that tactic, I gotta give 'em credit. The Repugnants, heh, they could dry up a wet dream. However, the official birth certificate was not released, was it ? Was the tactic to coral the Repugs, or to cloud the truth from the American people. We may never know. Is that the kind of government you want ? Political ? Now, a Select Committee is being empaneled to investigate Benghazi. The Dumb's are crying "bloody murder". Why ? Are they afraid of the truth ? The Repugs have also bungled the IRS scandal. It needs a Select Committee and a Special Prosecutor. It is one thing to bend the truth on a campaign trail, it is another thing to lie to the American people about the execution of your duties.
quote
Originally posted by Red88FF: I can't believe some people are so stupid that they still believe and defend these crooks.
You are just the man I have been looking for. I have some ocean front property in Arizona for sale., . Who are these people ?
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 05-02-2014).]
You only have to get as far as page 14 (out of more than 100) to get to the truth:
The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists [Editorial comment: Ya' think?] participated in the violent demonstrations.
This assessment may change as additional information is collected and analyzed and as currently available information continues to be evaluated.
It's very apparent that this so-called "smoking gun" email was not a coverup or an orchestrated attempt to mislead the public about the nature of the Benghazi attack. The email does not focus only on what happened at Benghazi. The email is about the violence-attended disturbances that were going on in many different countries, all whipped up by anti-American agitators who were using the Internet movie as their latest excuse or reason du jour:
Clearly, there are protests taking place in different countries around the world that are responding to the movie that has circulated on the Internet. For instance, we saw protests get out of hand in Yemen yesterday.
This new drumbeat about Benghazi is just a revival of the original, muddle-headed attempt to transform a major security debacle--not anticipating and preventing the Benghazi attack, and not being prepared to respond to the attack with counterforce in a rapid and effective manner--into something that it never was: an Obama administration coverup, or conspiracy to mislead the public about Benghazi.
This ploy didn't gain enough traction to cause Obama not to be reelected by a solid margin two months after the Benghazi attack. I think the false notes of this chorus were recognized by many voters in 2012 as a contrived and transparently political phonus-balonus, and only added to Obama's vote count, because reasonable voters didn't want to side with the "Benghazi truthers".
It is damning of the administration either way.
If it truly was believed that it was part of the unrest from the internet video, because they had seen a spontaneous protest erupt in violence elsewhere, and if in the talking points, their protection of our Embassy staff abroad is paramount to them, then it is indefensible that they didn't step up protection.
The fact that they didn't step up protection let's you know they didn't really consider the video the real cause of the attack. Or that they are completely incompetent bunglers (also very plausible). You can also tell that they were very concerned that this not be reflective of a failure of their policy. Regarding "the ploy" not getting enough traction, why do you think that is? It is because of a complicit mainstream media.
Had this happened under a republican, there would have been a non-stop media crucifixion of the administration. They didn't just sit back and not question Obama's administration. They actively covered for him. No WONDER it "didn't get traction".
To dratts, OF COURSE the Republicans make it a political issue. Because it was Obama's politics in the middle east that created the opportunity for the attack, and it was his politics to protect that caused the lack of a security force to protect the embassy, and it was his politics that caused no military response to protect his political narrative that his policy was working.
Originally posted by frontal lobe: Had this happened under a Republican [president], there would have been a non-stop media crucifixion of the administration.
I couldn't agree more with you about that.
When "W" was president, I was active on another forum which was like a photographic negative of this one. "W" could do no wrong right as far as most of that forum saw it. One guy called me a "Bushie" because of my habit of arguing against the prevailing direction of thought on that forum.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-02-2014).]
Originally posted by jediperk: You know, I can't wait until I'm retired next year so I can chime in with my $.02. All I can say is we have had no shortage of political theater since the boomer generation took charge of the government in the early 90s ...
the Liars lied ,then lied to protect there lie ,this required another lie to protect the wife cuckolded by Monica with her Liar husband . then more lies to protect the man who attended the hate america chuch for 20 years,,.. While our men were being killed ,,Obumbles was on the phone telling the israelis for an hour ,, that no ,he & the many Christian jew hating athiest & lib marist democraps did not want to gas the jews or whip,beat flail,scurge & laugh at a fake cripple jesus with a Cross circling around the democratic convention center in 2012, it was just talk,just a joke !! then more lies, lie after lie by the liars in chief so they could be re elected then more lies followed by a raging flood of lies flowing into a 2 year Niagra falls of lies now followed by the dude of lies..did you hear this guy DUDE!! he said there were no lies DUDE !! it was 2 years ago DUDE..
When "W" was president, I was active on another forum which was like a photographic negative of this one. "W" could do no wrong right as far as most of that forum saw it. One guy called me a "Bushie" because of my habit of arguing against the prevailing direction of thought on that forum.
Agreed, there's always those seemingly without a free mind that believe their side can do no wrong while the others can do no right. Thankfully they aren't usually the majority but often they're the loudest and most obnoxious.
Originally posted by cliffw: Now, a Select Committee is being empaneled to investigate Benghazi. The Dumb's are crying "bloody murder". Why ? Are they afraid of the truth ?
The State Department's answer to this news ?
quote
Why ? The amount of taxpayer dollars which have gone into investigations is incredibly ...
Wow ! Now the State Department is concerned about financial efficiency, . I guess that's why they did not provide security in Benghazi.
There was link some months ago here to a court case they are involved in where they (Obama lawyers) state unequivocally that it was/is a fake and therefor could not be accepted as evidence.
Of course it does nothing to prove or disprove his legitimacy but it sure looks bad.
I can't believe some people are so stupid that they still believe and defend these crooks.[/QUOTE]
it really is laughable except it is so sad at the same time.I met with the investigator Posse here in Arizona that did the investigation on the documents, I also have worked fraud case as a cop and when I looked at the information provided I just shake my head and utter disgust.
the document provided, even has fake safety paper in the background. Anyone Who knows the programs when you disect it will tell you unequivocally it is a complete fabrication from the ground up. The fact that people still to this day don't want to accept what is right in front of them blows my mind more than anything else.
I had a guy argue with me and would not accept the document as being fraud because he said it would shatter everything that he voted for with Obama and that really is the crux of the issue right there.
Honestly, it's not like we ALL didn't know this on here... Democrats, Republicans, Independents... all of us on here knew it was blatantly obvious. The Democrats argument was that we didn't know for sure so it was a non-scandal. The only thing that's changed is that it's now officially concerned so the Dems on here can stop pretending, and the Repubs on here have some vindication.
Agreed, there's always those seemingly without a free mind that believe their side can do no wrong while the others can do no right. Thankfully they aren't usually the majority but often they're the loudest and most obnoxious.
Yes some do not see the problems with the other side. But, there is a history of a president who lied to cover up a political instigated theft. And guess who actually sent him packing. Why the same party as he was. At least in that one occasion the Republican Party stood up and told tricky Dick that he was going to be impeached. The Republican party did not engage in the type of scurrilous activity that the Democrats currently are engaged in. Where are the Democrats who are outraged at this? Where are the Democrats who are outraged by the politicization of the IRS? Where are the Democrats who are incensed about the abuse of privacy and several of the amendments to the constitution by the NSA and this president.
Honestly, it's not like we ALL didn't know this on here... Democrats, Republicans, Independents... all of us on here knew it was blatantly obvious. The Democrats argument was that we didn't know for sure so it was a non-scandal. The only thing that's changed is that it's now officially concerned so the Dems on here can stop pretending, and the Repubs on here have some vindication.
Originally posted by MadMark: Yes some do not see the problems with the other side. But, there is a history of a president who lied to cover up a political instigated theft. And guess who actually sent him packing. Why the same party as he was. At least in that one occasion the Republican Party stood up and told tricky Dick that he was going to be impeached. The Republican party did not engage in the type of scurrilous activity that the Democrats currently are engaged in. Where are the Democrats who are outraged at this? Where are the Democrats who are outraged by the politicization of the IRS? Where are the Democrats who are incensed about the abuse of privacy and several of the amendments to the constitution by the NSA and this president.
Uh, that's not a good comparison considering we pulled 500 Sarin Gas Warheads out of the desert in Iraq. As a matter of fact, to his credit Bush could have politicized the find during his reelection bid but did not b/c the military did not know if we had found them all and we did not want the insurgents looking for them. I'll say this about Bush, he might not have been the most competent POTUS but when it comes to integrity for the office he was waay better than the previous two Dems who hold/held that office...
[This message has been edited by jediperk (edited 05-03-2014).]
Originally posted by jediperk: Uh, that's not a good comparison considering we pulled 500 Sarin Gas Warheads out of the desert in Iraq.
It is also a known fact that they used WMDs against the Iranian army and their own citizens (the Kurds) in the northern territories. Saddam hung himself by not allowing the UN to inspect for WMDs after he agreed to to save his neck during the first Gulf War. His threats to use WMDs if invaded didn't work out too well for him.
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 05-03-2014).]
Uh, that's not a good comparison considering we pulled 500 Sarin Gas Warheads out of the desert in Iraq. As a matter of fact, to his credit Bush could have politicized the find during his reelection bid but did not b/c the military did not know if we had found them all and we did not want the insurgents looking for them. I'll say this about Bush, he might not have been the most competent POTUS but when it comes to integrity for the office he was waay better than the previous two Dems who hold/held that office...
I can't believe that this is the first I've heard about this. All I remember is the story about the fake mobile chemical weapons vans. Found this, The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, though agent remaining in the weapons would be very valuable to terrorists and insurgents, Maples said.[121] It's not clear to me whether they were hidden or discarded. If you can find more information I would be very interested in hearing it.
[This message has been edited by dratts (edited 05-03-2014).]
I have to partially agree. It was a screw up. The email stuff shows that there was a White House spin attempt. Republicans blew the whole thing up for political reasons. Both sides do this stuff all the time. I don't approve of either sides tactics.
Since there has been deflection all over the place I would like to add some more; Iraqi war, 4,486 americans killed, over !,000,000 killed including civilian during the war and occupation. Four killed/over one million killed. See the ratio? I want to know everything there is to know about Benghazi, but the political noise is way out of proportion. Blame whoever is guilty just turn down the volume a bit. I don't like either party but if I were a Republican I would be very worried that my party was so desperate and afraid that they are reduced to making as much noise as they can about this event.
Iraq war 3,486 Americans killed, over 1.000.000 total killed including civilians during the war and the occupation. four killed/over one million killed. I can see why we are so upset about the four! Bad stuff all around, just trying to put it in perspective. I'm for no free pass on Benghazi, in fact I would like to know everything there is to know about it, but the POLITICAL noise is way, way,way out of proportion.
It is also know fact that they used WMDs against the Iranian army and their own citizens (the Kurds) in the northern territories. Saddam hung himself by not allowing the UN to inspect for WMDs after he agreed to to save his neck during the first Gulf War. His threats to use WMDs if invaded didn't work out too well for him.
The Iran/Iraq war which we supported even while he used those chemical weapons. We are not guiltless on this count and maybe even a bit hypocritical. You're right about his threats to use WMDs, that bluff backfired big time.
That sure would suck all the fun out of life. It isn't funny if you have to point it out. You have been here over a month and should know by now who is sarcastic.
That sure would suck all the fun out of life. It isn't funny if you have to point it out. You have been here over a month and should know by now who is sarcastic.
Seams to be the consensus. I did not realize my sarcasms had in fact been met with more sarcasm. Here let me play.
One, two three go!
Jeez you guys! the only weapons of mass destruction that were found were old, you know like really old so they would not be any danger to anybody, what are you stupid? and and and and hey! we sold him those weapons,,,,,,,,,,.................... you know, the ones that he did not have................ you guys must get all you news from faux. Bush is an evil bad bad man and Obama is nothing but pure awesome and if you had a time machine you would go back and murder him in his stroller...........
[This message has been edited by Red88FF (edited 05-03-2014).]
.
. When the bodies came home the President and Secretary of State told the grieving parents it was the video. The video was pushed by Susan Rice as the reason later that Sunday when she appeared on five Sunday news shows. Only twice has an administration put out a front man on all Sunday news shows in the last ?30? years. Why was it not Clinton ? The President also pushed the same narrative at the UN later that month.
. Who are these people ?
.
