White House Benghazi email called "smoking gun"

[Clocker]

A newly released email (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/29/benghazi-emails-suggest-white-house-aide-involved-in-prepping-rice-for-video/) is being called the "smoking gun" proving that the Benghazi "video" story was a purely political cover up. The email is from Ben Rhodes, at the time an assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser for strategic communications.

The subject is the prepping of Susan Rice for her infamous Sunday morning TV show appearances.
The email lists the following two goals, among others:

"To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy."

"To reinforce the President and Administration's strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges."

[woodtoo]

This can't be true can it Mostie?

Please explain in laymans terms.

Maybe the source?

[mostpost]

A newly released email (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/29/benghazi-emails-suggest-white-house-aide-involved-in-prepping-rice-for-video/) is being called the "smoking gun" proving that the Benghazi "video" story was a purely political cover up. The email is from Ben Rhodes, at the time an assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser for strategic communications.

The subject is the prepping of Susan Rice for her infamous Sunday morning TV show appearances.
The email lists the following two goals, among others:

"To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy."

"To reinforce the President and Administration's strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges."
Really? You think that the Rhodes e-mail proves a "purely political cover up."
I would suggest you go back to second grade and learn how to read. Apparently you are unaware that there were many protests about the video throughout the Arab world. And you forget that even before the attack occurred in Benghazi, the administration was being criticized for its policies in Syria, in Egypt and in Libya. Oh yeah, I forgot Iran.

You are also seeing things that don't exist. Nowhere in the email does Rhodes connect the attack at Benghazi to a protest. In fact the attack is not even mentioned. What does that mean? It means that Rhodes was briefing Rice on a specific area-the diplomatic ramifications of the video and the protests. It makes no sense that he would brief her on the attack at Benghazi. That was undoubtedly done by someone in the State Department or the Defense Department or maybe the CIA.

And let's not forget that on September 14, while it was pretty much known that the attack was a separate incident, it was unclear whether there had been a protest at the compound.

[Tom]

I have proof Rice was lying.
Her lips were moving.

[woodtoo]

Have you watched the video?

[JustRalph]

Put on your tap shoes

[Clocker]

I would suggest you go back to second grade and learn how to read.



Well, aren't we snippy. Perhaps you need to go back even further than 2nd grade and learn how to connect the dots:

o Rice was briefed at 4pm on Saturday

o Those listed in the memo as involved in the briefing include White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, Deputy Press Secretary Joshua Earnest, then-White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer, then-White House Deputy Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri, and then-White House Senior Advisor and political strategist Davie Plouffe. Political hacks every one.

o There is no evidence that Rice was briefed by Defense, CIA, etc., and there was some testimony to the contrary before Congress

o Rice then went on five Sunday morning news shows and specifically stated that the attack on the Benghazi consulate was spontaneous and the result of a video.

But since the attack was not mentioned in the memo, therefore the attack could not possibly have been addressed in the Saturday briefing? :D

[JustRalph]

Sharyl Attkisson no longer encumbered by her employer, just posted on today's docs and email


https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=281043282072734&id=150043525172711&refid=17

White House Directed Incorrect Benghazi Narrative
by Sharyl Attkisson April 29, 2014

Newly-released documents reveal direct White House involvement in steering the public narrative about the September 11, 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya, toward that of a spontaneous protest that never happened.

One of the operative documents, which the government had withheld from Congress and reporters for a year and a half, is an internal September 14, 2012 email to White House press officials from Ben Rhodes, President Obama’s Assistant and Deputy National Security Advisor. (Disclosure: Ben Rhodes is the brother of David Rhodes, the President of CBS News, where I was employed until March.)

In the email, Ben Rhodes lists as a “goal” the White House desire “To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure or policy.”

The email is entitled, “RE: PREP CALL with Susan, Saturday at 4:00 pm ET” and refers to White House involvement in preparing then-U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice for her upcoming appearance on Sunday television network political talk shows.

The Rhodes email states that another “goal” is “To reinforce the President and Administration’s strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges.”

A court compelled the release of the documents, which were heavily-redacted, to the conservative watchdog group JudicialWatch, which has sued the government over its failed Freedom of Information responses. I have also requested Benghazi-related documents under Freedom of Information law, but the government has only produced a few pages to date.

Today, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) called the Rhodes email the “smoking gun” showing the “political manipulation by the White House” after the attacks.

“The political shop at the White House took over early on,” Graham told me. “They understood it was a terrorist attack, that they had a political problem, and were going to handle it politically. They weren’t going to entertain anything other than what they wanted the public to hear.”

USA Today quotes a spokesman for the White House National Security Council reacting to the Rhodes’ email by stating that it contains general talking points on unrest spreading throughout the region in response to an offensive video, and also made clear that "our primary goals" included the safety of U.S. personnel in the field and bringing those responsible for the attacks to justice.

Since the deadly attacks on the U.S. missions in Benghazi, there have been persistent allegations that the Obama administration developed a false political narrative to downplay or hide the fact that terrorists had struck. The President had campaigned by stating that al Qaeda was “on the run,” and Republicans have argued that news of a terrorist attack eight weeks before the election could have decimated his re-election campaign. Four Americans were killed in the assaults, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens.

White House officials copied on the Rhodes “goal” email include Press Secretary Jay Carney, then-Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer, then-White House Senior Advisor David Plouffe, then-White House Deputy Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri and Deputy Press Secretary Josh Earnest. Earnest has failed to respond to more than a year’s worth of my emails and phone calls in my effort to obtain official White House photographs taken the night of the Benghazi attacks. The White House photo office had told me that Earnest’s personal approval was needed for the photos to be released.

Rhodes has emerged as a key figure in the controversy but hasn’t yet been asked to provide testimony to Congress.

Changed classification?

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) told me today that the government apparently tried to keep the Rhodes email out of Congress and the public’s hands by classifying it after-the-fact.

“They retroactively changed the classification,” Chaffetz says. “That was an unclassified document and they changed it to classified.”

In the past month, the government has supplied 3,200 new Benghazi-related documents under Congressional subpoena. In some instances, Congressional members and their staff are only permitted to see the documents during certain time periods in a review room, and cannot remove them or make copies.

Chaffetz says that the State Department redacted more material on the copies provided to Congress than on those that it was forced to provide to JudicialWatch.

One of the most heavily-redacted email exchanges is entitled, “FOX News: US officials knew Libya attack was terrorism within 24 hours, sources confirm.” The Fox News article was circulated among dozens of officials including Rhodes and then-Deputy National Security Advisor Denis McDonough but the content of their email discussion is hidden.

“Topline Points”

An internal document provided by the State Department dated Sept. 14, 2012 is titled, “Topline Points” and poses answers to a series of questions apparently in preparation for the briefing to be provided to Ambassador Rice prior to her talk show appearances. The document fails to mention terrorism, although it had been repeated throughout the early versions of the talking points, and many government officials have said that they had already concluded by that time that terrorism was to blame.

“What’s your response to the Independent story that says we have intelligence 48 hours in advance of the Benghazi attack that was ignored?” is one question posed in the briefing memo. The suggested answer: “This story is absolutely wrong. We are not aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. mission was planned or imminent. We also see indications that this action was related to the video that has sparked protests in other countries.”

But the final sentence to the answer is expanded and developed in the “PREP CALL with Susan” email from Rhodes at 8:09pm on Friday, September 14, 2012. It adds the phrase “spontaneously inspired” and also refers to the attack as “demonstrations” that “evolved.”

“The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex,” reads the Friday night email from Rhodes to White House press officials.

Obama administration officials have insisted they were acting on “the best intelligence available at the time” and that they clarified the story as they got more information.

But taken as a whole, the documents and testimony revealed since the attacks support the idea that the administration’s avoidance of the word “terrorism” was a strategy rather than an accident or mistake.

White House Involvement

Relatively few documents have been provided that shed light on White House involvement in the post-Benghazi narrative. Previously, emails showed that then-deputy national security adviser Denis McDonough, on Rhodes' behalf, assigned Hillary Clinton-aide Jake Sullivan to work with Deputy Director of the C.I.A. Mike Morell to edit the talking points on Benghazi.

As the various agencies worked to edit and approve the talking points on Sept. 14, Rhodes emailed that there would be a Deputies meeting the next morning to work out the issues. "That's polite code for let's not debate this on e-mail for 18 hours," one official involved told me last year.

Multiple government officials including those in the military, State Department and C.I.A. have stated in documents or under questioning that they immediately believed the attacks, using heavy weaponry and mortar shells, were the work of terrorists. Prior to the attacks, there had been multiple warnings of al Qaeda threats in Libya and, specifically, in Benghazi.

In fact, in an early version of the government’s “talking points,” the C.I.A. stated that it had “produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qa'ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya,” and that “These noted that, since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador's convoy. We cannot rule out the individuals has previously surveilled the U.S. facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks." The administration later removed these C.I.A. disclosures about the advance warning of a threat.

Morell testified to Congress earlier this month that he, and not the White House, was responsible for making some of the most controversial revisions to the talking points, including removing the language about the advance warnings. Morell has since gone to work as counsel for Beacon Global Strategies, a strategic relations PR firm dominated by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Obama administration officials. (Disclosure: In January, Morell was hired as an analyst for CBS News where I was previously employed.)

An administration official who asked not to be identified previously told me that “spontaneous” protests was probably not the right word to use in the talking points, but that there was no intent to deceive.

Sen. Graham has a different view.

“They understood it was a terrorist attack, that they had a political problem and they were going to handle it politically. They saw it as a chink in the President’s armor and they tried to repair it,” says Graham.

[mostpost]

Well, aren't we snippy. Perhaps you need to go back even further than 2nd grade and learn how to connect the dots:

o Rice was briefed at 4pm on Saturday

o Those listed in the memo as involved in the briefing include White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, Deputy Press Secretary Joshua Earnest, then-White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer, then-White House Deputy Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri, and then-White House Senior Advisor and political strategist Davie Plouffe. Political hacks every one.

o There is no evidence that Rice was briefed by Defense, CIA, etc., and there was some testimony to the contrary before Congress

o Rice then went on five Sunday morning news shows and specifically stated that the attack on the Benghazi consulate was spontaneous and the result of a video.

But since the attack was not mentioned in the memo, therefore the attack could not possibly have been addressed in the Saturday briefing? :D
The people you listed were not the people involved in the briefing. They were the ones the the email was sent to about the briefing by Rhodes. The main clue is the use of the word "sent" in front of their names.

I did not say the attack was never discussed in the briefing. I said there was nothing in the email about such a discussion.

[Tom]

John Dean is salivating.

[Clocker]

The people you listed were not the people involved in the briefing.

You don't know that. And it was not a briefing, it was a "prep call", a conference call to prep her for her TV appearances. There is no indication yet how many of those people were on the call.

And the liberal Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/in-the-loop/wp/2014/04/29/white-house-email-reinforces-benghazi-talking-points/) agrees that this is further evidence that Rice was sent out to push a story that the attack was a spontaneous attack incited by a video.

New White House e-mails made public Tuesday by conservative Judicial Watch further support that the Obama team wanted then-U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice to stress that a video disparaging the Prophet Muhammad was the catalyst for a series of anti-American protests across the Islamic world, including the deadly attacks on the Benghazi mission in September 2012.

In an e-mail with the subject line: “PREP CALL with Susan,” deputy national security adviser for strategic communications Ben Rhodes wrote that one of the goals before Rice went on the Sunday news shows after the killing of four Americans was to “underscore these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.”

The Post goes on to say, very politely, that Rice was a mouthpiece for the administration spin on the story.

Ultimately, the new e-mails do little more than buttress what has been known for a year about the immediate communication among the Obama team as it rushed to cobble together talking points from the information it had to feed to Rice, who was only asked late in the day Friday to be the White House mouthpiece.

In short, you say Rice was briefed, the Post says the White House cobbled together a story it fed to Rice. Gee, who to believe? :confused:

[johnhannibalsmith]

Does anyone need this "smoking gun" to know something that has been self-evident all along? There are a lot of ways for guys like mosite to debate the merit of this event and the ensuing partisan outrage, but I have yet to comprehend why otherwise normal, but even partisan, people want to pretend that the whole immediate reaction and stupid cover story was anything other than a pile of shit fed to us because of politics. If mosite and the like are still going to pretend that the nonsense lies these amateurs dreamed up for us is actually rooted in some reality, then this "evidence" obviously isn't going to snap them back into the real world of at least basic credibility and common sense. I don't think Obama laughing and admitting that it was a lame attempt could even free them from this impossible position now.

[woodtoo]

He must have,Jay Carney says e-mail not about Benghazi.but broader middle east policy.:lol:

[Clocker]

He must have,Jay Carney says e-mail not about Benghazi.but broader middle east policy.:lol:

Even though the administration provided the email in response to a freedom of information request for emails specifically about Benghazi.

[woodtoo]

I thought the truth would set you free,these guys are like addicts unwilling to
accept and recover.

Related and unrelated a British political candidate was arrested for quoting
Winston Churchill on the weekend.No,really.

[Tom]

Jay Carney - what a revolting little weasel he is.
I can see him as Bubba's Bath Tub toy in prison.

Everyone know the WH Press secretary is a paid liar, but this bottom feeder is a professional.

[Greyfox]

Krauthammer offers his opinion on the Benghazi e mail.

The modern day equivalent to the Nixon Tapes.

"Carney - they don't pay him enough.....When Carney denies it he simply looks foolish."

bxtr9_8yoqI

[FantasticDan]

:bang: :sleeping:

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/another-shooting-gun-fires-blanks

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/benghazi-conspiracy-theorists-come-unglued

[redshift1]

Krauthammer offers his opinion on the Benghazi e mail.

The modern day equivalent to the Nixon Tapes.



Only in an alternate reality where mindless repetition is rewarded.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Only in an alternate reality where mindless repetition is rewarded.

Wait... mindless repetition isn't rewarded in the standard version of reality?

[Tom]

This is far more serious than Watergate ever was.
Americans murdered trumps a botched break in any day.
So sad the left holds the lives of Americans in service in such low esteem.

[HUSKER55]

allah is proud. how difficult to connect that dot.

[Clocker]

Get the popcorn ready.

After more than two years of stonewalling from the Obama administration, House Speaker John Boehner has confirmed (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/05/02/benghazi-select-committee-n1832705?utm_source=BreakingOnTownhallWidget_4&utm_medium=story&utm_campaign=BreakingOnTownhall) he will appoint a Special Committee to investigate Benghazi with Congressman Trey Gowdy leading the way.

Gowdy makes Issa look like a polite moderate in comparison. I'd buy a ticket to watch this one. When Susan Rice was on Meet the Press earlier this year, Gowdy dismissed the show as a puff piece. He said that he had been asked tougher questions at a fast food drive through.

[FantasticDan]

Get the popcorn ready.Agreed. Here's a preview:

a4-spBDcJyk

[Clocker]

Agreed. Here's a preview:

a4-spBDcJyk



Oh good, you found the video of the Susan Rice interview on Meet the Press that Gowdy was talking about. Thanks for sharing that.

[Clocker]

Even the folks at MSNBC (http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=1630366) had to admit that the White House is in trouble with Benghazi, and that Jay Carney is making it worse.

A large “Morning Joe” panel on MSNBC universally panned White House press secretary Jay Carney’s response to damning new information on Benghazi, with Joe Scarborough saying it’s “very tough to see him conducting himself” this way and Ron Fournier claiming he’s “getting Baghdad Bob flashbacks.”

Scarborough started the attack, noting that previous press secretaries “were able to deliver bad news in a way that — I’ll just be blunt — this current White House has not been able to deliver news … for somebody that’s known Jay Carney for a long time and likes Jay Carney personally, it’s very tough to see him conducting himself in the way he’s conducting himself. What’s going on inside the White House?”

National Journal’s Ron Fournier noted that “this White House is really good at winning the news cycle, and in doing so they lose the public’s trust. And there’s not a better story to illustrate that right now than Benghazi.”

“These issues splash over to the president’s credibility across the board,” Fournier explained. “And I think this credibility issue is why — and not just on Benghazi — is why his numbers have been coming down.”

[hcap]

The usual from the usual suspects. What else is new in the continuing 24/7/354 ant-O clambake?

Another take on Benghazi

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/05/gop-benghazi-fever-issa-boehner-ben-rhodes

Why There Is No Cure for the GOP's Benghazi Fever

....On Friday, the Republicans went full Benghazi. House Speaker John Boehner announced he was setting up a special House committee to investigate the attack—that is, the Obama White House's response to it. Meanwhile, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), the chair of the House government oversight committee, subpoenaed Secretary of State John Kerry to testify before his committee on May 21 about the State Department's handling of GOP congressional inquiries about Benghazi. (Apparently, Issa is now probing a supposed cover-up of the original supposed cover-up.)

[Clocker]

The usual from the usual suspects. What else is new in the continuing 24/7/354 ant-O clambake?

The Big "O" is history. He is an ineffectual, discredited, lying lame duck. Hilllary is now the guest of honor at the clambake.

Dear old Mother Jones refuses to acknowledge the message and attacks the messengers. The administration, led by Madam Secy of State, turned the tragedy to their own political advantage and repeatedly lied about it. Like Watergate, the cover up is making it worse.

Worse, largely ignored by the politicians on both sides of the aisle is the human side of it. Four Americans died while serving their country. Hillary and Obama made great political hay with solemn vows to pursue the perpetrators to the ends of the earth and see that justice is served. There has been virtually no news since Day One of any efforts, let alone accomplishments, in that area.

[Clocker]

Harry Reid responds (http://www.reid.senate.gov/press_releases/2014-02-05-reid-statement-on-republicans-putting-conspiracy-theories-before-the-middle-class#.U2Pmxa1dXWE) to the announcement of a special committee on Benghazi, and as usual gets right to the heart of the issue:

Republicans care more about defending billionaires like the Koch brothers and trying to rekindle debunked right-wing conspiracy theories than raising the minimum wage or ensuring women receive equal pay for equal work.

[classhandicapper]

Bush was bad, but Obama is such a corrupt lying lightweight, it would be comical, if we weren't all going to pay the price for 8 years of this nitwit.

[classhandicapper]

Harry Reid responds (http://www.reid.senate.gov/press_releases/2014-02-05-reid-statement-on-republicans-putting-conspiracy-theories-before-the-middle-class#.U2Pmxa1dXWE) to the announcement of a special committee on Benghazi, and as usual gets right to the heart of the issue:


Harry Reid won't go to hell when he dies because Satan wants nothing to do with him.

[Clocker]

Bush was bad, but Obama is such a corrupt lying lightweight, it would be comical, if we weren't all going to pay the price for 8 years of this nitwit.

Politico did a survey (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/04/whca-survey-the-white-house-beat-uncovered-106071.html#ixzz30QMJyud4?ml=m_mm) of White House correspondents. One of the questions was which White House, Bush or Obama, they considered to be more forthcoming with information for reporters. The responses:

Bush 41%

Obama 5%

About the same 13%

Not sure 41%

Asked if they agreed with a statement of a long time reporter that the Obama White House was the most secretive she had ever covered,

Agreed 42%

Disagreed 20%

Not sure 37%

[Tom]

Harry Reid won't go to hell when he dies because Satan wants nothing to do with him.
He died in 1980 - the only place would take the soul of a POS like him was.......the senate! :lol:

[tucker6]

I don't like olives. :ThmbDown:
Thaskalos will be unhappy to hear of this ...

[tucker6]

Politico did a survey (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/04/whca-survey-the-white-house-beat-uncovered-106071.html#ixzz30QMJyud4?ml=m_mm) of White House correspondents. One of the questions was which White House, Bush or Obama, they considered to be more forthcoming with information for reporters. The responses:

Bush 41%

Obama 5%

About the same 13%

Not sure 41%

Asked if they agreed with a statement of a long time reporter that the Obama White House was the most secretive she had ever covered,

Agreed 42%

Disagreed 20%

Not sure 37%
Didn't Obama promise us the most transparent administration in history as he was running for his 1st term? If so, this poll cannot be right. It just can't?!?!

[Tom]

He is transparent - anyone with half a brain can see right through him.

[Clocker]

He is transparent - anyone with half a brain can see right through him.

That's not a very nice thing to say about the American voters.

[davew]

Harry Reid won't go to hell when he dies because Satan wants nothing to do with him.

He is a Mormon and will go to spirit prison.

[Tom]

That's not a very nice thing to say about the American voters.

This is true.....47% can't see through him.

[FantasticDan]

Jon Stewart trending today for showcasing Benghazi hypocrisy:

nUGBGUn-7i4

[Tom]

Good one.
Another Late night clown heard from. :sleeping:

[Tom]

Anyone got a video that shows a wife of one of the Navy Seals murdered that night, giving her take on it all?

Bet is a hoot!

[FantasticDan]

Okay, I'll just assume you didn't watch the video.. :sleeping:

Here's a link that'll boil it down for you. Should help a lot! :ThmbUp:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2014/05/06/jon-stewart-of-the-daily-show-cites-benghazi-double-standard-via-fox-news-clips/

[johnhannibalsmith]

Jon Stewart trending today for showcasing Benghazi hypocrisy:

...

Good bit and I generally like Stewart because he may just be the best spokesperson for his side. At least it can be entertaining and the absurd is celebrated.

But if his advice on this one is that we should just not care about lies about important things, politicized for the gain or aspirations of party or individual, simply because "we've seen this act before" -- he's speaking only to his devotees and missing a whole lot of us that didn't much care for the former either.

That's a weak rebuttal and is the rare time that he doesn't make a good spokesperson. The solution to these sorts of events is not to celebrate and encourage apathy just because some asshole on FOX wasn't upset about past failures. To this day we hear about the "Bush lies" as part of every day partisan discourse, so while the movie may be old, it's still shown prominently in this country. Either get off the original or get on the sequel. If you're getting off, then you're doing what Stewart seems to be suggesting... rolling over to the inherent evils in government.

[Tom]

Okay, I'll just assume you didn't watch the video.. :sleeping:

Here's a link that'll boil it down for you. Should help a lot! :ThmbUp:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2014/05/06/jon-stewart-of-the-daily-show-cites-benghazi-double-standard-via-fox-news-clips/

Article is even lamer than the LNJO (hint: Late Night JO)
No double standard at all. This was an intelligence failure alright - we put stupid people in the White House. The people on the scene asked for protections and were denied because it would have looked bad for the POSPOTUS campaign that Al Qeda was dead. This was a specific event, not a generality that the WH briefing was. You what would have prevented 9/11 from being anywhere near what it was? A-HOLE union people at Logan airport doing their jobs. They LET the terrorists board the planes. How was Bush supposed to stop lazy people from slacking off and not doing what they are supposed to do?

At least after 9/22 Bush did not lie about it for weeks and blame it one a video.

[davew]

Article is even lamer than the LNJO (hint: Late Night JO)
No double standard at all. This was an intelligence failure alright - we put stupid people in the White House. The people on the scene asked for protections and were denied because it would have looked bad for the POSPOTUS campaign that Al Qeda was dead. This was a specific event, not a generality that the WH briefing was. You what would have prevented 9/11 from being anywhere near what it was? A-HOLE union people at Logan airport doing their jobs. They LET the terrorists board the planes. How was Bush supposed to stop lazy people from slacking off and not doing what they are supposed to do?

At least after 9/22 Bush did not lie about it for weeks and blame it one a video.

It wasn't Al-Qaeda, it was Ansar al-Sharia. But is Osama Bin Laden really dead?

[JustRalph]

The failure was pretty damn basic. The Ambassodor asked for more security multiple times. He was denied multiple times. People died.

Pretty basic stuff really. If the same thing happen in the military, unit commanders right through the General Officers would all be fired in disgrace.

Same in private industry. Police work, Security work etc

We still don't know the location of the President during the hours that these men were killed. I think there is a story there.

[Clocker]

We still don't know the location of the President during the hours that these men were killed. I think there is a story there.

I think the only story here is one of disinterest, if not neglect, on the part of the president. All evidence indicates that he was in the White House that evening. He is well known for knocking off work at dinner time and spending the rest of the evening in the residence, where he prefers to work alone on policy, since he does it so much better than any of his "expert advisers".

[JustRalph]

The Dems are taking it very seriously

http://twitchy.com/2014/05/07/pervert-democrat-makes-benghazi-masturbation-joke-yes-you-just-read-that/?utm_source=autotweet&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=twitter

[fast4522]

Response to # 45:

I think it is quite fair to lay blame on President Bush for 9/11 because it was during his watch, complacency is a killer. The rose colored glasses that all Americans once wore came off that day, as the change is forever lasting and the buck does indeed stop at the President for the safety of all Americans. It is in fact an American President's greatest charter, the executive orders any President issues have no greater meaning than protecting Americans. That being said, giving President Bush a pass for 9/11 lays the bullshit for giving President Obama a pass for Benghazi. Benghazi is what this thread is all about, and sure as shit every attempt was made by the White house to cover it up. No Pace Advantage member here should post differently, people who serve take an oath that we all should respect out of decency. American lives lost should never involve a cover up, no matter what.

[tucker6]

Response to # 45:

I think it is quite fair to lay blame on President Bush for 9/11 because it was during his watch, complacency is a killer. The rose colored glasses that all Americans once wore came off that day, as the change is forever lasting and the buck does indeed stop at the President for the safety of all Americans. It is in fact an American President's greatest charter, the executive orders any President issues have no greater meaning than protecting Americans. That being said, giving President Bush a pass for 9/11 lays the bullshit for giving President Obama a pass for Benghazi. Benghazi is what this thread is all about, and sure as shit every attempt was made by the White house to cover it up. No Pace Advantage member here should post differently, people who serve take an oath that we all should respect out of decency. American lives lost should never involve a cover up, no matter what.
I disagree with blame laying. The difference between 9/11 and Bush, and Benghazi and Obama, is that Bush was only in office for 8 months before 9/11, whereas Obama was in office for 4 years. The breakdowns that allowed a 9/11 were already in the "pipeline". Does anyone believe a newly installed president can affect national security so quickly on such a large scale. On the other hand, four years is plenty of time given 9/11 for a protocol for additional security to be in place such as at Benghazi.

[AndyC]

I disagree with blame laying. The difference between 9/11 and Bush, and Benghazi and Obama, is that Bush was only in office for 8 months before 9/11, whereas Obama was in office for 4 years. The breakdowns that allowed a 9/11 were already in the "pipeline". Does anyone believe a newly installed president can affect national security so quickly on such a large scale. On the other hand, four years is plenty of time given 9/11 for a protocol for additional security to be in place such as at Benghazi.

It's ridiculous to think that a president has the power to stop all bad things from happening. To me, it is how a president responds to the bad that happens that makes him a good or bad leader. Responding to Benghazi it seems that Obama was more concerned with any political fallout that might happen as opposed to dealing with the situation in the best interests of the US.

[Clocker]

Responding to Benghazi it seems that Obama was more concerned with any political fallout that might happen as opposed to dealing with the situation in the best interests of the US.

Obama's #1 concern in any situation is Obama. He goes to great lengths to avoid responsibility for any problem. Nothing is ever his fault. It's someone else's fault. Or people didn't understand what he said or promised. The closest he ever comes to accepting responsibility is to say that perhaps he didn't explain something well enough. Implying, of course, that the problem was that people were too stupid to understand his brilliance.

If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. Period. Unless of course your plan changes. But you should have known that, you silly little person. So he didn't lie, you just didn't understand, and it's your fault.

[Tom]

TO be fair, the first thing Bush should have done after he took his oath was attack Yemen.

Remember the U.S.S Cole.
That demanded, and still demands, a serious response.

[tucker6]

The aircraft training the terrorists took were done under Clinton. How can that be Bush's fault? I'm no fan of Bush, but we're asking him to be a savant about something ten levels below his pay grade that happened before he took office. Given the evidence collected under the Clinton admin about the growing threat, a bunch of Saudis taking lessons on how to fly a plane but not land it should have given more than a few people pause while Clinton was still in office.

Everyone knew Libya was a bad place. When the ambassador asks for more security, you give it to him.

[Clocker]

The Democrats are whining about the Republicans using the Benghazi issue to raise funds for the November elections.

So the Democrats are now using the GOP fund raising issue to raise funds for the November election. Story here.
(http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/08/democrats-fundraise-off-gop-fundraising-off-of-benghazi/)

[Clocker]

Everyone knew Libya was a bad place. When the ambassador asks for more security, you give it to him.

When the ambassador needs more security above a normal level, you close up shop and send everyone home. The only reason we run an embassy in most places like that is as a front for the CIA. I can't imagine what we could hope to accomplish there that could not be done in a neutral site in the region.

[Tom]

Somehow, all this is connected the stash of WMD we have lost over here.
There is a massive cover up going on.

[fast4522]

President George W. Bush is a decent man, I voted for him twice as I also did for his father when he was in office. Even decent men make mistakes, every day they sit in meetings full of advisers and get bombarded with briefings filled with bad news and then decide what to do. I am a Bush person who says it does not matter how many months into a term because it was on the man's watch, in all likelihood few if any could have done better. President George W. Bush accepts shortcomings of his administration and makes time to spend with the vets on a personal level all the time. President Obama accepts no shortcomings for Benghazi period, that is exactly why we are still having Congregational hearings.

[fast4522]

TO be fair, the first thing Bush should have done after he took his oath was attack Yemen.

Remember the U.S.S Cole.
That demanded, and still demands, a serious response.


US officers killed 2 Yemenis during April abduction attempt, witnesses give accounts



http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/05/10/us-officers-killed-2-yemenis-during-april-abduction-attempt/?intcmp=latestnews&intcmp=latestnews

[riskman]

When the ambassador needs more security above a normal level, you close up shop and send everyone home. The only reason we run an embassy in most places like that is as a front for the CIA. I can't imagine what we could hope to accomplish there that could not be done in a neutral site in the region.


These statements in bold is what I feel is the bottom line. The Benghazi location should have been shut down. This location was an accident ready to happen.

[fast4522]

The Central Intelligence Agency should have had double the presence specifically at that location with much more security. The employees of the Central Intelligence Agency are American workers, of equal importance if not greater importance than a lets say Postal employee or social worker. Closing up shop is not an viable option because it puts good people and valuable assets at risk.

[hcap]

An interesting graph. Here's what happens on Fox when Obamacare succeeds
These numbers, pulled from every Fox transcript on Nexis for the dates in question, tells the story of what happens when it becomes clear that Obamacare is succeeding: Conservatives start avoiding Obamacare ... and start spending their time talking about other stuff, like Benghazi:

[Clocker]

when Obamacare succeeds


http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-laughing025.gif


Did you bring enough Kool Aid for the whole class?

[hcap]

http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-laughing025.gif


Did you bring enough Kool Aid for the whole class?It's all going for the senate repug Benghazi Hearings :lol:

And you

[JustRalph]

I guess you missed the report today that 75% of those enrolled already had insurance before Obamacare?

Success for Dems is proposing to insure 30 million uninsured people, forcing 8 million to sign up, actually insuring two million who never had insurance and screaming "success" at the top of their lungs. All the while knowing that only 75% of the two million have paid their premiums.

That's quite the high bar to set..... :rolleyes:

[mostpost]

I disagree with blame laying. The difference between 9/11 and Bush, and Benghazi and Obama, is that Bush was only in office for 8 months before 9/11, whereas Obama was in office for 4 years. The breakdowns that allowed a 9/11 were already in the "pipeline". Does anyone believe a newly installed president can affect national security so quickly on such a large scale. On the other hand, four years is plenty of time given 9/11 for a protocol for additional security to be in place such as at Benghazi.
There were a few other differences. Such as the fact that more than 3,000 died on 9-11 and 4 died at Benghazi. And the fact that 9-11 occurred in this country whereas Benghazi occurred in Libya.

Bush was in office for eight months before 9/11 and in those eight months the anti terrorism task force met one time and it reported to Bush never. While Clinton was president the task force met daily and reported to Clinton once or twice a week-more often if needed.

[davew]

I think the biggest complaint many republicans have is that the administration outright lied about what happened in Benghazi.

If a company lied to get investors money it would be considered fraud. (Similar to executive branch lying to get votes before major election) I have a difficult time saying that it is just politics and that is the way the game is played, so it is alright.

[Tom]

They said the Ambassador went there independently. That was a lie - Hillary send him there.

The press has already picked her as the next prez, so an investigation is a must - to get the truth out there about this lying, murdering, bitch.
The dems are running scared - they want no part this because they know the outcome is certain to pull back the curtain on Obama and his incompetent people.

[JustRalph]

While Clinton was president the task force met daily and reported to Clinton once or twice a week-more often if needed.

And yet they passed on arresting Bin Ladin 11-16 times depending on who you believe

Meetings are great, if they produce results.

[Clocker]

Meetings are great, if they produce results.

Nothing good ever happened in a conference room.

[HUSKER55]

meetings are just away to legitimately avoid work.

[delayjf]

While Clinton was president the task force met daily and reported to Clinton once or twice a week-more often if needed.

I'm sure that was of great comfort to the families of those who died on the USS Cole.

[dartman51]

There were a few other differences. Such as the fact that more than 3,000 died on 9-11 and 4 died at Benghazi. And the fact that 9-11 occurred in this country whereas Benghazi occurred in Libya.

Bush was in office for eight months before 9/11 and in those eight months the anti terrorism task force met one time and it reported to Bush never. While Clinton was president the task force met daily and reported to Clinton once or twice a week-more often if needed.


2996 died on 9/11, INCLUDING the 19 hijackers.

What's the SOURCE for this 2nd paragraph?

[mostpost]

And yet they passed on arresting Bin Ladin 11-16 times depending on who you believe

Meetings are great, if they produce results.
I don't believe anyone who says Clinton passed on arresting bin Laden 11 to sixteen times. The only somewhat credible story is that in 1996 the government of Sudan offered to arrest bin Laden and turn him over to the US. The problem was at that time, the United States did not have sufficient evidence to hold or charge bin Laden with any crimes.

[mostpost]

While Clinton was president the task force met daily and reported to Clinton once or twice a week-more often if needed.

I'm sure that was of great comfort to the families of those who died on the USS Cole.
And I am sure that the task force never met under Bush was of no comfort to the 3,000 who died on 9/11 and their families.

I'm also sure that it was a great comfort to the families of those who died on the USS Cole when Bush recalled the FBI agents who had been sent to Yemen to investigate the bombing. Agents who had been sent there by Clinton.

[Clocker]

The problem was at that time, the United States did not have sufficient evidence to hold or charge bin Laden with any crimes.

You don't need "sufficient evidence" for extraordinary rendition. :p

Or to lob some cruise missiles into some camps in Afghanistan on the assumption that Osama might have been at one of them.

[mostpost]

2996 died on 9/11, INCLUDING the 19 hijackers.

What's the SOURCE for this 2nd paragraph?You are correcting me because I said more than 3,000 died and the actual number was 2,996? Unbelievable.

There are a thousand sources for the second paragraph. Go and find one. This is common knowledge to anyone who gets their news from a source other than Fox News.

I have to admit to being wrong, though. The task force did not meet only one time. It never met.

[mostpost]

You don't need "sufficient evidence" for extraordinary rendition. :p

Or to lob some cruise missiles into some camps in Afghanistan on the assumption that Osama might have been at one of them.
During the Clinton administration, the Constitution still mattered.
And how about we lob some cruise missiles into your back yard?

[Clocker]

And I am sure that the task force never met under Bush was of no comfort to the 3,000 who died on 9/11 and their families.



You are assuming without proof that task force meetings under Clinton were productive, and that such meetings under Bush would have been productive. Both are highly improbable assumptions.

The people that generally get stuff done in a bureaucracy do so in spite of task forces and big meetings, not because of them.

[mostpost]

I guess you missed the report today that 75% of those enrolled already had insurance before Obamacare?

Success for Dems is proposing to insure 30 million uninsured people, forcing 8 million to sign up, actually insuring two million who never had insurance and screaming "success" at the top of their lungs. All the while knowing that only 75% of the two million have paid their premiums.

That's quite the high bar to set..... :rolleyes:
You missed the memo. Obamacare is no longer the obsession of the day. It is once again Benghazi. I wonder what it will be when that fails?

[Clocker]

During the Clinton administration, the Constitution still mattered.

That's why Clinton unilaterally attacked camps in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan?

[Clocker]

Obamacare is no longer the obsession of the day.

It is in the minds of its victims in the electorate.

[mostpost]

That's why Clinton unilaterally attacked camps in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan?
Are you really that dumb, or are you so obsessed with Obama hating and winning an argument here, that you can't see the difference between a military attack on a battlefield and a criminal trial in a US court.

[Tom]

I wonder what it will be when that fails?

How the repubs lied and stole the election and how terrible it is that they took back the senate.

Might not be an obsession, but it certainly is now common knowledge.
2014 will by-pass the 2010 midterms in terms of rejecting the dems.

[mostpost]

I guess you missed the report today that 75% of those enrolled already had insurance before Obamacare?

Success for Dems is proposing to insure 30 million uninsured people, forcing 8 million to sign up, actually insuring two million who never had insurance and screaming "success" at the top of their lungs. All the while knowing that only 75% of the two million have paid their premiums.

That's quite the high bar to set..... :rolleyes:
What you refer to as a report is actually a survey. Two state have issued a report on how many of their new enrollees were uninsured. In New York, 59% were uninsured previously. In Kentucky, 75% were previously uninsured. Those are actual numbers not numbers based on a survey taken more than two months ago.

Here is another problem with your "report." It assumes that those who had their policies cancelled for non compliance all went to the exchanges to get new coverage. In truth, most of them got new policies directly from the same insurers.

[mostpost]

You are assuming without proof that task force meetings under Clinton were productive, and that such meetings under Bush would have been productive. Both are highly improbable assumptions.

The people that generally get stuff done in a bureaucracy do so in spite of task forces and big meetings, not because of them.
I would never assume competency from anyone in a Bush administration. I was merely hoping.

Here is why an active anti terrorism task force in the early months of the Bush Presidency may have prevented the attacks of 9/11. Simply put, the sharing of information. We know that the FBI was aware that a number of individuals were taking flying lessons. We know that other agencies had other information. But at the name none of those agencies knew what the others knew. The task force was the venue by which these bits of information could have been shared and analyzed.

[Clocker]

Are you really that dumb,

Are you really that limited that your only response to facts you don't like is a constant stream of school yard insults about "dumb", "idiot", or "liar"?

Clinton attacked a large pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum with cruise missiles because he suspected Osama was using it for chemical weapons. There was no evidence after the fact to support that. Kind of like Bush's WMDs?

From Wiki: "The industrial complex was composed of around four buildings. It was the largest pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum and employed over 300 workers, producing medicine both for human and veterinary use."

That's a "military attack on a battlefield"?

Clinton also launched 75 cruise missiles at camps in Afghanistan on the suspicion that Osama was at one of them, and that they were being used to train terrorists. A unilateral attack on foreign soil that accomplish zero.

The point is that Clinton, Bush, and Obama all played the same game, and you are the one holding up the Democrats as champions of truth, justice, and the American way, and painting Bush as a bumbling incompetent.

The way I see it is that Bush was a worse president than Clinton, and Obama is worse than Bush, and god help us with the next one in that progression.

[Tom]

Here is why an active anti terrorism task force in the early months of the Bush Presidency may have prevented the attacks of 9/11.

Are YOU really that dumb?????

Any kind of action during 8 years of Clinton could have prevented 9/11.
Attack after attack occurred during the Cigar Years. How many time did we have OBL in our sights and let him go?

What you are griping about is that Bush did not immediately clean up the mess Clinton left behind.

[mostpost]

How the repubs lied and stole the election and how terrible it is that they took back the senate.

Might not be an obsession, but it certainly is now common knowledge.
2014 will by-pass the 2010 midterms in terms of rejecting the dems.
If I were you, I would not count my chickens before they hatch. You'll just end up with egg on your face. Not too long ago North Carolina, Arkansas and Louisiana were being touted as sure gains for the Republicans. Now, Mary Landrieu is in a toss-up; Kay Hagan has moved into to the lead in North Carolina and Mark Pryor has a double digit lead in Arkansas after being down earlier.

And in Georgia, which was considered a safe Republican seat, Michelle Nunn is ahead of all the potential Republican candidates with the exception of Jim Perdue, and she is not that far behind him.

As the summer passes by and we head into fall; and as the economy continues to improve and people realize what a positive the ACA is and as we learn Benghazi is a non issue; the trend toward Democrats will continue to accelerate.

[JustRalph]

Here's info from said "survey.





What you refer to as a report is actually a survey. Two state have issued a report on how many of their new enrollees were uninsured. In New York, 59% were uninsured previously. In Kentucky, 75% were previously uninsured. Those are actual numbers not numbers based on a survey taken more than two months ago.

Here is another problem with your "report." It assumes that those who had their policies cancelled for non compliance all went to the exchanges to get new coverage. In truth, most of them got new policies directly from the same insurers.

[dartman51]

You are correcting me because I said more than 3,000 died and the actual number was 2,996? Unbelievable.

There are a thousand sources for the second paragraph. Go and find one. This is common knowledge to anyone who gets their news from a source other than Fox News.

I have to admit to being wrong, though. The task force did not meet only one time. It never met.

No, you're the one that THINKS that you are smarter than everyone else. You made an accusation, back it up. You are always spouting bullshit on here. If you can't provide a source, then you are just another Liberal liar. And here you are once again, making statements about me, when you know absolutely nothing. :eek:

[woodtoo]

No, you're the one that THINKS that you are smarter than everyone else. You made an accusation, back it up. You are always spouting bullshit on here. If you can't provide a source, then you are just another Liberal liar. And here you are once again, making statements about me, when you know absolutely nothing. :eek:

Don't ya know shifty drifter will says most anything to keep the spot light
off the leader and Benghazi,hell he's got healthcare involved and he still blames Bush.:lol: