Benghazi emails suggest White House aide involved in prepping Rice for ‘video’ explanation

[Sho Nuff 719]

How about the obamanots crying it's political

 

 

 

Ummm clueless hack focktards, riddle me this....

The whole cover up, Hillary telling the families she'll get the video guy, withholding info, dodging and ddeflecting, every action of this administration regarding this situation, was it political ??????

Everything the left does is politically motivated, everything and every time that's the case, the PROJECT the exact thing they are doing onto to those seeking the truth.

Hey hackmaster snuff, what I just described is what hack is.

 

 

The greatest example of this is their favorite hero is Bill Clinton a womanizing sexual predator and the left claims carry the torch on the war on women more gold in the ironic Olympics, go take a chit in palins mouth you hypocritical hack fools.

 

Actually...the hack continues to be you whining about the video cover their ass thing rather than the real issues of that day.

[Voltaire 4,564]

 

Just to be clear, are you saying the US Select Committee's Bipartisan report, that both Dems and Reps signed off on, wasn't through enough?

Not in the slightest. I'm saying I see what'd going on and why so I already don't care now. I'm long since burnt out on this sh*t and don't see a point for nor have any interest in any more investigations. Furthermore, the absolute least worthwhile, most pointless aspect of this witchunt investigation to look at is the focking interview of Susan Rice. If anything, I agree with her. I think it's prudent that they didn't jump to conclusions until they looked more closely at the facts. The theory they were rolling with at that time didn't pan out. Boo hoo. I never did learn why I was expected to give a fock how long it took for them to conclude it was a terrorist attack despite asking a dozen times. Is there an ass of a rat they can examine more closely? I won't be tuning in.

[drobeski 3,061]

 

I think the faux outrage comes from what many (especially here) keep focusing on. The trivial parts of it rather than the real tragedy of losing 4 Americans.

so snuff, was it political, the cover up, the whole thing from the get go ? Or is it only political for the side seeking the actual truth ?

[Sho Nuff 719]

so snuff, was it political, the cover up, the whole thing from the get go ? Or is it only political for the side seeking the actual truth ?

 

Both.

The whining over the email/show prep is political crap trying to gain points for themselves.

The cover up was political to save their own ass.

Have never said otherwise.

[Mike Honcho 4,039]

so snuff, was it political, the cover up, the whole thing from the get go ? Or is it only political for the side seeking the actual truth ?

 

Since the actual truth is known, yes it's political, just like your made up outrage and your stupid questions..."where was the president?"

 

 

it's too bad you are incapable of using google, that would answer almost all of your questions---

[drobeski 3,061]

American thinker just bringin it, another piece nails it, I dare you hacks to address the piece

http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/05/national_security_dudes_and_dudettes.html

Dudes and Dudettes

By Michael Widlanski

When a man or woman is mugged on the street or afflicted by disease, the right response is never to pretend everything is fine and nothing has happened.

But if you're a really cool guy like the president of the United States or one of his top advisors or the Secretary of State who wants to become president of the U.S., then it is perfectly okay to act cool and go into pretend-and-deny mode. It also helps if the media clean up after you.

 

If Jimmy Carter were as cool as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, he would have pretended that Iranian militants had not attacked a U.S. embassy to kidnap its staff.

If President Carter had the same audacity of hype as Obama, then he would have claimed that 66 American citizens were on an extended sleepover date with the ayatollah. And if the world press corps had bought the story, Carter might have won a second term as president.

But in 2014, the facts are different. In the case of Barack Obama and the 9-11-12 attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, Obama and his aides had a lot more warning of the impending attack than Jimmy Carter did with the Iranian attack on the US embassy in Teheran in 1979.

Obama and then-secretary of state Clinton ignored warnings of attack by terror group, trusting their own claims the terrorists had been vanquished. When the attack exploded, Obama-Clinton were paralyzed by inaction. Finally, they denied that there even had been a terror attack. It was all a spontaneous protest over a video, Obama, Clinton, and Susan Rice said.

They even worked hard to put the video producer behind bars, as if he really produced the terror that killed for Americans in Benghazi.

This is not a fictional "conspiracy" concocted by Obama-haters or Hillary-haters. This is clearly what happened. The Obama Administration was incompetent and insensitive in the face of a terror threat in Benghazi about which it had been warned.

Obama, Clinton, and now some Democrats in Congress like Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi are again trotting out the "conspiracy" and "witch hunt" charge to keep investigators at bay.

So far Obama's strategy has worked, because there are differences between 2012-2014 and 1979-80. In 1979, CBS News anchorman Walter Cronkite revisited the Iran embassy takeover every night, ending each news show by counting the days Americans were held captive.

CNN's Candy Crowley is no Walter Cronkite. Not even close. At the 2012 presidential debate, Ms. Crowley dropped the pretense of being an objective moderator and joined Barack Obama's lie that he and his administration had identified the attack as terror from the beginning.

It was such a nice contribution by Ms. Crowley, that Mr. Obama, asked the referee to repeat herself and trip up his opponent, Mitt Romney, one more time.

"Can you say that a little louder, Candy," chirped Mr. Obama, wearing a big smile.

Obama was re-elected, and Secretary of State Clinton was able to duck tough questions for many months because of illness. When she finally appeared before Congress, she went from pretend-and-deny-mode into outraged-at-the-question mode.

"What difference at this point does it all make?" declared Ms. Clinton in exasperation when Republican senators had the temerity even to question her and the Obama administration about their Libya policy or lack of policy. After all, Obama and Clinton promised to investigate it all themselves, but actually they buried important information along with the four dead U.S. officials in Benghazi.

Actually Obama-Clinton stalled for time, denying requests for documents or timelines. They relied on Democrats in the Senate and the House to block access to documents or the naming of a special prosecutor, as Congress demanded from President Ronald Reagan over his handling of the Iran-Contra affair. Democrats have not acted like Republicans who helped uncover part of the Watergate cover-up and force Richard Nixon from office. But now, various congressional and NGO efforts to get some documents have borne some fruit, forcing release of some e-mails that seem to be part of a big cover-up.

One damning document is an email from Ben Rhodes, Obama's deputy National Security Advisor emphasizing that "protest" led to attack on the Americans in Libya. Ben Rhodes is the brother of David Rhodes, the president of CBS News, which has been accused of downplaying or ignoring news that might hurt Obama.

A top CBS investigative reporter, Sharyl Atkisson, recently quit after she said CBS refused to back her investigations that seemed to embarrass Obama. Ms Atkisson's tenacity resembles the tenacity from the old days when CBS was not afraid to challenge US presidents, whether it was Nixon or Carter.

CBS News President Rhodes did not do much to keep Ms. Atkisson at CBS. It is clear that when it comes to journalistic values, he is also no Walter Cronkite.

Other major TV networks -- NBC, ABC, CNN -- largely avoided the story. They have not aired significant footage or stories showing how White House spokesman James Carney has repeatedly lied and dissembled on this subject.

Only Fox News has really pursued the story, angering Obama, Carney, and other administration officials by demanding some kind of explanation for events in Libya.

"Dude, this was two years ago," observed Tommy Vietor, former spokesman for the National Security Council.

The very use of the term "dude" and the whole tone of Vietor's response symbolizes a lack of seriousness and incompetence in facing terror.

"I don't really remember," said Vietor, sounding much like Nixon Administration counsel, John Dean, whose pat response at the Watergate hearings was "I do not recall."

Nobody died in Watergate, but John Dean and other Nixon officials went to jail because they were clearly not cool dudes.

One thing is clear: the Obama Administration is full of cool dudes and dudettes.

When you're cool, dude, you can flat-out lie, dude, about what you just did or said. You can turn on a dime, and distort what just happened and lie about why it happened. Press Secretary James Carney insisted there was no terror at Benghazi until, a week later in an on-board briefing, he switched and said of course everyone knew there was terror at Benghazi.

But if you are not a cool dude but only an un-cool dud, like Jimmy Carter, Richard Nixon, or even Mitt Romney, then you're in trouble.

Just ask Candy Crowley.

Dr. Michael Widlanski is the author of Battle for Our Minds: Western Elites and the Terror Threat, published by Threshold/Simon and Schuster. He was Strategic Affairs Advisor in Israel's Ministry of Public Security, teaches at Bar Ilan University and recently was visiting professor at University of California, Irvine.

[drobeski 3,061]

 

Both.

The whining over the email/show prep is political crap trying to gain points for themselves.

The cover up was political to save their own ass.

Have never said otherwise.

ok so being "political" to get the truth is bad but being "political" to cover up either malice or complete incompetence and win an election is ok ?

Seems kinda hacky to me

[Sho Nuff 719]

ok so being "political" to get the truth is bad but being "political" to cover up either malice or complete incompetence and win an election is ok ?

Seems kinda hacky to me

It would seem kind of hacky...care to show where I said it was just ok?

 

But you, the ultimate hack, keep proving me right about you.

All you, and hell, even your article, cares about was that they first said it was about an internet video.

 

Holy fock "dude" get a grip.

Neck pain or not, you have gone full RP and probably past it.

[drobeski 3,061]

 

Since the actual truth is known, yes it's political, just like your made up outrage and your stupid questions..."where was the president?"

 

 

it's too bad you are incapable of using google, that would answer almost all of your questions---

sure it is lemming boy

[Sho Nuff 719]

drob's next post...

"here is another article that whines on and on about the internet video thing and continues to ignore the real problems that happened that day".

[Mike Honcho 4,039]

American thinker just bringin it, another piece nails it, I dare you hacks to address the piece

http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/05/national_security_dudes_and_dudettes.html

Dudes and Dudettes

By Michael Widlanski

When a man or woman is mugged on the street or afflicted by disease, the right response is never to pretend everything is fine and nothing has happened.

But if you're a really cool guy like the president of the United States or one of his top advisors or the Secretary of State who wants to become president of the U.S., then it is perfectly okay to act cool and go into pretend-and-deny mode. It also helps if the media clean up after you.

 

If Jimmy Carter were as cool as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, he would have pretended that Iranian militants had not attacked a U.S. embassy to kidnap its staff.

If President Carter had the same audacity of hype as Obama, then he would have claimed that 66 American citizens were on an extended sleepover date with the ayatollah. And if the world press corps had bought the story, Carter might have won a second term as president.

But in 2014, the facts are different. In the case of Barack Obama and the 9-11-12 attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, Obama and his aides had a lot more warning of the impending attack than Jimmy Carter did with the Iranian attack on the US embassy in Teheran in 1979.

Obama and then-secretary of state Clinton ignored warnings of attack by terror group, trusting their own claims the terrorists had been vanquished. When the attack exploded, Obama-Clinton were paralyzed by inaction. Finally, they denied that there even had been a terror attack. It was all a spontaneous protest over a video, Obama, Clinton, and Susan Rice said.

They even worked hard to put the video producer behind bars, as if he really produced the terror that killed for Americans in Benghazi.

This is not a fictional "conspiracy" concocted by Obama-haters or Hillary-haters. This is clearly what happened. The Obama Administration was incompetent and insensitive in the face of a terror threat in Benghazi about which it had been warned.

Obama, Clinton, and now some Democrats in Congress like Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi are again trotting out the "conspiracy" and "witch hunt" charge to keep investigators at bay.

So far Obama's strategy has worked, because there are differences between 2012-2014 and 1979-80. In 1979, CBS News anchorman Walter Cronkite revisited the Iran embassy takeover every night, ending each news show by counting the days Americans were held captive.

CNN's Candy Crowley is no Walter Cronkite. Not even close. At the 2012 presidential debate, Ms. Crowley dropped the pretense of being an objective moderator and joined Barack Obama's lie that he and his administration had identified the attack as terror from the beginning.

It was such a nice contribution by Ms. Crowley, that Mr. Obama, asked the referee to repeat herself and trip up his opponent, Mitt Romney, one more time.

"Can you say that a little louder, Candy," chirped Mr. Obama, wearing a big smile.

Obama was re-elected, and Secretary of State Clinton was able to duck tough questions for many months because of illness. When she finally appeared before Congress, she went from pretend-and-deny-mode into outraged-at-the-question mode.

"What difference at this point does it all make?" declared Ms. Clinton in exasperation when Republican senators had the temerity even to question her and the Obama administration about their Libya policy or lack of policy. After all, Obama and Clinton promised to investigate it all themselves, but actually they buried important information along with the four dead U.S. officials in Benghazi.

Actually Obama-Clinton stalled for time, denying requests for documents or timelines. They relied on Democrats in the Senate and the House to block access to documents or the naming of a special prosecutor, as Congress demanded from President Ronald Reagan over his handling of the Iran-Contra affair. Democrats have not acted like Republicans who helped uncover part of the Watergate cover-up and force Richard Nixon from office. But now, various congressional and NGO efforts to get some documents have borne some fruit, forcing release of some e-mails that seem to be part of a big cover-up.

One damning document is an email from Ben Rhodes, Obama's deputy National Security Advisor emphasizing that "protest" led to attack on the Americans in Libya. Ben Rhodes is the brother of David Rhodes, the president of CBS News, which has been accused of downplaying or ignoring news that might hurt Obama.

A top CBS investigative reporter, Sharyl Atkisson, recently quit after she said CBS refused to back her investigations that seemed to embarrass Obama. Ms Atkisson's tenacity resembles the tenacity from the old days when CBS was not afraid to challenge US presidents, whether it was Nixon or Carter.

CBS News President Rhodes did not do much to keep Ms. Atkisson at CBS. It is clear that when it comes to journalistic values, he is also no Walter Cronkite.

Other major TV networks -- NBC, ABC, CNN -- largely avoided the story. They have not aired significant footage or stories showing how White House spokesman James Carney has repeatedly lied and dissembled on this subject.

Only Fox News has really pursued the story, angering Obama, Carney, and other administration officials by demanding some kind of explanation for events in Libya.

"Dude, this was two years ago," observed Tommy Vietor, former spokesman for the National Security Council.

The very use of the term "dude" and the whole tone of Vietor's response symbolizes a lack of seriousness and incompetence in facing terror.

"I don't really remember," said Vietor, sounding much like Nixon Administration counsel, John Dean, whose pat response at the Watergate hearings was "I do not recall."

Nobody died in Watergate, but John Dean and other Nixon officials went to jail because they were clearly not cool dudes.

One thing is clear: the Obama Administration is full of cool dudes and dudettes.

When you're cool, dude, you can flat-out lie, dude, about what you just did or said. You can turn on a dime, and distort what just happened and lie about why it happened. Press Secretary James Carney insisted there was no terror at Benghazi until, a week later in an on-board briefing, he switched and said of course everyone knew there was terror at Benghazi.

But if you are not a cool dude but only an un-cool dud, like Jimmy Carter, Richard Nixon, or even Mitt Romney, then you're in trouble.

Just ask Candy Crowley.

Dr. Michael Widlanski is the author of Battle for Our Minds: Western Elites and the Terror Threat, published by Threshold/Simon and Schuster. He was Strategic Affairs Advisor in Israel's Ministry of Public Security, teaches at Bar Ilan University and recently was visiting professor at University of California, Irvine.

 

 

Senate Select Committee On Intelligence: "There Was No Singular 'Tactical Warning' In The Intelligence Reporting Leading Up To The Events On September 11, 2012, Predicting An Attack On U.S." The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence review found that no specific warnings predicted the attack in Benghazi:

 

There was no singular "tactical warning" in the intelligence reporting leading up to the events on September 11, 2012, predicting an attack on U.S. facilities in Benghazi on the 9/11 anniversary, although State and the CIA both sent general warning notices to facilities worldwide noting the potential security concerns associated with the anniversary. Such a specific warning should not have been expected, however, given the limited intelligence collection of the Benghazi area at the time.

 

 

To date, the Committee has not identified any intelligence or other information received prior to September 11, 2012, by the IC or State Department indicating specific terrorist planning to attack the U.S. facilities in Benghazi on September 11, 2012.

[Review Of The Terrorist Attacks On U.S. Facilities In Benghazi, Libya, September 11-12, 2012, U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 1/15/14]

 

 

 

Ooops...Hack piece destroyed, I'd go farther, but the story is 90% crazy-ass opinions, conspiracy theories without a shred of proof, and some out and out lies. Exactly the sort of tripe the GOP expects their mouth-breathing base to swallow hook line and sinker. Not a shock who they reeled in...

[IGotWorms 3,317]

Hope your neck feels better soon drobeski

[NewbieJr 540]

come on newbs ya gotta admit I'm pretty much spot on with this morning's rant. It's ok, you can do it.

ever hear of the boy who cried wolf? If you ever actually make a good point and have a legitimate reason to whine, no one would ever realize it. You've been doing the exact same rant on hundreds of issues for the last six years. Pick your battles Bud. Maybe someone would pay attention and not just mock you.

[Mike Honcho 4,039]

Nope, not political at all.

 

 

Republicans Continue Trying To Fundraise Off Benghazi

 

WASHINGTON -- Conservatives don't appear to be heeding the advice of Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), who has called on them to stop fundraising off the 2012 attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, while he leads a select committee tasked with investigating the matter.

 

One day after Gowdy said he thought the subject of Benghazi "transcends politics" and asked the National Republican Congressional Committee to avoid using it in fundraising appeals, a Tea Party group is doing just that. And it's using the name and image of Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) to help bring in the cash.

 

"Ted Cruz Refuses To Surrender! He Has Introduced Legislation To Investigate Benghazi!" reads the fundraising solicitation from the group, Patriots for Economic Freedom. The email goes on to ask for contributions, ranging from $25 to $1,000, to support Cruz "in his efforts to create a Senate select committee to investigate

 

 

Link

[OldMaid 1,838]

I think we might have witnessed some backward evolution, here in this thread.

 

I swear to God Drobeski just morphed back into an ape.

[drobeski 3,061]

Nope, not political at all.

 

 

Link

Huffington post

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[drobeski 3,061]

I think we might have witnessed some backward evolution, here in this thread.

 

I swear to God Drobeski just morphed back into an ape.

that's just the eclipse your twat is causing focking up the light

[Mike Honcho 4,039]

Huffington post

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And that changes the facts that Republicans are using this as to gain funds for campaigns...how? I'll answer for you, it doesn't...drobe proves he's a clueless hack again.

 

Seriously Drobe, you should do what RP did and get a new handle, you're getting curb-stomped.

[crackattack 513]

Huffington post is bad, but American Thinker is good????

[drobeski 3,061]

 

And that changes the facts that Republicans are using this as to gain funds for campaigns...how? I'll answer for you, it doesn't...drobe proves he's a clueless hack again.

 

Seriously Drobe, you should do what RP did and get a new handle, you're getting curb-stomped.

and the Obama administration used complete lies and obstruction to win a presidential election, do you have a point gay blade ?

[crackattack 513]

and the Obama administration used complete lies and obstruction to win a presidential election, do you have a point gay blade ?

I'm pretty sure that's not how or why he won...but ok.

[drobeski 3,061]

I'm pretty sure that's not how or why he won...but ok.

well candy crowley and the irs helped too

[crackattack 513]

well candy crowley and the irs helped too

Wwwwwwwaaaaaahhhhhhhcandywwwwwwwaaaaaahhhhh.but but irs but but benghazi wwwwwwwwaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh. All that and still couldn't win. Maybe the republican party should put up a more likeable/winnable candidate??? Couldn't hurt.

[Sho Nuff 719]

Name the last president that didn't use lies and corruption to get elected?

(this is not saying its ok that they do it...just funny that you want to whine as if this is a first)

[crackattack 513]

What ever happened with the multimillion dollar irs investigation?? Any big wigs go to jail? What did our millions spent get us?

[drobeski 3,061]

You left out bush

[DankNuggs 305]

What ever happened with the multimillion dollar irs investigation?? Any big wigs go to jail? What did our millions spent get us?

Trey Gowdy is on the job now.

 

You've got to move mountains to be able to actually get to the bottom of anything with this government.

[crackattack 513]

Trey Gowdy is on the job now.

I like trey gowdy. Good for him. So it's going to cost us more yet. Any predictions on the outcome?

[DankNuggs 305]

I like trey gowdy. Good for him. So it's going to cost us more yet. Any predictions on the outcome?

never too hopeful of anything, but he's a former DA and knows the business of building a case.

[Googballz 39]

I like trey gowdy. Good for him. So it's going to cost us more yet. Any predictions on the outcome?

I predict further stonewalling by the most transparent administration in history.

[crackattack 513]

Trey Gowdy is on the job now.

 

You've got to move mountains to be able to actually get to the bottom of anything with this government.

Like most administrations. You're not just singling out this one are you?

[crackattack 513]

I predict further stonewalling by the most transparent administration in history.

Just cause they say most transparent doesn't make it true.

[KSB2424 3,083]

ever hear of the boy who cried wolf?

 

Good analogy Newbie...I was thinking along the same lines. The opposing party will "Cry Wolf" at anything that makes the other party look bad. In the case of an incumbent Dem POTUS this would be the GOP today.

 

Birther Stuff!@#! Death Panels!@#! those are analogous to the little boy who cried wolf the first two times when there was no wolf. And then when Benghazi happened, and the GOP cried wolf nobody listened. I get that, makes sense.

 

Where the analogy goes forward though is that the next day the towns people wake up and find that there really was a wolf the thrird cry (as was in the parable), that the sheep have been eaten, that this particular time the little boy that cried wolf was right. My question is: Should we still keep pointing the finger at the little boy or has the time come to actually go find the damn wolf, cause all ya'll keep doing is whining about the boy who cried wolf while the wolf keeps eating all your focking sheep.

[Googballz 39]

Just cause they say most transparent doesn't make it true.

.....as with 99% of what they say.

[drobeski 3,061]

Maybe we can spend millions on Harry talking about greased pigs or on non shovel ready jobs or solyndra

[DankNuggs 305]

Like most administrations. You're not just singling out this one are you?

No I'm not. But this is the one we are currently dealing with regarding all these scandels and pleading the 5ths as the president says 'not a shred of evidence' that anything wrong has even happened...

[crackattack 513]

No I'm not. But this is the one we are currently dealing with regarding all these scandels and pleading the 5ths as the president says 'not a shred of evidence' that anything wrong has even happened...

This administration, that administration, past administrations, future administrations...it doesn't change. There is nothing wrong with citing history to prove things haven't changed.

[drobeski 3,061]

This administration, that administration, past administrations, future administrations...it doesn't change. There is nothing wrong with citing history to prove things haven't changed.

but we were promised hope and change

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[crackattack 513]

but we were promised hope and change

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And history repeated itself. Not suprised at all.

[drobeski 3,061]

And history repeated itself. Not suprised at all.

ok this is an intervention, look at yourself, look who you're morphing into.

You're sounding an awful lot like someone else around here man, worrying me a little.